New MVP Domination Rule

[azurerogue]

Quote:All of the MVPs are free to be attacked by any player, included MVPs summoned by Quest. However, the first one/first party present at a MvP will be considered the "dominating party." To be present, this means engaging the MvP so that either the player/party are attacking the MvP, or the MvP is attacking (or clearly chasing) that player/party.

Just getting curious now...

If I camp the Ktullanux (or any quest MVP) spawn point with a party, and someone else does the quest, the MVP would aggro on me/my party first. Therefore we're the dominating party, right? So if we decide to Ice Wall Ktull into his spawn point, they're not allowed to interfere because he aggroed on us first, even if they did the quest?

[thecursed]

Man all this business about MVPs is really ticking me off.. on iRO they dont have any MVP rules, its "Free For All" MVPs are anyways. That means the strongest people get the MVP, and the people who lack the strategy and lack the power to take the mvp down lose. Of course sabatoging a teams strategy to take down an MVP would come into play and how good you are at that is a factor too. I just think its being way over thought, over worked and to factor out all of the problems with this rule is just going to be a headache... I think its all stupid and MVPs should be free for all no matter what.

But hey i rarely play anymore so whatever. (PS. Sorry for off-topicness if this counts, didnt wanna start my own thread about this)

[Ultima_Pi]

azurerogue Wrote:If I camp the Ktullanux (or any quest MVP) spawn point with a party, and someone else does the quest, the MVP would aggro on me/my party first.??Therefore we're the dominating party, right???So if we decide to Ice Wall Ktull into his spawn point, they're not allowed to interfere because he aggroed on us first, even if they did the quest?

You're willing to stand that close to him? Or is this some weird Asura-cide thing?

If they use the same strategy (which is...?), then it won't count as interference, according to this rule. They have to purposely attempt to screw it up somehow.

Actually, if the summoning party had any brains, they wouldn't summon at all, but that's besides point.

[Krumb]

There are also problems with catching a screen-shot with the correct person causing problems as well.??

-Group summons Ktull
-Random Champ "A" asura's Ktull and teleports away.
-Random Champ "B" walks on screen and watches the group.
-The group, angry at the first asura, takes Screenshots of Champ "B".
-Champ "B" is reported, having done nothing wrong.

Here's the thing, we can put up a hundred if/then situations like the one above, or posted throughout the thread.??The point everyone seems to bring up is a definite rule without loopholes.??I'd be happier if there was a rule stating MvP's aren't FFA, and that's it, than what is being discussed now.??

Do I want that???Heck no, MvP's are competition, there's a reason whomever does the most damage gets MvP and the drops.??If the group hunting an MvP loses it, then they were not fully prepared to handle the competition.

[Shikari]

Just make them totally free for all for god's sake <_<, that will avoid so many other problems

[Yuriohs]

It doesn't avoid problems because of the way HeRO's community will react to it.

Say Valk/bee/Ifirit(lol)/Tenny/MAMOSWINE/ and now Satan Morroc being camped 24/7 and when other guilds try to get at the action, they get dropped because they can't be strategical enough to save their lives.
But with this rule ITS OK, because now even though theres a (dominating party) that just means that the party that wants the drops, have to be quizzical and smart and use screenshots to their advantage to screw the other party of their items.
O wait, isn't that more of a headache? deciding whether or not who's screenshots is right? who's timestamps are first? who photo shopped what?

The way I see it, this domination rule can actually be abused lol.

[GM-Ayu]

Not sure why it's all so hard to understand... it's a rule that set up competition by outdamaging a party. It rules all the other strategy made solely to prevent others to compete it, or to weed out the competitors by .

You don't have to use 'identical' strat (so not sure how is asuracide on Ktull of any interference to any known strat except for hardrock who EQ on counter.) You just can't use stuff where you are doing it solely to prevent others from trying to outdamage the MVP as well. The way that the rule is worded is actually to cover all different kinds of 'excuses' where one may achieve the goal of preventing others to try to outdamage you against a MVP.

We'll see how the rule will go in execution or what not. If it proves to be more than we think, we'll revise/revert the rules by then. We did a fair amount of research going from other server to server to study their approaches to MVP, and there's quite a few other midrates of similar size using similar domination rule. So it's not a "innovative new rule" that is never tested (by someone else) before.

[Adrillf]

I don't enjoy this rule at all.

This idea comes down to 'first come, first serve' which can be seriously annoying. Who was on the map first? Who hit the MvP first? Who was the MvP going after? What constitues an attempt to dominate the MvP?

There are far too many questions and arguments about this that will rise from this. I would much rather see things like the sign quest getting fixed before the incoming stack of support tickets about people reporting other players on this rule.

[Izael]

GM-Ayu Wrote:The way that the rule is worded is actually to cover all different kinds of 'excuses' where one may achieve the goal of preventing others to try to outdamage you against a MVP.

What's wrong with preventing others from outdamaging you? If people use things like Safety Wall, Pneuma, Land Protector or who knows what, why is that a big deal? There are skills that can counter that. It's just another level of competition. Shouldn't the party that is organized enough to not only deal with the MVP, but any other party be the party that should be awarded the items, instead of first come, first serve? Shouldn't we promote organization over the ability to use a timer to be first on screen with the MVP?

[azurerogue]

+1 Izael.

Also, this brings up some interesting questions about Hibram. He activates Magic Mirror when he is in Melee range. So a party planning to kill him with ranged magic would be screwed if someone from another party wanted to try to melee him to death. Is the second (melee) party at fault? What if they had truly planned to kill him with melee attacks? They're clearly, then, NOT just doing it to prevent competition...so where does this ruling sit on that?

There are other similar situations where legit strategies seem to preclude other options - who has the right of way? If my party, as the dominating party, uses a very specific strategy that many common strategies would "ruin" then can I report the people ruining it?