PDA

View Full Version : The Current Raid Environment


-Catherin-
10-07-2014, 12:42 PM
Derubael made it pretty clear in a recent post that if we really want to see change suggestions to the raid scene taken seriously then it needs to be discussed in this forum.

I'm seeing a whole lot more discussion going on but nothing still in this forum, where we have been told would be the only place that it would be given any weight. So im moving this topic here to see if people are ready to put their money where their mouths are.


The Current Points of Contention Are:


1. That FFA cycles are a failure and cause pretty much all of the current drama.

2. Class C and Class R are different playstyles - They just don't play nice together.

3. Variances are too close together and mob spawns stay too close because of this.

4. There is no clear direction for guilds that may want to test the Class C waters as to the process of moving back to Class R if it does not work out. Currently Class R views moving to Class C as guild suicide. There is nothing to motivate, and the risk is too high.

5. Autofire sucked and the current mage CoH spam sucks as well. What is there that would be better that could also be properly policied and enforced?



Some Suggestions/Solutions That Have Been Brought up Are:


1. Take variances and return them to what they were before the raid changes (all classes)

2. Take variances and return them to what they were before the raid changes (class C only)

3. C/R rotation, removing FFA from the rotation and making simulated repops complete FFA instead

4. C/C/R rotation, removing FFA from the rotation and making simulated repops complete FFA instead, INCLUDING adding VP to the R rotation.

5. C/R/FFA rotation remains as-is, but the current FFA mobs will all spawn at the same time (AKA when the first FFA mob of the week spawns, the rest automatically do as well)




So lets see what the guilds really think about all of this? Include suggestions I may have missed. Please represent your guild's opinion in this discussion. Keep personal grievances with one another and personal opinions at the door.

arsenalpow
10-07-2014, 12:51 PM
No
No
Yes
No

Another proposed solution was to have all FFA mobs spawn simultaneously for the weekend. So if the FFA mobs starting Saturday were Gore, VS, Maestro, and Talendor whichever spawned first would trigger the other 3 to spawn as well.

Derubael
10-07-2014, 03:26 PM
I don't think that this:

2. Take variances and return them to what they were before the raid changes (class C only)

Or this:

5. C/R/FFA rotation remains as-is, but the current FFA mobs will all spawn at the same time (AKA when the first FFA mob of the week spawns, the rest automatically do as well)

Is possible. It would require a significant amount of reworking to the spawn code and our code team is already overworked as is. It's probably better to assume no reworkings to the code at all, unless it's a quick change (like modifying variance). I'll also add that the only reason we lowered variance was because we had the promise all guilds would stop socking - which hasn't happened, so having this lowered or removed completely isn't something we'd be overly excited about doing.

To offer you guys some further insight about how we look at things when they go to the table, we don't necessarily look at "points of contention" but the problems those points create - for example, the FFA cycle being a failure surely is a point of contention, but we'll look at the problems that creates, rather than the point itself: FFA has a higher potential for BS, and guilds are afraid to go after spawns that are meant to be stepping stones to class-C. So when we look for solutions to implement, we are basing them off of solving those problems, rather than just saying "the FFA cycle has failed."

Will let you guys hash it out from there, just keep that in mind as you continue your discussion.

arsenalpow
10-07-2014, 04:03 PM
If nothing code wise is on the table then I'd be shocked if changes were agreed upon by all relevant parties. No one agrees on a different method of policing this crap, foot races are dumb, coth races are dumb, it's all varying degrees of stupid. The only way to prevent multiple guilds from socking an FFA target is to give them other options that occur simultaneously. When the raid machine is doling out 1 target at a time it allows the incredibly pixel thirsty guilds to repeat this process every single time.

Anichek
10-07-2014, 04:04 PM
3. C/R rotation, removing FFA from the rotation and making simulated repops complete FFA instead

4. C/C/R rotation, removing FFA from the rotation and making simulated repops complete FFA instead, INCLUDING adding VP to the R rotation.



Not speaking on behalf of BDA as a whole here, but offering a hybrid solution that includes parts of 3 and 4 above.


C/R class rotation (1:1) for all non-VP mobs. Regular spawns of VP remain Class C assigned at all times.

FFA portion of class assignment gets removed.

Simulated repops:


All mobs on simulated repop are FFA
VP is included as FFA on sim-repops
Bag Limits on repops vary by Class and Mob Type
Class C = 4 mob limit, 2 VP and 2 non-VP
Class R = 2 mob limit, 1 VP and 1 non-VP, or 2 non-VP


In my head, what this does is it:
a) addresses the point of contention, FFA thus far has been a failure
b) adds incentive to Class C, through retention of all VP mobs on regular spawns (which they have now), but also
c) adds the missing component of being able to test VP as a Class R guild, with a reward of potentially having more VP mobs via transition from R to C, because
d) Class C has a higher bag limit, full time access to VP


The only way to fix FFA is to treat it like cocaine. Give some samples (bag limits), let people hit a line, or two, or three, etc so that eventually they will become a long-term customer (move from R to C).

This would also potentially reduce the poopsocking - simulated repops could remain random and triggered (assuming that's how they happen now, or randomized coding has been really really tight in the shot group). Guilds that opt to race for a specific mob are making an active choice - and knowing that if you run to VP and race for PD loot, the time you spend there may cause you to miss out on getting something else (and thereby leave it open for other guilds who are getting shut out routinely - or in the instance of Class C, potentially "losing" because of the current bag limit and structure).


Just brainstorming - like I said this isn't sanctioned by BDA or Chest, it's my own thoughts.

Erati
10-07-2014, 04:25 PM
I like your write up Anichek

If we make Repops FFA then it makes sense to give Class C a bigger bag limit as there will be ( hopefully ) not only more mobs for both classes to go after, but also more guilds in Class C at that point too

having an extra mob or two to go after on sim-repops is a solid start for finding ways to add incentives to the move from R to C

Argh
10-07-2014, 05:40 PM
I don't really see there being a need for any big changes to the system that is currently in place.

There is already plenty of incentive to move from R to C.
1) It opens up VP.
2) There are only two C guilds to compete against.
3) Those guilds largely focus on VP.

In following that it makes no sense to open VP up as FFA as it would get rid of the largest incentive to move to C. If R gets access to VP then it means no guild will ever leave class R.

It could be made more clear as to how the process of being moved back down to R would work though (x weeks without a kill in vp).

FFA mobs are always going to be a shit show. Everyone will exploit any advantage there is to the utmost (coth ducking started on the first ffa mob with new rules). Poop socking, autofiring, coth ducking is evidence of this. I think everyone would agree to remove coth ducking, but once it is removed there will be another largely annoying thing that everyone suffers through because of fear that every other guild is doing it. There is no real simple solution to FFA problems other than through some code of conduct/honor system bullshit nobody here would honestly abide by.

