+- heRO-Server Forum (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Game Related (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Suggestions/Questions (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: New MVP Domination Rule (/showthread.php?tid=12180)
New MVP Domination Rule - Ultima_Pi - 11-07-2009
As seen here.
1) How do you plan to enforce this? Though it would be amusing to watch certain MVP runs again, I unfortunately do not run any kind of recording software while playing RO. Screenshots prove existence at any particularl given moment, and to be caught "negatively interfering" is reliant on luck at best.
2) For the "Stragetic MVP Support," let's say someone (party 1) Pneuma's to prevent MVP SW. Though is would now be legal, it also prevents a ranged character (party 2) from successfully attacking. What happens if Land Protector (party 2) is cast?
3) Let's say party 1 has successfully reduced Thanatos' slave to 1. Let's say party 2 kills the remaining the slave. This a) "tears down the strategy of the dominating player/party", and includes some form of b) "interference causes the death of the others competing for the MVP if you bring alien mobs to the MVP or don?t know how to control the slaves of the MVP". This would, by these rules, be illegal.
I have not hit Thanatos himself.
How does "These rules do not apply to a MVP's slaves" play into this?
4) Let's say I (party 2) go along with party 1's strategy to kill an MVP. However, party 1 decides to effectively block me from implementing the strategy as well. I (party 2) have not done anything illegal in the aforementioned rules. Though the obvious solution would be "make a workaround strategy", what would this count as?
5) Le's say I'm new to RO. Am I supposed to know the AI of every "old" MVP?
6)Let's say I'm a veteran MVP'er. However, a person has thought up a new strategy to kill an MVP. Let's say I somehow "interfere" with this new strategy. Is my interference illegal because I did not know his strategy? Assume an "old" MVP.
Clarification for my ignorance please.
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Naruhodo - 11-07-2009
I'm a pretty noob MVPer. Does anyone know where I can find info on each MVP's behavior? Are comprehensive MVP guides available on the internet?
Also, those are some pretty good questions, Ultima
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Aaronock - 11-07-2009
Interesting topic, hope GM's give responses to help us clarify the rules. ^-^
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - GM-Ayu - 11-07-2009
1) All I can say is that given the previous few incident regarding few large guilds' encounter with each other on Valkyrie Randgris, the screenshot (albums) they have successfully provided would've been effective enough to enforce MVP Domination Rule though sadly useless under current rulings. Time stamp is usually an effective indication of first engagement. Usually, first time "things go wrong" it's assumed accidental but once it repeats, heRO seems to be well informed on how screenshot/support ticket should work, and will screenshot to prove an unwanted interference.
Kill steal is a 'continuous process' yet screenshot is asked for evidence instead, and we certainly have been enforcing that one successfully (not 100% all the time, but pretty darn good at it.)
2) Party 1 is ok because "as long as the strategy is justified and does not solely intended to prevent others to come and kill it." The pneuma serves a purpose against the MVP. Now *IF* say Party 1 is using pneuma on something like GTB who doesn't use SW, then that pneuma is there to "solely intended to prevent others to come and kill it" and will be violating MVP Domination Rule.
If Party 1 is the dominating party, then Party 2 "may" use land protector but it'll depend if Party 1 is also relying on AoE or not. LP serves the same purpose as negating SW, so Party 2 is "not interfering in the strategy that the dominating player/party is using" and they did try to mold to this. However, if Party 1 is using both melee and AoE attack, then LP molds to the melee part but blocks Party 1's AoE part of the strategy, so LP violates MVP Domination in this case.
3) The last sentence of 'does not apply to MVP slave' is best shown by Detale and Hydro, where both of them mobs. Hydro remobs at 2, but starts off at 4. It's not unusual to take out blue acidus to prevent Stop. However, if another party kills all of hydro's slaves so hydro remobs, that is ok because rule didn't apply to Hydro: that is, not knowing how hydro remobs, or causing hydro to remob.
Another example is Dracula's slave familiars. It's not overly difficult especially for paladin or priest to tank dracula, grab a snow bunny card/autocast cards with a gremlin clip, and farm forever str food off of dracula. If another party comes and wants to kill dracula, is this a violation of MVP Domination interfering with your 'strategy' to farm dracula? Absolutely not. Same can be said for using magnum break/meteor storm on GTB's slaves to farm box of thunder and agi food.
Now for thanatos though, that is an obvious violation to MVP slave control.
4) If Party 1 blocks you from attacking while it has no benefit to themselves at all, and you are only using the exact same strategy as Party 1 (say, both you and Party 1 relies on just DSing the hell out of it) this violates the Strategic MVP Support section of "solely intended to prevent others to come and kill it." The fault is on the dominating party.
Just because a party is dominating, that doesn't mean they can do everything that they want to.
