Fippy Darkpaw GMs Starting Their Own Fight Club

I had to laugh when I read these two posts in the EQ Time Locked Progression Server forum.  This apparently was not exactly what somebody meant when they started demanding that GMs intervene with raid target conflicts.

First, there is the litany of “creative” solutions from one poster:

GM showed up and told the two guilds contesting mobs to pick one person for each guild to duel for the rights? The other day a GM perma killed Yelinak. The time before that we were told to random for rights on raid mob, but the GM disregarded their own decision and left. Wtb Senior GM’s on Fippy? This is completely absurd.

And then there was more detail on the duel situation:

Ok, this is it. I’ve had it with this BS customer service. We’ve been dealing with it for months now, but its finally came to the point where its no longer possible to raid on Fippy.

Twisted Legion shows up to Statue of Rallos Zek spawn 45 minutes before Citizen shows up. Citizen petitions. GM-Sepki shows up and decides to give our guild leader 30 seconds to decide on someone to PVP for the mob? Are you serious, this isn’t Zek. This is Fippy Darkpaw. Make your GMs follow their own rules. You expect people to sit by complacency while GMs decide to change the rules on the fly?

Can we get a LEAD gm, or a SENIOR gm to come and give some consistent rulings. First its perma-kill mobs, now its duel for it, etc? BS

SynCaine proposed PvP previously as a solution, though I am sure he meant a wholesale guild on guild slaughter rather than champions representing their guild.

All Piestro from the EQ community team had to say was:

This action was taken with full knowledge and direction of the head of the EQ GM team. If a GM is forced to intercede, it is advisable to follow their direction.

So if a GM tells you to man up and fight for your raid target, you had best get out there and fight!

Is such a duel standard procedure in EQ or any place else when guilds come into conflict over a raid target?

Addendum:  The big man, HeadGMKaeldread steps in and says… well… we can’t solve your problems.


The raid issues on Fippy are indeed sad, but not something that Customer Service has a good fix for. No matter what we do someone will be unhappy. We understand that, and that is the reason why our rules and policies specifically state that it is better for our players to come to an agreement between themselves.

In the case of Fippy, much like the incidents we previously had on Vulak, two of the major raid guilds do not see eye to eye on how raid mobs should be distributed. We understand this happens, but we simply cannot and should not be involved in these types of situations.  Our customer service is to help people with the game or in the game, not to serve as a mediator to police each and every raid spawn, especially when both sides will either not compromise, or will not work with us.

When we come upon issues of this type a GM will quickly make a ruling and both parties will be asked to abide by it.  At times we may simply make a ruling based on our observations, at other times the two parties will have to compete for the right to the mob. This could be a /roll, a duel, answering trivia questions, etc.  If the GM does not feel either guild is willing to do what they ask the raid mob may be perma-killed.   I did not feel comfortable leaving this with just a /roll, as recent history has shown that raids will start to take advantage of it in hopes of spending less time at a spawn point and still having a 50% chance of getting the mob. We cannot allow it to be a DPS race as that just ends up with guilds kill stealing each other constantly.

There are so many variables; at times a raid may have cleared 90% of the zone to get to a raid mob just be leap frogged. At other times the mob is already engaged and it gets stolen. Now throw in a guild that has spent 6 hours wiping on a mob, or people training each other and we have just started to scratch the surface of open world raids. First in force does not work as each raid mob has different levels of commitment to kill and with the number of multiple boxing raiders every raid mob could be permanently camped.  Please keep in mind that making one policy for this is difficult, and it is not a simple issue.   The simple policy is however, play nice and work it out yourself.  Work to make it a win-win situation for the two raids, or the entire server community itself.

And then, because that was not enough:

If it comes down to one mob and two raids, and a GM has to be involved someone is going to be upset when they are asked to leave.  This type of guild dispute has existed as long the game itself.  If you are not willing to do this you will have to deal with a GM coming in game and deciding for you.  It isn’t just a lone GM decision either,  it will always be gone over with a supervisor and in many cases the game manager.  We don’t want to have to decide and take action, we want this to be a great experience for all, after all it’s a game, and a darn fun one.   But once we have made our decision it is final and if you are not willing to work with the GM, there are consequences to that decisions.

In this specific case we had today, a handful of guild leaders that refused to cooperate with the GM were suspended temporarily from the game.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue we had earlier today on Fippy, as well as the overall issue on contested MOBS.

13 thoughts on “Fippy Darkpaw GMs Starting Their Own Fight Club

  1. bhagpuss

    The guild leaders involved should make direct complaints above the heads of CS middle-management over that. This isn’t the middle-ages. We don’t resolve disputes with trial-by-combat.

    If I got a judgment like that from a GM and it was upheld by his or her line management I’d look for another game.


  2. Carson

    How did it work “back in the day”?