If it were on the table, removing or reducing variance for everything would be great. This is the only real change that I think would improve things for everyone.

jpetrick
10-07-2014, 06:17 PM
Variance should be reduced further maybe to +\- 2 or +\- 4. I don't really care if people want to sit around for the whole window on C or FFA mobs. (Repops are the only thing that works for having things be FFA because it spreads guilds out) I hate the burden a 16 hour window puts on people. It's not that easy to clear your schedule for 16 hours and I don't think you should be having people do that. Everquest is already a massive timesink. Non classic features shouldn't add further to that.

Pint
10-07-2014, 07:07 PM
I think everyone would agree to remove coth ducking

asgard supports this stance. why cant we just go back to only allowing mages at trak?

arsenalpow
10-07-2014, 08:01 PM
asgard supports this stance. why cant we just go back to only allowing mages at trak?

because its not that simple.

two coth mages are infinitely easier to police that a mass of people at a specific spot running to a target, you'd need fraps to confirm the person that got FTE was at the predesignated spot before running and getting FTE

Pint
10-07-2014, 08:13 PM
because its not that simple.

two coth mages are infinitely easier to police that a mass of people at a specific spot running to a target, you'd need fraps to confirm the person that got FTE was at the predesignated spot before running and getting FTE

seems like all you would need is a log of the zone at the time of the spawn and a rule saying no fte'er can be camped inside the zone for ffa spawns.

arsenalpow
10-07-2014, 08:31 PM
seems like all you would need is a log of the zone at the time of the spawn and a rule saying no fte'er can be camped inside the zone for ffa spawns.

So then people are outside the zone and fastest ssd wins? Like I've said different isn't better, just different.

Anichek
10-07-2014, 09:40 PM
Not speaking on behalf of BDA as a whole here, but offering a hybrid solution that includes parts of 3 and 4 above.


C/R class rotation (1:1) for all non-VP mobs. Regular spawns of VP remain Class C assigned at all times.

FFA portion of class assignment gets removed.

Simulated repops:


All mobs on simulated repop are FFA
VP is included as FFA on sim-repops
Bag Limits on repops vary by Class and Mob Type
Class C = 4 mob limit, 2 VP and 2 non-VP
Class R = 2 mob limit, 1 VP and 1 non-VP, or 2 non-VP


In my head, what this does is it:
a) addresses the point of contention, FFA thus far has been a failure
b) adds incentive to Class C, through retention of all VP mobs on regular spawns (which they have now), but also
c) adds the missing component of being able to test VP as a Class R guild, with a reward of potentially having more VP mobs via transition from R to C, because
d) Class C has a higher bag limit, full time access to VP


The only way to fix FFA is to treat it like cocaine. Give some samples (bag limits), let people hit a line, or two, or three, etc so that eventually they will become a long-term customer (move from R to C).

This would also potentially reduce the poopsocking - simulated repops could remain random and triggered (assuming that's how they happen now, or randomized coding has been really really tight in the shot group). Guilds that opt to race for a specific mob are making an active choice - and knowing that if you run to VP and race for PD loot, the time you spend there may cause you to miss out on getting something else (and thereby leave it open for other guilds who are getting shut out routinely - or in the instance of Class C, potentially "losing" because of the current bag limit and structure).


Just brainstorming - like I said this isn't sanctioned by BDA or Chest, it's my own thoughts.

Add to this to address the FFA shenanigans:

Trackers can track all they want, but any characters IN ZONE when a FFA raid mob spawns are DQ'd from engaging said raid mob. There's no limit on trackers for your guild - put 20 people in zone to track Sev! Those 20 people aren't allowed to engage the raid mob upon spawn, at all.

Engagement defined: Any tactic used to pull a mob - a javelin, a spell, a debuff, a pet, taking damage, etc counts as engagement. If the guild fails to withdraw, and downs the mob, the loot is deleted. Simply put - anyone tracking is barred from engagement, pulling, stalling, dealing damage, healing the reinforcements when they get there. They are simply eyes and ears.

Only code change is to ensure that when the mob spawns, the server has a "stamp" of the characters in zone. Logs will show damage dealt or received by all in zone, before an FTE shout.

At that point, it boils my proposal all down to picking target(s) you want to go for, setting the right eyes and ears in place, and deploying to get the FTE tag with little to no advantage over another guild other than your responsiveness and calculated positioning outside of zones. The bag limits ensure that this will be spread out, simultaneous repops ensure that decisions and priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time.

Artaenc
10-16-2014, 02:20 PM
Add to this to address the FFA shenanigans:

Trackers can track all they want, but any characters IN ZONE when a FFA raid mob spawns are DQ'd from engaging said raid mob. There's no limit on trackers for your guild - put 20 people in zone to track Sev! Those 20 people aren't allowed to engage the raid mob upon spawn, at all.

Engagement defined: Any tactic used to pull a mob - a javelin, a spell, a debuff, a pet, taking damage, etc counts as engagement. If the guild fails to withdraw, and downs the mob, the loot is deleted. Simply put - anyone tracking is barred from engagement, pulling, stalling, dealing damage, healing the reinforcements when they get there. They are simply eyes and ears.

Only code change is to ensure that when the mob spawns, the server has a "stamp" of the characters in zone. Logs will show damage dealt or received by all in zone, before an FTE shout.

At that point, it boils my proposal all down to picking target(s) you want to go for, setting the right eyes and ears in place, and deploying to get the FTE tag with little to no advantage over another guild other than your responsiveness and calculated positioning outside of zones. The bag limits ensure that this will be spread out, simultaneous repops ensure that decisions and priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time.

Can we at least test this idea out? It's a hell of a write up. This gives class R two guaranteed VP dragon on sim repop. It's better than class C getting all VP dragons and a total of 4 FFA targets outside of VP.

Derubael
10-19-2014, 11:38 PM
Love that you guys are trying to find solutions here. I've seen some really great suggestions in this thread. I hold my own opinions on how things should work, namely that I still want to see guilds working to move from class r to class c (and I know that Sirken echos this desire, Rogean/Nilbog just want their GM's to be happy/not stressed and their players to have access to content they didn't have access to before - I support this 100%). We're really trying to shift to a more player-driven raid scene, and will likely support whatever idea the majority of the community can agree on.

That being said, two things to keep in mind:

1) If all the guilds can't agree, we can't implement anything without a Senior Staff meeting and approval of the idea(s). As some of you know, this takes a significant amount of time, so it may be best to focus on things that make the raid scene better for everyone, rather than one class or the other (variance mods and poopsock rule changes are a good example of this). inb4 Chest says impossibru. Just kidding.

