Additional BR and GvG Rules

[dlsmizel]

I'm writing this on my free time and will leave it here for the meantime. When you comment, please be insightful and informative. Let's help each other.

 

OBJECTIVE 
To standardize the rules and regulations of bi-weekly events Battle Royale and Guild vs Guild. 
To be a guidance for hosting GM and players and avoid confusion to different scenarios
To successfully agree on specific rules suggested here

IDEA
It's not an easy task to host an event especially when there are a lot of different scenarios to happen. I will post below the suggested improvements (including the implemented rules) for the rules and we can discuss further by commenting to this post.

Implemented rules:
1) Teams will battle against each other until 60-minute timer runs out.
2) The last standing guild/party wins. 
3) Extensive running and hiding from GM menu is prohibited. 
4) The hosting GM will have the right to make an executive decision of who to call the winner after the 30-minute mark.

Improvements on the items above:
1) Make sure that that 60 minutes will be covered all through out the battle. If the event started at exactly 20:13 server time, it should end 21:13. If parties/guilds are evenly matched, the GM will have to make an executive decision. (see item 4 for executive decision)

2) Just make sure that no other party/guild is still inside the map. (see item 4)

3) Extensive running and hiding means the player doesn't do any damage at all. It may be a strategy especially if it's 1 against all. A good example of this is a Stalker vs Champ, Pally, and Sniper. The Stalker will probably wait for a chance to Strip the enemies' equipment.

So to make this rule clearer, the GM should give a count down of 10 seconds for every running a player makes. The timer resets if the solo player (for example) does reasonable damage to enemies. Reasonable Damage means a total of 10k+ damage. Let's say a Stalker hits a target and does 1k damage, the Stalker needs to do more until it reaches 10k+ damage. I know it sounds crazy but you guys should get the idea of a Reasonable Damage.

4) The hosting GM is always right. But it doesn't mean you can't question the GM's poor calls. As written in the implemented rules, the GM shall call a decision after the 30-minute mark. See scenarios written below and let me know if you agree or not.

1v1 (killers)
- If both teams are left with one Champ, and the 30-min mark has been reached, the GM should still allow the fight to continue. One of each will die soon because one will run out of pots or gets out of focus. If both Champs die, the winner should be the one who died last in the kill log.
- If a team has a Stalker then the other has a Sniper, the match will still move on. There's a bigger chance for the Stalker to win this fight.

1v3+ (killer vs killer)
- If a Stalker/Bio is up against 3 random characters, the fight must still go on. The Stalker still has a chance to fight when FCP runs out. But the fight must be called off if the opposing team has a BIO.

1v1 (support vs support)
- Let's say there are two Paladins left, and both can't make high damage, the GM will turn off PvP and call it a draw.
- Funny idea, how about whoever has the most seeds/berries wins? 

1v2+ (support vs killers)
- This is a tricky one. If a Paladin is up against two Lord Knights for example, the fight should still go on if the Paladin is geared with Reflect. An LK can die easily to a Pally if it's a BB type because of Reflect

What if the server disconnects while BR is running?
- Hopefully the hosting GM knows who are left inside the room and spawn them back.
- Postpone the fight and have a rematch next BR/GvG.

What if it's a draw?
- For BR, both teams can get half the prize.
- For GvG, no winners will be called.

TEAM
Hosting GM Danger
Dream, Genesis, and Veracity

RESULTS
Less talks if the call made was poor or not.
Collaboration with other players to share more scenarios and better calls.
 

[Halion]

So everything is staying exactly the same +1,

[dlsmizel]

1 hour ago, Halion said:

So everything is staying exactly the same +1,

It's an additional rules so yeah everything stays the same. But this is like a proposed guidelines since the rules are very broad imo.

[Penthesiliea]

From my point of view i don't think we need to add or change the rules of BR/GvG. Its better the way it is right now. 

But lets hear what other people thinks. 

 

[Pixel]

+1 for this!

[carlos93]

5 hours ago, Penthesiliea said:

From my point of view i don't think we need to add or change the rules of BR/GvG. Its better the way it is right now. 

But lets hear what other people thinks. 

 

+1.

No need to change.

[dlsmizel]

Well I'm not changing anything, I'm adding more to properly guide a host on making a decision.

[Halion]

It's up to GM's criteria, you can't pretend to change that with a post.

[Centurion]

7 hours ago, Halion said:

It's up to GM's criteria, you can't pretend to change that with a post.

+1

Player's cant influence on GM's criteria, but thanks for your bright idea!

[dlsmizel]

14 hours ago, Halion said:

It's up to GM's criteria, you can't pretend to change that with a post.

I can't pretend to what the hell are you saying? This is a suggestion.

[Pixel]

that's why they make suggestion section to improve the server lmao

[Halion]

This looks more like a complain nor than a suggestion.

You are actually requesting the GMs to change their way of making decisions towards any situation that would come up at a PvP Event. Now this should be discussed by the GMs, not by the players, they make the rules not us.