    I mean, I know it worked poorly enough that every game developer since has abandoned this raid model as a bad idea never to be revisited, but what happened if a guild was waiting, and another guild showed up and didn’t respect the queue?


  3. Tommy Rutledge (@Tanliel)

    “Back in the day” it was first come first served.
    First damage on the target was ‘claim’ to it. And there was plenty of this back then, before instancing made it a good deal easier to deal with progression. It was painful back then and doesn’t look to be any better 10 years later.


  4. Aufero

    From what I recall of several years of raiding in the original game, (Kunark through GoD, mostly) the lack of any coherent GM policy is a perfect re-creation of old style EQ raiding. I wonder if this is on purpose, or if they just haven’t learned anything in ten years?


  5. wizardling

    Foolishness. SOE should stand back and let players sort it out 1999 style. Either way someone will be unhappy, but at least in the old days _some_ group got lucky and were happy. Instead if you have GMs intervening with silly decisions no one is happy.

    I mean honestly – so what if your guild can’t claim top raids in the current expansion. Boo-effing-hoo. Guilds should sort the issue themselves by purposefully stepping back a raid level or two to older content, if the newer raids are overcamped.

    Good grief – it’s not like it matters if you’re at the bleeding edge with gear as there’s no PvP except on Zek, so progression is what you make of it. Plus IIRC it takes _ages_ to get drops from EQ1 raids, so guilds could still be running slightly lesser (yet still challenging) raids and feel like they’re getting somewhere.

    This mindset that you must be at the very bleeding edge to be having fun is what’s destroying their fun on the TLP servers. Perhaps SOE needs to allow EQ1 players to lock their level (if they can’t already, EQ2 style – I never found out during my couple months back in EQ1 on Fippy recently) so they don’t level past older content. Thus guilds could stay behind the rest of the mad rush rush rush pack, and progress on the previous expansion’s content while the rest fight it out over the newest raids.


  6. wizardling

    Oh, and I’ll just add that news of this foolishness is just what I needed to put of re-subbing to EQ1 this week. Every payday lately I examine my desire to return, and every week I come up with a reason not to. Damn you seductive EQ1! Even with all your issues, I hear your siren call. Just keep screwing up as with GMs being silly and players even sillier so I can continue to resist.


  7. Drew

    This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read. I mean, why intervene at all? On Fippy Darkpaw of all things? I mean, how long is the gear even going to be relevant? (Note: I did not play EQ, I played FFXI.)

    To several peoples’ point, just let them handle it old-school style. At least it isn’t FFXI where the NA players used to be routinely hosed by the fact the JP players were closer to the server and had lower latency. (Or at least that was always the rumor. Maybe the NA players were just slower… or something.)


  8. Wilhelm Arcturus Post author

    @Drew – The problem is that the gear is relevant exactly long enough to cause maximum conflict.

    The big guilds on the server who are competing to get their names up in lights as the first to bring down a boss in the next expansion prepare by making sure that their whole guild is equipped with the best stuff from the current expansion.

    So Twisted Legion, which is inevitably one of the guilds contesting any given raid target, has 224 members (avg. level 56 compared to a level cap currently at 60), has to do a lot of raiding to equip even their first team.

    And there are other guilds out there doing the same thing in an environment where the scarcity of any given raid target is pretty high.

    So, basically, it becomes Might Makes Right, and those most willing to do anything to win… well… win. Only that pisses off those who lose, as they want a chance. You can say “Tough shit,” but then they unsubscribe and SOE loses money.

    And so SOE feels the need to step in and try to make things seem fair. And you can see how well that plays out.

    But when I say this was a sub-optimal state of affairs back in the good old days, people come out of the woodwork about how this was the best situation ever.

    @HZ – As I said, I laughed. But these are the sort of things I suggest when we come to an impasse in a design review meeting.


  9. Vatec

    And this is why modern MMOs have instanced raids.

    As for disciplining guild leaders for “failing to cooperate?” Well, if a GM came along and said that we’d have to choose a PvP champion, on a non-PvP server, I would simply laugh at him. The idea is simply ludicrous.


  10. Drew

    @TAGN: Yep, I can see where that might be problematic. I just find it highly amazing that people playing on the retro server (where I am assuming most people playing, played this game back during its hey-day) expected something “different” to happen this time. Isn’t that the very definition of insanity? And you make a great point, SOE is going to lose money if the others get pissed a leave. So pretty much a lose/lose for them here. Funny they went the PvP route to decide it, though.


  11. Wilhelm Arcturus Post author

    Somebody started a thread in the forums now to ask if SOE could go back and make all the old raid encounters instances.

    Piestro’s estimate, which you may question but he is at least closer to the subject than your typical play, is that such an effort would be more work than a new expansion. Not a viable choice.

    But as many have pointed out, if you wanted the true, retro experience, all this contention over raid mobs is certainly part of the package.


Comments are closed.