2) VP will never be a "Class R" thing. The "best" content is always going to be something that will go to the guilds who put the most time/effort into getting there. That being said, I know a number of guilds are worried about going after VP because they aren't sure how the transition from C to R works. As far as we've discussed at this point, a guild would need to request the move back to R once they've moved to C. This is likely something that would be evaluated based on that guilds record competing in Class C. Other factors may be looked at as well. If you guys have some ideas on what you think a guild would need to do to constitute such a move, a new thread on the topic would be encouraged and welcomed.

Edit: Other suggestions on VP are welcomed. My knee jerk reaction was to suggest downing a VP mob no longer being an "automatic" bump to Class-C, but that just exacerbates the problem we have with not enough incentive to move to Class-C. So with that off the table, other suggestions are encouraged.

I know that point 1 really sucks, but that's just the way it works. We have a lot of things to focus on at any given time, and getting us all together to discuss the raid scene takes a colossal effort. We hardly have enough time to do GM meetings on topics that Sirken and I need addressed. That's not to say it won't happen, just that we need a clear, concise, and focused topic to bring up that we know is backed by the community as a whole (or as much of it as possible).

I hope you all can agree on some ways to improve the raid scene for everyone - it's not supposed to be easy, but I promise that it is possible. Good luck, at the very least I look forward to seeing what you're all able to come up with.

Anichek
10-20-2014, 11:02 AM
I think in order to be productive, we need to create a list of what guilds consider the flaws in the system to be.

Assuming no change in set up of R and C content (VP) -

Variance mods - increase/decrease/randomize?
Tracking and staging of characters for engagement
ROE (Rules of Engagement) - who can? who can't?
FFA considerations (bag limits, ineffective way to spur competition)
R to C transitioning, C to R transitioning, benchmarks for each
Post-Velious launch considerations: discuss continuance of class system? re-assignment of content if class system stays in place?

Just trying to brainstorm ideas, once again. I know that all of these topics have been points of discussion or thoughts that many of us feel we need to address. Would be more than happy to add to this - perhaps we can start a new thread (keeping the argument out of the thread) just to list discussion points?

jpetrick
10-20-2014, 04:36 PM
They aren't going to make any major changes. Just ask for variance to be cut in half. This is going to break down like it always does when all these guilds come together. We should be smart for once and just ask for one thing.

Derubael
10-20-2014, 05:46 PM
I think in order to be productive, we need to create a list of what guilds consider the flaws in the system to be.

Assuming no change in set up of R and C content (VP) -

Variance mods - increase/decrease/randomize?
Tracking and staging of characters for engagement
ROE (Rules of Engagement) - who can? who can't?
FFA considerations (bag limits, ineffective way to spur competition)
R to C transitioning, C to R transitioning, benchmarks for each
Post-Velious launch considerations: discuss continuance of class system? re-assignment of content if class system stays in place?

Just trying to brainstorm ideas, once again. I know that all of these topics have been points of discussion or thoughts that many of us feel we need to address. Would be more than happy to add to this - perhaps we can start a new thread (keeping the argument out of the thread) just to list discussion points?

This is a great idea, and I was going to suggest it in my post but thought it was too much at once. I also felt it was sort-of addressed in the OP and didn't want to re-hash the subject, but in reality a post/thread addressing these concerns would be a good step in the right direction. Identifying specific problems that all guilds feel need to be dealt with will help everyone to get a clear and concise picture of what changes should be made.

Argh
10-20-2014, 05:54 PM
If a consensus was reached with regard to reducing variance, would changes be implemented?

rafaone
10-21-2014, 06:20 AM
Europas stance is this;

Reduced variance would be good, no reason to be forced to track 16 hour windows in a 15 year old elf simulator
The best solution to the C/R/FFA solution would be what Catherin suggested, making mobs rotate between C & R, and make all sim respawns FFA.
We understand why this is difficult and why GMs/devs don't want to make more changes, but FFA mobs on sim respawns is the only true competition, FFA atm is just 16-hour-poopsuck-click-spam-fest and again, 15 year old elf simulator, we are adults, we have lives.
VP is not an option for us atm, but we think it would be great if R guilds could combine up for FFA VP kills without getting flagged C - worth considering.
VPs status might need to be reconsidered in Velious, especially if C guilds interest in VP drop to near zero as suggested by TMO.

Very interesting to hear that TMO has no/little interest in old world raid mobs come Velious (from RNF thread) - is that also IBs stance, and if that is so, will C remove themselves from the rotation of said mobs?

-Catherin-
10-21-2014, 01:42 PM
C/R rotation and then FFA on repops is the most realistic way to go

100% FFA repops effectively eliminate the sockfest/magecoh/drama that we have been experiencing every single time these FFA mobs come along.

To me it really is a no brainer that this takes care of a lot of issues. The biggest one separating Class C and R from each other. Repops become a true race while Class C can continue their thing in Class C while Class R can continue their thing in Class R

The other thing I really think needs to happen is we need some clear expectations on moving out of Class C if it doesn't work out for us. Moving to Class C is like the current FFA monstrosity now, except you are forced to do it on every mob, every time.

It was staffs goal to provide an environment where class R guilds would eventually want to move to class C, but you must see this is not the environment that can happen in. I know that moving my guild to class C, even if we got a target or two here and then would ultimately destroy my guild. I would never in my right mind put my guild in that position.

bktroost
10-23-2014, 12:11 AM
C/R rotation and then FFA on repops is the most realistic way to go

100% FFA repops effectively eliminate the sockfest/magecoh/drama that we have been experiencing every single time these FFA mobs come along.

To me it really is a no brainer that this takes care of a lot of issues. The biggest one separating Class C and R from each other. Repops become a true race while Class C can continue their thing in Class C while Class R can continue their thing in Class R

The other thing I really think needs to happen is we need some clear expectations on moving out of Class C if it doesn't work out for us. Moving to Class C is like the current FFA monstrosity now, except you are forced to do it on every mob, every time.

It was staffs goal to provide an environment where class R guilds would eventually want to move to class C, but you must see this is not the environment that can happen in. I know that moving my guild to class C, even if we got a target or two here and then would ultimately destroy my guild. I would never in my right mind put my guild in that position.

+1 to everything posted here.

Also, it is important to address Drak's complaint about the faction tracker situation. If a new guild is trying to join us it is going to be incredibly difficult for them to figure out what we all already have established... adding on detailed x and y coordinates to where the non factioned tracker and where the faction tracker can stand is beyond absurd--especially when that info is not openly available.

If the server went to an FFA on repops only that would absolutely eliminate ALL forms of poopsocking FFA mobs. The only poopsocking that would ever occur is for your own mob in the way your respective class system function, not competitive. Its one thing to frequently check your screen every now and again to see if a dragon is running around and spamming CoTH for hours on end.

Derubael
10-24-2014, 12:38 AM
Also, it is important to address Drak's complaint about the faction tracker situation. If a new guild is trying to join us it is going to be incredibly difficult for them to figure out what we all already have established... adding on detailed x and y coordinates to where the non factioned tracker and where the faction tracker can stand is beyond absurd--especially when that info is not openly available.