Let it go, its up to their criteria.

 

[Specter]

This suggestion only popped up because Warsong lost BR and when they had ONE player left, the server disconnected, then during the re-host in BR (2 LKs vs 1 pally) he wasnt even reflecting so the GM ended the event. End of the story. Instead of suggesting things that make no sense and only benefit your guild, I think what needs a real fix is the PvP Ladder, that has been dominated by Warsong by the idea of "friends with intent to kill each other" (basically feeding in the down low). PvP Ladder rules need to be reworked, not BR/GVG criteria.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Specter

[Rayray]

I don't think we even need to add those to the rules since it will always be up to the GM hosting it.

Regarding the excessive running; you can't expect a bio for example to STOP and try to hit someone when he is being chased by a lot of people.  that rule regarding running was put in place in case there is a 1v1 situation and the other one is just running around.  if it is 1vs many, i doubt he can run for so long anyway, so there is no need for a GM to step in and stop it(unless it was pretty obvious that he just doesn't want to fight, again GM decision here)

Instead of a draw, just throw dice.  GM will /dice, so does the players left.  Whoever is closest to the number the GM drew, wins.  This stops the other assumption that the GM is siding with a guild if the GM decides to rule out a draw.

A fight must not be called off depending on who has FCP.  That is just plain wrong.  A stalker or a bio that cannot combat FCP shouldn't even be trying to win a pvp event.  Vice versa, it does not mean that I would win(as a bio) if everyone does not have FCP.  Letting a GM decide on that is not gonna work.

Regarding the pally vs lk argument, I have to side with Bass there.  There is no way in hell a lone support paladin will win against 2 decent LKs, that's given there.  LK has high HP, high enough to absorb whatever reflect the paladin does, and the LK can just use other skills that doesn't reflect(like spiral pierce).  It's just a waste of time and a waste of seeds for the paladin.  The GM then made the right call.

 

[Centurion]

9 hours ago, Specter said:

This suggestion only popped up because Warsong lost BR and when they had ONE player left, the server disconnected, then during the re-host in BR (2 LKs vs 1 pally) he wasnt even reflecting so the GM ended the event. End of the story. Instead of suggesting things that make no sense and only benefit your guild, I think what needs a real fix is the PvP Ladder, that has been dominated by Warsong by the idea of "friends with intent to kill each other" (basically feeding in the down low). PvP Ladder rules need to be reworked, not BR/GVG criteria.

+1

[Sommyworld]

War does not determined who is right. Only those that is left. I say battle it out until only one party is alive within a given time as it is. If not and time runs out, nobody wins. (BW raid for an example, if a party doesn't finish within 60 minutes, everybody gets warped out.) All parties need to redeem their achievement and meet these criteria to earn their victory. If an automated LMS map can identify the LAST MAN STANDING, a GM manually hosting can do so too. Time is money. TIME is life. Everything you do works around TIME. BE TIMELY. Late / Not finishing in time is not an excuse when you know the rules. Consolidate and work on time management. Flush out these kakarot.

[Maiimaii]

On 2017/3/31 at 3:33 PM, Specter said:

This suggestion only popped up because Warsong lost BR and when they had ONE player left, the server disconnected, then during the re-host in BR (2 LKs vs 1 pally) he wasnt even reflecting so the GM ended the event. End of the story. Instead of suggesting things that make no sense and only benefit your guild, I think what needs a real fix is the PvP Ladder, that has been dominated by Warsong by the idea of "friends with intent to kill each other" (basically feeding in the down low). PvP Ladder rules need to be reworked, not BR/GVG criteria.

+999999999

[Genesis]

1) We can make it so the NPC annoucnes exactly when PvP was enabled so we know, from that point we have 60 minutes.

2) This is already done, no?

3) This is subjective, you might say x person is running but that person would say they aren't. In the end, it is up to the GM to decide. If it is 6 vs 1, the outcome is obvious. 

4) Sounds good.

5) If the entire server disconnects, then we normally reopen the event. However, if it is unsbale we reschedule.

I would like @Danger  to provide us feedback as he is the only that normally hosts this event. :)

 

[qperteplex]

On 6/17/2017 at 1:21 AM, Genesis said:

1) We can make it so the NPC annoucnes exactly when PvP was enabled so we know, from that point we have 60 minutes.

2) This is already done, no?

3) This is subjective, you might say x person is running but that person would say they aren't. In the end, it is up to the GM to decide. If it is 6 vs 1, the outcome is obvious. 

4) Sounds good.

5) If the entire server disconnects, then we normally reopen the event. However, if it is unsbale we reschedule.

I would like @Danger  to provide us feedback as he is the only that normally hosts this event. :)

Off topic but are GVG or BR tokens still not rewarded if there is barely competition or zero competition at all? I remember the admins implemented what I earlier stated when PE dominated the server when they consistently won all those events. Just wanna know if there is equal treatment

[Genesis]

Its equal treatment, yes. We rarely do that however.