5 + 6) Yes. It is a safe assumption for almost all cases that there is no secrets left in terms of AI on old MVPs for such an old game. Players ought to do their part as well to know what they are doing.
Now of course, if an old MVP got a new AI change (such as Atroce getting its new skills in our most recent svn change), that does count under 2 week grace since the AI did get changed and is therefore, 'new.'
If say brand new skills accessible for players are released through whatever methods, then this allows room for new/custom strategy and leniency are also given since 'a change occured.' But if everything is exactly left as is for status quo, then yes, we state that all players are fully knowledgable on related strategies.
The current 'gray' area that still exist in MVP Domination is on custom MVP because there is no way to find out their AI even if you want to research unless you got friends who know of it already, in which case GM team (probably me
) have to pound out all those in the heRO wiki ASAP when possible. The only one is really Levia and Tendrilrion though. Piamette can't be found naturally so she's not an issue. God Poring and Skoll has neglectable strategy as they really have nothing specific (God Poring's elemental switch between the 2 crosses cannot be prevented whatsoever anyway.) Hardrock Mammoth is only a giant series of anti-player strategies for the most part as well.2nd gray area is for Surtur if Surtur, though he is a quest MVP, would be excluded by MVP Domination or not... but such matters is why the rule takes effect on the 14th instead of immediately in effect.
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Indra - 11-07-2009
What exactly counts as a 'strategy'? Does using warp-immunity and asura jumping count as a strategy? Or does the player leaving the map negate this?
RE:??New MVP Domination Rule - Ultima_Pi - 11-07-2009
GM-Ayu Wrote:4) If Party 1 blocks you from attacking while it has no benefit to themselves at all, and you are only using the exact same strategy as Party 1 (say, both you and Party 1 relies on just DSing the hell out of it) this violates the Strategic MVP Support section of "solely intended to prevent others to come and kill it." The fault is on the dominating party.
Hmm, I'll clarify my question then. Let's say you get Ice Wall'd, and this prevents you from implementing the strategy, reaching or even seeing the MVP. The only viable workaround that doesn't involve having the MVP Tele is to... get on the other side of the Ice Wall.
This implies "-Your presence in the elimination of the MVP tears down the strategy of the dominating player/party" and '-Your attack causes no effect or real damage to the MVP except to lure it away".
What happens then?
------
Does "non-MVP" include Mini-Bosses?
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Fruityla - 11-07-2009
Okay after wrapping my head around the most confusing explanation of a rule ever;
Part of me thinks heRO's acting like real life schools where they seem to think competition is bad and shouldn't be allowed ever. The other part is cool with it as it (hopefully) cuts down on all the darn drama XD
Also, what happens if the MVP teleports?
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Ultima_Pi - 11-07-2009
Natural Telepot would likely mean that whoever finds it first becomes dominating party.
However, determining "natural" teleport would be lol.
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - GM-Ayu - 11-07-2009
@Linnea
"Should the MVP be the one who teleports away, then domination status is reset, and whoever engages the MVP first becomes the new dominating party." (from rule itself)
Natural Teleport and acceptable level of human errors in forcing a rude attack will go under this. As for 'how to determine' usually it's quite 'obvious' so far that one party sends 1 person to go in and do this, while rest of the party are on standby to try to find the mvp again the moment that one guy succeeds in purposely done rude attack.
@ Indra
"A dominating party loses its status when the party dies or no longer engages the MVP (that is, no longer attacking the MVP and/or no longer being attacked by the MVP.)"
Teleporting out of the map will count under no longer engaging the MVP. However, purposely stopping asura by a competing party, unless it's a strategic mvp support, will be illegal anyway. Not many MVPs need a SW on purpose to negate Pneuma though... Kiel and Mistress are almost the only 2.
@Marivel
I'll assume valk directly, since it's valk that drove us to write this rule.
I'll further assume that both parties are killing valk by reflection.
Say Party 1 is already setup in which paladin is in front of ice wall, and all necessary supporting parties are behind the wall already. Party 2 with identical plan in mind arrives but appears on wrong side of the wall. Do they have any right to take down the wall to send the paladin to the other side?
"Possible, but" now it'll depend on situation.
-depending on variation on how you're using the reflection strat, but generally pally dies at super frequent rate, and if you take down the wall, valk will most likely chase everyone who is now revealed and in valk's line of fire. Taking down the wall now will probably kill the party. Violates the "don't kill other players" rule that isn't part of the MVP Domination: you just don't try to get other players killed.
-but what if, say you got your own hwiz, make a new wall between your own paladin with valk on that side and your support party+the other party's support chars, then ganbantein the first wall by first party away? this is ok, because the other chars aren't killed as a new wall is in place, and this is in accordance to dominating party's strategy: to get a wall between pally and rest of party so EQ is the only spell that hits across the wall.
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Fruityla - 11-07-2009
Aaaah, okay. That makes sense =3