Now I'm even more confused than I was in the other thread. What's all this about where this type of person can stand and where that person can stand? Trackers can stand wherever they'd like, but if they get FTE on a target they're violating a rule. Essentially they are taking an enormous risk standing within aggro range of the spawn if not factioned.

rafaone
10-24-2014, 10:19 AM
puts this problem to bed entirely.
I don't see us backing this idea anytime soon because we still really want to encourage guilds to at least try to practice in preparation for a transition. While I'm fully aware this isn't happening right now, that isn't to say it won't in the future - for all we know, there may be a guild getting ready to rock-and-roll any day now. That being said, if 100% of the guilds agreed, we'd almost assuredly do it anyway. The problem is I really don't see a universal agreement as a possibility, so it's probably better to move onto something different.

We in Europa think its a shame you see it this way Derubael. Moving to a C/R rotation with FFA on sim respawns would allow for true competition on FFA mobs rather than the best rules lawyer winning the fight.
For some reason you think that the reason guilds don't want to move into C is harder competition, but its not - its the environment. Its having to fraps every right, use douchy tactics, spend 16 hrs ducking a mage, to get a fraction of a chance of killing a mob, that we might loose anyway because we are not ready to/skilled at rules lawyering.
On Wednesday we went up to Hate, which was empty at the time, and as we started clearing another guild came up and said they had been here and wiped, and if we could do a joint raid. In the spirit of cooporation we called off the official part of our raid and joined up with said guild for a joined raid, instead of it ending up as a shitstorm - because its pixels. We don't want a shitstorm. We don't want to try and find loopholes in rules, use rules against other guilds, discuss how far away a mage can stand from the spawn point. That is not skills, that is not challenge, its just.....P99 raid scene prior to new raid agreement.

C/R rotation would allow R guilds to gear up slowly, as they are now to prepare for a very different environment in Velious, and FFA on sim respawns would allow us to fairly compete with other guilds (including C guilds) without having to worry about 213 different rules that the behaviour of a few guilds have warranted. Europa refuse to stoop to the current FFA scene, not because we don't want to kill the mobs, but because its not enjoyable, and we play on this server to enjoy it.
If any guild does NOT want this change (C/R and FFA on sim respawns), its only admitting that its because they are not a better raid guild, but just better at rules lawyering and socking, that they get the mobs they do today.

The fact that class R turned into a rotation should tell you a lot about what kind of raid scene we find enjoyable. Its not because we don't want to compete for the mobs, its because we don't want to stoop to the kind of tactcs and douchebaggery time and time again shown on FFA mobs, and we know that some of our guilds inevitable get dragged down to that level as well. We don't want that, its not enjoyable, its not fun.

We have on multiple occasions said that we would love to take part in a conversation about these topics on either your stream, or in a personal conversation, and that offer still stands should you want us.

Derubael
10-24-2014, 02:12 PM
^I'm only one of the four staff members that you'd need to convince in order to enact a big change like this. Keep in mind that any large change is going to be met with resistance from all of us, just because of the necessary adjustments needed for that to take place (code changes to website, database, and codebase, general re-acclamation/explanation). That being said, I base my predictions off what I know about my colleagues and my experiences with them. They generally don't take time to come here and give advice or explanations, so I try to give you guys an idea of where they fall on various topics. I could be wildly inaccurate in my predictions, but I very much doubt it. Especially this close to Velious, where most of this is no longer going to matter, putting work into a major overhaul seems fruitless.

I understand the trepidation in moving to Class C, and that it isn't all stemming from not wanting to put an inordinate amount of time/effort into getting mobs. It's a legitimate concern that the hyper-competitive Class C runs into problems more frequently than R. But Class C's two guilds have done a remarkable job in both reducing the number of possible disputes, as well as solving the ones that do arise in a civil manner. Both TMO and IB have put significant effort into ending what they themselves refer to as "petition/frapsquest", something both guilds hate participating in and have recently gone to great lengths to reduce. The reality of open-world competitive raiding like we find in EQ is that mistakes are going to be made. Any guild that isn't willing to accept any risk at all in their engagements isn't going to be able to move to Class C.

Edit: Would still love to bring a few guilds from Class-R onto GMChat. Haven't had a ton of time to do episodes recently (you'll notice I only made it through 2 in the month in a half since we've spoken) and when I do, it's usually a last minute thing thrown together the day before.

bktroost
10-24-2014, 03:19 PM
Any guild that isn't willing to accept any risk at all in their engagements isn't going to be able to move to Class C.
thrown together the day before.

Deru, we are not against taking risks and getting involved in the FFA scene, we are against getting involved in this particular raid scene.

Let's remove all our jargon and talk about what we are really suggesting. In class R,you have a guild that is currently enjoying the game sans raid mobs until a very specific time when they know they need to be prepared to do so (your window is up for mob_X). Chillin, relaxing, dungeoning, marketeering ect, ect. They don't have to park their mains at particular places and let them collect days and days of dust to compete against 600 other people praying to Innoruk that some other guild's mage suddenly is struck with some form of metacarpal injury.

We don't want to do that forever either, however. We want FFA and we enjoy FFA. But we won't participate in anything that causes us to radically change our entire lives and way we play the game to do that. If we made all of repops FFA and removed the FFA cycle, R/C/R/C, then there would be no poop socking of any kind in any category other than C. It just wouldn't exist under any circumstance because there would be no need for it. Class R really, really wants FFA, but we have a different style of game play. Its a killer on morale to force a guild of people who specifically join your guild to get away from the poopsocking debacle play style into doing just that. We have to pick and choose when we can even put an FFA mob on our calendar outside of earthquakes based upon how high our current morale level is because we have seen people leave because of it.

EQ raiding is more than pixels, its about enjoying a game that we all know and love. Some of us love the racing aspect of the game, some love the server wide cooperation and some love the thrill of being the one to get the mob over someone else (there is nothing wrong with that competitive spirit).

But, honestly, the whole idea of a tiered system based on play style preferences is flawed. The categories Rogean created were based on play style, not capability. I was in all the summit meetings, I heard discussion from day one and know this to be true. We based our proposals on play style, we ratified based on play style and if you look at the current player base in each category, class R and C are made up of those play styles. If a member of AG leaves to TMO I don't get pissy, I just say "I'm glad you have discovered how you can best enjoy EQ, I'm glad we were able to help you figure that out."

I WANT to do FFA with IB and TMO, but not on their terms and I don't want them to have to play in our play style either. That makes no sense logically or according to the original intent of the 1/1/1 system. But if all repops were FFA (with or without bag limists) it would allow us all to play the game we ALL enjoy and have FFA. Remove VP access to class R and you still get a privileged status for class C.

I know it makes work for you, but it really is a good solution that doesn't rely on poopsocking, the fastest bard race or who has the faster SSD.

