Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > General Community > Rants and Flames

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-20-2010, 07:40 PM
Salty Salty is offline
Banned


Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Portland
Posts: 1,126
Default Raid loots, how GMs distribute it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolwind
After passing out the warnings for forum attacks on the staff as is implicitly warned about in the server and forum rules; I'm closing the large amount of garbage that has managed to accumulate from both sandy-vagina'd parties.

Both of said parties have come to an agreement for the future. And it better stand.
I got carried away trolling Secrets, my bad brew. But ANYWAY~

Since Aeolwind locked the other thread and the community has absolutely no idea how raid bosses are handled, lets have this discussion right now.

Both parties come to agreement in the future over a boss target? What happens if they don't?

We need these questions answered and not expect weird things to happen after every single boss spawn/death, which has most certainly been the case.

Trans got free loot for basically showing up in Fear. This is a problem. Fighting over raid targets and the drama that surrounds it is part of the Everquest experience.

Lets be adults and not leave it up to a case by case basis. We need a blanket rule that we all can follow while COMPETING with each other. There NEEDS to be competition and the rule needs to allow for that to take place.

IB had the force inside Fear. They had more than 15 and were clearing the zone. Boss should be theirs, should it not be?

Trans got free loot for showing up after the fact.


This is why we are confused and stifling the discussion on the forums by locking a pretty damn epic thread just makes me sad panda. Threads like that is what drives forum traffic, it's what the people crave.


[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Last edited by Salty; 02-20-2010 at 07:50 PM..
  #2  
Old 02-20-2010, 07:58 PM
Kaleadar Kaleadar is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 133
Default

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
  #3  
Old 02-20-2010, 07:59 PM
Brad_mo123 Brad_mo123 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 305
Default

I say we play a game. Lets see how many posts about the bs that happened can be locked, ressurect the post here, GOGO!
  #4  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:05 PM
anthony210 anthony210 is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 196
Default

The GMs are getting way too involved in raiding on this server. The rule they put down says anyone with a raid force of more than 15 has rights to the raid encounter.

Is this really hard to understand? Do we really require GM involvement in every dispute?

Why can the GM staff just say sorry I am not getting involved unless someone specifically KSed a mob or trained your raid, and even then keep the involvement minimal. Do not give out free loot, just warn or suspend the players that trained.

GMs on this server are straying VERY far away from how GMs acted on live. Which is good and bad. Bad in the case of raiding...
__________________
Lvl 59 Monk - Jinsho Lee
  #5  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:07 PM
Secrets Secrets is offline
VIP / Contributor

Secrets's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,354
Default

Personally, I believe no GM intervention at all would be the best option, but i'm not living in a perfect world here.

My theory is: If people don't want to cooperate, let them not cooperate and cause drama within themselves, instead of bringing it to the administration and having them take the blame for childish behavior.
  #6  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:08 PM
Yam Yam is offline
Orc


Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 39
Default

If this were like Rallos Zek.....
  #7  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:19 PM
Brad_mo123 Brad_mo123 is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 305
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Secrets [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Personally, I believe no GM intervention at all would be the best option, but i'm not living in a perfect world here.

My theory is: If people don't want to cooperate, let them not cooperate and cause drama within themselves, instead of bringing it to the administration and having them take the blame for childish behavior.
Wow! Secrets, <3. Are you single? Seriously think im in love now. lol [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
  #8  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:23 PM
Origin Origin is offline
Sarnak

Origin's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 372
Default

You people are in the process of destroying a server that had A+ potential. Please set some rules and settle this bullshit down so we can actually enjoy Kunark when it comes out.
  #9  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:37 PM
Goobles Goobles is offline
Planar Protector

Goobles's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: A shoe
Posts: 1,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Origin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You people are in the process of destroying a server that had A+ potential. Please set some rules and settle this bullshit down so we can actually enjoy Kunark when it comes out.
Vouch.
__________________

it's like you make the atomic bomb (server) and you don't want to let other countries (guilds) have nuclear secrets (under the radar information). it's gm's business and no one else's or else everyone gets nuked. letting Iran or North Korea beta test and keep the successful nukes, makes other countries uncomfortable.
  #10  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:48 PM
Rogean Rogean is offline
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Rogean's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 5,392
Default

You are misinformed.
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.