I've been reading this thread for a while and going over the 'MVP Domination' rule repeatedly. To be perfectly honest, I don't have too much of a problem with this rule. What I basically read is as follows:
-You are /not/ to deny anyone else access to the MVP, save for the rare time you need to use Pneuma, Land Protector, Safety Wall, and so on in order to deny the MVP one of it's defensive skills of that sort. (Very rare, indeed, to find MVPs that utilize SW.) Or it's simply to keep the MVP from utterly destroying you. (Ice Walling Valkyrie Randgris, for example.)
-You are only the dominating party when you are ACTIVELY ENGAGING, PULLING and TANKING the MVP. So a simple solo 'Asura and teleport' strategy still possesses the flaws it always had.
-You do not force the MVP to teleport. This is just simple common courtesy, and yes, I'm aware that this is merely an extension of the first point.
-The moment you're not damaging, tanking, or pulling the MVP, you lose your status as 'dominating party'. This occurs usually when you've all ran/teleported, the party got wiped, or if the MVP was rudely attacked and used teleport.
-You are NOT to interfere with the dominating party's strategy beyond attempting to out-damage them.
That is just all I basically got from the rule, and to be honest, it's not all too terrible. Of course, there might be something I'm missing, but if you're really so scared about being out-damaged, then bring an extra damage dealer or three in your group just to be sure.??Try to adapt to other players showing up, it's not like much else has changed.
It's just now you're not going to be able to forbid that Sniper over there from spamming Double Strafe until his fingers fall off. You just merely have to out-damage him, something a full party should easily do. Of course, if he forces it to teleport, then it is a direct violation of the rule. And you're allowed to heal the MVP if you're the dominating party, thus giving you more of an opportunity to out-damage him severely.
Of course, I can't think of every circumstance towards this rule, but I would like to say that this rule is just fine in my eyes. I do believe that while it may be grounds for some drama, it still is necessary to outline what is 'acceptable' and what isn't. And I'm sure the GMs have all thought this over for some time. After all, changes to the rules are nothing to take lightly. (Oh dear, to me this post seems like rambling.
)
EDIT: Gkht... Ayu ninja posted while I was typing all this. Cuuuuurses...! She said everything I wanted to say!
Search
Member List
Calendar
Help