Sorry for the TL;DR post.

Sirken
10-24-2014, 09:54 PM
i posted this somewhere else, i suppose its relevant enough to post here as well:

couple things.


1. We arent changing the R/C/FFA cycle to anything else.
2. VP mobs will remain Class C only mobs for as long as its the top endgame zone.
3. I will talk to the staff about a concrete way for guilds to be able to move from C to R, however this has to be done very carefully to prevent top guilds from moving down to R.


This system was created and implemented with the expectation that most of the FFA mobs would go to Class C. The idea was never to "take away" from Class C so much as it was to try and allow more non Class C players to experience raid content, as well as a stepping stone to join Class C when ready. Thus making Class C more tempting to newer, up and coming guilds, as Class C will still have a larger piece of the pixel pie, will not suffer from lockouts, will have exclusive rights to VP and the best loots in Kunark era, and is given more room by staff to work out their own disputes (as it is the non restricted class).

not everyone may agree with this, but this is the position of the staff.

jpetrick
10-25-2014, 09:03 AM
They aren't going to make any major changes. Just ask for variance to be cut in half.

Did no one read this? Stop making huge walls of text and lets get all the guilds on the raid roster to say they want variance reduced further.

Pint
10-25-2014, 08:29 PM
Did no one read this? Stop making huge walls of text and lets get all the guilds on the raid roster to say they want variance reduced further.

Or no mages? Maybe both?

jpetrick
10-25-2014, 09:22 PM
Pick one thing. I would prefer reduced variance because FFA is stupid, but if you want to remove mages, fine, my guild will get behind that just so we can get something done.

bktroost
10-26-2014, 04:28 PM
Did no one read this? Stop making huge walls of text and lets get all the guilds on the raid roster to say they want variance reduced further.

I know variance was historically put in place to spread guilds out more and reduce drama from encounters, but effectively it has only managed to create a competitive gap between the large and small guilds. If you can afford to throw more characters (and bodies) in a guild, then you can increase exposure to the window and ultimately improve the odds of getting the target. When the odds are small of success (i.e. smaller guilds) no one wants to toss away 16 hrs of their time on a regular basis. This ends up leaving the majority of FFA targets to bigger guilds.

The other side to that coin is that without a variance you get the zerg army of poopsockers lined up at the zone wall waiting for the encounter to pop. There is an advantage to variance, but if it was reduced to a more reasonable window you would see a lot more guilds getting involved in the scene. You could probably boil it down to a formula involving level of resources drained(16 hours of prep & tracking) x CoTH ducking & raid scene lawyering / value of potential encounter (fight entertainment, pixels, ect). If we cannot change the second variable (the way FFA is playing out) can we reduce the very long drain on our resources so we can endure it for a more reasonable time?

I can probably get my guild to do anything for 6 hours. I cannot get them to consistently desire to participate in this raid scene for a potential 16 hours.

With the new raid rules, I think it's fair to say that the server's raid scene is more diverse than ever and generally less tumultuous than before. In light of this, would it not be sensible to reduce the window on raid targets to something more palatable for everyone (+/- 6hrs, 3hrs?)

bktroost
10-27-2014, 02:09 PM
bump

Komodon
10-27-2014, 05:46 PM
Or no mages? Maybe both?


For all the talk that's gone on in these threads about the poopsocking, i find it strange to seemingly see everybody here (but Chest) take such an anti-mage stance at this point. Given at it's core that has essentially played out to be the biggest poopsocking killer of all, as it negates quite a bit of the "necessary" manpower one might otherwise feel compelled to need in most cases before that 2 man team (as opposed to going the zoneline body count advantage route) turns a capped FTE attempt into a multi-minute prep time window for their entire guild. Of course, assuming people are willing to camp out at zone lines and send out a batphone.

I mean sure, coth ducking can suck. But like the 50 man in-game poopsock approach, that's more a Taken aspect in FFA play then a Class C thing, given they are the first to both introduce and always escalate it's use (anytime i've mage tracked and Taken is not there, i never have had a problem coming to an unsaid "if you don't do it neither will we" understanding with the opposing IB tracker). Probably best to cut right through Catherin's misinformation and gaming of the system attempts...then start by taking that up with her if you really have an issue on that.

arsenalpow
10-27-2014, 05:50 PM
For all the talk that's gone on in these threads about the poopsocking, i find it strange to seemingly see everybody here (but Chest) take such an anti-mage stance at this point. Given at it's core that has essentially played out to be the biggest poopsocking killer of all, as it negates quite a bit of the "necessary" manpower one might otherwise feel compelled to need in most cases before that 2 man team (as opposed to going the zoneline body count advantage route) turns a capped FTE attempt into a multi-minute prep time window for their entire guild. Of course, assuming people are willing to camp out at zone lines and send out a batphone.

I mean sure, coth ducking can suck. But like the 50 man in-game poopsock approach, that's more a Taken aspect in FFA play then a Class C thing, given they are the first to both introduce and always escalate it's use (anytime i've mage tracked and Taken is not there, i never have had a problem coming to an unsaid "if you don't do it neither will we" understanding with the opposing IB tracker). Probably best to cut right through Catherin's misinformation and gaming of the system attempts...then start by taking that up with her if you really have an issue on that.

I'm going to try and say this nicely, but I'm really tired of hearing this from the IB and TMO crowd. Your playstyle held the server hostage for YEARS and Taken (in jest) stumbled upon the optimal way to game the new system and the only thing I hear is "mew mew mew we don't want to coth duck, it's all Taken's fault." The strat was going to be found, the new optimal strat is ALWAYS found, and the mantra from the hardcores is always TRY HARDER IF YOU WANT STUFF. Well not Taken is willing to "try harder" and you (and your ilk) just go and vilify them any chance you get. Give it a rest man.

Komodon
10-27-2014, 06:13 PM
I'm going to try and say this nicely, but I'm really tired of hearing this from the IB and TMO crowd. Your playstyle held the server hostage for YEARS and Taken (in jest) stumbled upon the optimal way to game the new system and the only thing I hear is "mew mew mew we don't want to coth duck, it's all Taken's fault." The strat was going to be found, the new optimal strat is ALWAYS found, and the mantra from the hardcores is always TRY HARDER IF YOU WANT STUFF. Well not Taken is willing to "try harder" and you (and your ilk) just go and vilify them any chance you get. Give it a rest man.

As usual, you seem to be missing the point while getting too caught up in that endless crusade.

If Taken wants to coth duck that's fine. If *you* have an issue with doing so yourself though, and want to continually use that as a highlighted reason most of class R refuses to even attempt FFA mobs, might want to start with aiming your solution talk at them on that aspect is all. You know, instead of this tiring generalization that it's the "vile nature" of the Class C endgame that keeps you away, regardless of the fact most of these claims come with almost zero first hand exposure to it since everything got turned upside down.

Nice to see you at CT last night though. Other then your R&F thread, i thought it went pretty clean.

arsenalpow
10-27-2014, 06:18 PM
As usual, you seem to be missing the point while getting too caught up in that endless crusade.

If Taken wants to coth duck that's fine. If *you* have an issue with doing so yourself though, and want to continually use that as a highlighted reason most of class R refuses to even attempt FFA mobs, might want to start with aiming your solution talk at them on that aspect is all. You know, instead of this tiring generalization that it's the "vile nature" of the Class C endgame that keeps you away, regardless of the fact most of these claims come with almost zero first hand exposure to it since everything got turned upside down.

Nice to see you at CT last night though. Other then your R&F thread, i thought it went pretty clean.

how am I missing the point? you're placing the blame at Taken's feet when it's obviously not, Taken coth ducks, IB coth ducks, TMO coth ducks, you all want pixels, you are all doing what it takes to get an edge. Blaming Taken for the problem then doing the exact same thing as Taken to gain that edge doesn't solve the problem, you're only exacerbating things (assuming Taken is actually the root cause, which I dont buy for a second)

Komodon
10-27-2014, 06:42 PM
how am I missing the point? you're placing the blame at Taken's feet when it's obviously not, Taken coth ducks, IB coth ducks, TMO coth ducks, you all want pixels, you are all doing what it takes to get an edge. Blaming Taken for the problem then doing the exact same thing as Taken to gain that edge doesn't solve the problem, you're only exacerbating things (assuming Taken is actually the root cause, which I dont buy for a second)

I guess it's my turn to put this as nicely as possible. It's not TMO/IB that introduced coth ducking into the equation, and you are giving us too little credit in your claim that Taken somehow "found" an edge that wasn't already known.

Again, it's rarely if ever even used in the event Taken isn't there contesting the mob, and only then when mobs get stupid late in their long ass window. But you and everybody else would already know that in the event you were showing up to try. Heck, on the Class C front we have a current agreement to not even use mages, which has been in effect since the tracker change went in.

Pint
10-27-2014, 08:20 PM
perhaps mages have curbed the socking, but i know for guilds the size of asgard it puts us out of the race every time. we have 1 mage with the level and play time to actually track these FFA attempts for us atm and we simply cant ask him to sacrifice every weekend of his life on p99 trying for a slim chance at fte. i understand that not everyone is a 60 bard with a fast computer in a foot race, but at least we'd still have a chance to be in the foot race. as it stands now, only the largest guilds with the mage reserves can compete reliably.

Komodon
10-27-2014, 11:13 PM
perhaps mages have curbed the socking, but i know for guilds the size of asgard it puts us out of the race every time. we have 1 mage with the level and play time to actually track these FFA attempts for us atm and we simply cant ask him to sacrifice every weekend of his life on p99 trying for a slim chance at fte. i understand that not everyone is a 60 bard with a fast computer in a foot race, but at least we'd still have a chance to be in the foot race. as it stands now, only the largest guilds with the mage reserves can compete reliably.

Well maybe if you ditched those little side projects like trying to epic lv 5 warriors in favor of PL'ing up a guild mage, you wouldn't have that problem ;). All kidding aside though, i don't argue that is a valid point against it. It's just a shame people do not focus more on addressing possible solutions to that, instead of skipping right to these dressed up "we want to compete with you guys and would, but..." proclamations that just center around the desire to see more content go uncontested by Class C. Which essentially is what this latest FFA on repops push amounts to imo.

I mean i get it. Chest is Chest, and is never going find a common ground with Class C that does not involve our head on a spike. Catherine isn't going to be the first to make the jump to Class C at the expense of giving up their free/guaranteed piece of the Class R pie either, instead choosing to maximize the shitshow potential in small doses on the FFA spawns they do decide to go after. Apparently content with however "dirty" the tactics may be if/when she feels it gives them an edge and they work, and outraged at stuff like us counter coth-ducking or putting non-kos mages there (we prefer that over taking the "oops my bad. again" infraction route) if/when they don't. As i was attempting to point out above before Chest seized on the chance to play his "Class C is the devil!" card, that's ultimately hurting you guys more there then us atm.

But with all due respect, those are more or less lost causes to having a productive discussion here though imo, and the flaw adding an FFA middle ground was bound to create in the first place. At least if a legitimate attempt at implanting a system aimed at encouraging the progression towards Class C was the real goal there. What i'm personally interested in hearing/seeing is what type of changes would need to be made for some of you other guilds to give FFA more of a try then showing once or twice over a 6 month period, choosing to poopsock your entire raid at a zoneline with a "might as well min/max our chances, no matter how small!" mindset when you do (should really stop doing that btw), and then completely giving up if/when you don't walk away with any loot.

Here, and speaking purely from an individual pov, i'll even throw you a sample presentation idea i'd be expecting off the top of my head:

- Reduce the variance time from 16 hours to 4

- Explore any option with the staff that would allow mob timers to be more spaced out over the week again, to avoid the current scenario that sees almost every window in a constant overlapping state. Which has just served to create the 48 hour straight tracking marathon that goes on every weekend for any guild with an active/multiple target agenda.

- Ask for some type of time of death stamp to be added to the raid policy page. Which would allow smaller guilds with lesser resources a somewhat better chance to plan ahead on targets if/when needed.

- Implant a "One-and-Done" agreement, which would probably end up making a lot of potentially rushed 3+ guild scrambles a lot easier to self manage at times. If a guild wipes their FTE, don't worry about going into "salvage mode" and gtfo of the way because you just automatically forfeited your chance to re-attempt that mob until the other guild/s present get an attempt in.

bktroost
10-28-2014, 01:09 AM
I can't comprehend why our main thrust is on mage tracking. If we can't change the rotational order then spawn variance is the over arching concern.

Derubael
10-28-2014, 02:48 AM
Variance won't get reduced another single minute if Guilds can't stop poopsocking. Even then, it may not get reduced any further - though don't quote me on that.

At this point its more likely that variance will go UP if you guys can't stop poopsocking. I know everyone remembers that we specifically set no more poopsocking as a condition of this, and it's literally gotten 10x worse with ducking mages and the like. Its become worse, not better, so there's no reason to continue on with the reduced variance that everyone promised would stop the socking

I can hear Sirken silently nodding, agreeing with everything I just said.

Pint
10-28-2014, 06:14 AM
I get where you're coming from maz, but I play a fundamentally different game than you, one that will never involve leveling armies of mage bots. With the current raid environment its easy to forget that most of us spent the last 5 years here enjoying the server for what it is, we didn't all get a taste of the forbidden fruit and get pulled in hook, line and sinker. The only reason I keep coming back to mages is bc its one of the few things we can change amongst ourselves by simply agreeing.

bktroost
10-28-2014, 09:25 AM
Here's the thing about mage tracking, it was Sirken's attempt at removing autofire. In that aspect it was widely successful.

Here's the other thing, if we were to create a rule that said no CoTH ducking, at what point do we punish the guilds that did X amount of accidental casts? Its going to be a lawyer quest no matter what happens.

We can work on creating a formalized petition to remove CoTH ducking, specifically during the last 3 hours of window, but its not the solution we are really looking for...but its a start.

Deru you said that there is too much poopsocking occurring to consider granting us any favorable changes in variance reduction. If we were to agree on ratifying this mage issue would it warrant a favorable GM change?

The most effective way to incite change in your staff is to provide tangible goals with desirable rewards. If the GMs are able to provide a specific favorable change, I'm sure it would result in change (if the goal is tangible).

I think the CoTH ducking is really only being upheld by a few people that are incentivizing others to do the same. Currently there is no incentive for a larger guild with the means to swap out factioned mages throughout the 16hr window to stop this process. Its fairly annoying, but its an advantage over those who cannot and therefore that discriminating factor outweighs the inconvenience. That's why I recommend a GM endorsed goal with a promise of reduced variance.

Erati
10-28-2014, 10:13 AM
Little history lesson about where we came from in terms of these raid changes and where we are now ( not that this is new for anyone but a little refresher )

Raid Changes happen....some rules are purposely vague ( in terms of zone activity when raid targets are in window). We are warned not to be around the spawns with our raid force, and tracking can only be performed by maximum of 2 people ( for tagging purposes ).

BDA gets ding'd with a suspension for being too close to Trakanon, suddenly most Class R guilds are on high alert when targets are in window. I cant speak for everyone else's guild but Taken ( among many others ) basically forbade any members from even being IN these hot zones when a raid target is in window.

Socking at the zone in was NEVER CONSIDERED.

Something happens tho, TMO slowly but surely, begins to return the socking. For several FFA VS they have a handful of people scattered about the zone. A few recruits exping, some people at the zone in, no one seems to have issue. They begin to 'deem it acceptable' to be at the zone in waiting just not anywhere else but the zone in.

With that, poopsocking returns. Several members stated ( which I am paraphrasing ) 'its simply smart and logical to hang around an area where you know something will happen. The variance was cut to 16 hrs with no extension, its the smart thing to do is wait it out.

Heres the quote:


"Originally Posted by Insane-Truthteller View Post
so you admit that bc the variance is so low its ok to poopsock now ?"

this is why they DIDNT want to lower the variance...bc they didn't trust we couldn't poopsock
Barring server repops, he spawns once every 7 days. As a class C guild you can engage him 2 out of every 3 spawns. He drops a staff maybe 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 times. It's worth your time to sit there when he goes into the bottom half of the window. People sit on fucking ragefire longer than that. We'll sit where the server staff tell us to sit, if you have any other problems please take it up with the server staff who set and enforce the rules.


http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1317109&postcount=62

Then began the socking....when the raid rules changed everyone was afraid as shit to be in these zones when BDA got suspended, however slowly but surely the socks returned.

I dont think anything will ever 'stop' poopsocking because EQ IS poopsocking.

Any item camp you sit at is a poopsock. Any exp grind session is a poopsock.

With the raid target poopsocks you are usually just getting to know your guildies, getting drunk and hangin out.

Not sure what really can be done to curtail sitting there as it has been well proven that even ridiculous amounts of variance will cause people to still sit there ( see VS pit).

I think at this point the reason the players would like to see it reduced is simply that the 16 hours is not 'proving' anything.

This is why FFA on sim repops would be such an elegant solution. The socking stops.

-Catherin-
10-28-2014, 11:10 AM
Little history lesson about where we came from in terms of these raid changes and where we are now ( not that this is new for anyone but a little refresher )

Raid Changes happen....some rules are purposely vague ( in terms of zone activity when raid targets are in window). We are warned not to be around the spawns with our raid force, and tracking can only be performed by maximum of 2 people ( for tagging purposes ).

BDA gets ding'd with a suspension for being too close to Trakanon, suddenly most Class R guilds are on high alert when targets are in window. I cant speak for everyone else's guild but Taken ( among many others ) basically forbade any members from even being IN these hot zones when a raid target is in window.

Socking at the zone in was NEVER CONSIDERED.

Something happens tho, TMO slowly but surely, begins to return the socking. For several FFA VS they have a handful of people scattered about the zone. A few recruits exping, some people at the zone in, no one seems to have issue. They begin to 'deem it acceptable' to be at the zone in waiting just not anywhere else but the zone in.

With that, poopsocking returns. Several members stated ( which I am paraphrasing ) 'its simply smart and logical to hang around an area where you know something will happen. The variance was cut to 16 hrs with no extension, its the smart thing to do is wait it out.

Heres the quote:



http://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1317109&postcount=62

Then began the socking....when the raid rules changed everyone was afraid as shit to be in these zones when BDA got suspended, however slowly but surely the socks returned.

I dont think anything will ever 'stop' poopsocking because EQ IS poopsocking.

Any item camp you sit at is a poopsock. Any exp grind session is a poopsock.

With the raid target poopsocks you are usually just getting to know your guildies, getting drunk and hangin out.

Not sure what really can be done to curtail sitting there as it has been well proven that even ridiculous amounts of variance will cause people to still sit there ( see VS pit).

I think at this point the reason the players would like to see it reduced is simply that the 16 hours is not 'proving' anything.

This is why FFA on sim repops would be such an elegant solution. The socking stops.

Pretty much this. When the raid rules were first put in place things were good. We did not even allow people in the zones when mobs were in window.

However some guilds slowly began to get closer. Clarification was asked for as to what was acceptable. Clarification was not given. After watching these guilds win several times pretty much uncontested without any consequence we pretty much came to the conclusion that what they are doing is okay as far as staff is concerned, so we escalate and do the same thing so we actually stand a chance. Fast forward to what we have now.

You want us all to agree on something together and state staff will not make any changes on their own, but we havnt been able to agree on anything since the beginning when we had a final negotiation for the new raid rules and then rogean had to just walk in and tell us how it was going to be.

We couldn't agree on anything then, and I don't think we have agreed on anything since either. Class R has a system and is able to come to compromise among each other but as far as Class R and Class C reaching an agreement together, it hasn't happened. We couldn't even work together to not kill overseers. And the two classes are completely different playstyles so I do not see why people expect that it should happen or will happen at all.

I appreciate the work the staff does and im not trying to knock you guys, but purposely leaving some things vague and not coming down hard on people who began to move closer and closer in the early days led to what we have now.

Drakakade
10-28-2014, 01:56 PM
Divinity agrees with the statement that, "This is why FFA on sim repops would be such an elegant solution. The socking stops."

However, we don't think that will happen, because:

a) The current FFA rule set favors C class guilds more than R class guilds, and the above proposal would favor R class guilds more than C class guilds, and
b) It takes some coding effort, and the real overlords of this server are busy (rightfully so) with Velious.

There are however a lot of things we could do which would help the raiding scene, and I think the GMs need to take partial credit for the current mess. Here are some things which have had a deleterious effect on the raiding scene:

1. Vaguely worded rules. Adjectives like 'near' aren't nearly good enough.
2. Poorly worded rules: if you mean non-kos mages cannot be on spawn points then say that, but "not on the spawn point" means no one (kos or not).
3. Lack of a clear, concise, short, server rules set.
4. Ad hoc changes to existing rules with no regard for why they were there in the first place, and little to no consultation with the server. For example, poopsocking began the day the 15 man rule was struck down. Prior to that small guilds like Full Circle could utilize the 15 man rule to wrest raid mobs away from the larger guilds without larger guilds bringing overwhelming forces to out poopsock.
5. No central sticky with an updated rule set. As Ambrotos noted, asking folks to listen in on the latest twitch or paging through countless posts to find precedents is not productive.
6. Posting in RnF, and using epithets / slurs. Conflict arises from a lack of mutual respect. When we have Guild Leaders, Officers, and GMs posting / ranting / flaming / trolling in RnFs, the animosity and negative feelings those posts engender carry over into all other discussions. To put it in eq terms, you lack faction with the other person at the table, and nothing meaningful can result. IF folks want to white knight for their respective classes and enjoy RnF then they should not have a voice at this table. Instead, send us a representative who we don't already dislike from their scrawls on the bathroom walls.
7. Multiple voices. This forum is suppose to be a venue where the representatives of their respective guilds, and staff come together to speak in a polite manner to work out problems. Currently, we have guilds (and GMs) posting conflicting messages, and some times contradictory messages. Guilds at the very least should get on the same page and be empowered to speak for their respective guild.
8. History. The history of this server has created a lot of animosities. Rightly or wrongly, we had 2 years of "no csr in VP", and epics held for ransom which may or may not have contributed to RMTing. Either way, it's hard to sit down and work together when we have that kind of history going on.
9. Vague issues and no deadlines. A good mediated conflict resolution scheme should have a well-outlined issue, and a time horizon. Currently, we have a bunch of open ended stuff which has no bite to it. IB has stopped even posting in this section, and maybe they are correct to not do so.

I will stop there. Personally, I think we should all take some responsibility and stop trolling each other. Also, I think it is wise to remember that the raid scene is a million times better than it was before Rogean's changes.

Ask for less; donate more.

jpetrick
10-29-2014, 12:44 AM
Variance won't get reduced another single minute if Guilds can't stop poopsocking. Even then, it may not get reduced any further - though don't quote me on that.

At this point its more likely that variance will go UP if you guys can't stop poopsocking. I know everyone remembers that we specifically set no more poopsocking as a condition of this, and it's literally gotten 10x worse with ducking mages and the like. Its become worse, not better, so there's no reason to continue on with the reduced variance that everyone promised would stop the socking

I can hear Sirken silently nodding, agreeing with everything I just said.

Everquest is a game where you wait for things. You are asking people to not play the game. We are simply asking to wait a shorter amount of time for things.

Komodon
10-29-2014, 02:26 AM
Thanks TMO!

This post me made sad btw, because from our few talks i honestly had you pegged as being better then attempting to prop up some random R&F post (from Heallun of all people lol) as a counter to any of the truth i've claimed here. But while we are doing history lessons and reflecting on what went wrong with FFA, let's do one that sticks to the facts:

- The first guild to jump the gun on the poopsocking was Europa, who very shortly after the changes went in decided to sit their entire raid force at the entrance of KC early in it's window. At which point i jumped over to the BDA vent, had a middle man talk about it with Chest, and he got them to stand down.

As far as the war of escalation over the simple desire to race from the zoneline goes:

- First guild to switch up where we all understood to run from - Taken (FoB instead of TT)
- First guild to bring in and use a mage - Taken (Sev)
- First guild to start coth ducking - Taken (Naggy)
- First guild to always start coth ducking after that first time - Taken
- First and only guild to try and skirt the zoneline rule by binding toons within a raid zone - Taken (Naggy)

That's not even getting into your leader being popped for autofire (overdue personal thanks on that btw, after i spent months trying to fight through your previous indifference to get that no tracker FTE rule in), killing mobs you didn't have FTE on, and/or the multiple feign ignorance infractions when you screwed everybody else out of an FTE either.

Meanwhile in Class C, where people had a legitimate interest in both competing and making that competition work, 2 guilds who mostly loathe each other made a simple deal that took all of 20 minutes. No mages, and everybody running from the same spot (with no more then sow speed in VP, so anybody with a pot could do it). That deal still stands today.

Has TMO had various incidents of people needing to be told to stop exp'ing/cash camping and gtfo out of a zone? Sure, same as everybody else (i've personally had to point out your shamans camping Tranix shouldn't be there on multiple occasions). To my knowledge nobody has had any real issues resulting out of such though, unless you want count BDA on that Trak.

Do we tend to field a couple extra people that hang around and keep our pullers/tank buffs up? Yup. Does that number tend to creep up the very small amount of times we see a select few mobs go stupid late in window? Sure. That is all still a far, far cry away from Taken batphoning a dkp poopsock raid on VS a few spawns back with 9 hours left in his window, and then parking a 50+ man raid at the ent of KC. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last. Which for the record, the last person to call one of those monstrosities for TMO was Eccezan, and he quit back in March. In fact, and outside 2-3 mobs who went to a minus 30 minute window, i personally can't recall a single instance of either Class C guild sitting an entire raid at a zoneline. I can however recall multiple incidents of Class R guilds doing it in FFA, which likely accounts for a significant % of their individual attempts at that.

But by all means, keep spinning away here...with your hand held out in a veiled attempt to score yourself more uncontested mobs. Personally, I came here to reach out to the other guilds, in hopes that at least a few of the not so jaded bunch might actually possess the ability to see past this wall of "with no high level guarantee of loot, it's just not worth it" shortsightedness a few of you have built around yourself. That starts with a willingness to embrace the potential of regular failure as an acceptable option though...something half here have already proven their unwillingness to do over the years. Regardless what changes could/should be made to accommodate them.

Maybe i'm just too much of an optimist though. I was really hoping to see at least one cut-to-the-chase "with change X/Y/Z, you could expect my guild to be willing to go after FFA mobs" post go up :(

Erati
10-29-2014, 09:27 AM
- First guild to switch up where we all understood to run from - Taken (FoB instead of TT)



havnt gotten through the entire post just yet but no clue where this nugget came from

we have never posted up at FoB for Sev, and I dont think anyone ever moved out there but Asgard one time when they were asking if it was 'ok'.

Didn't want to be nitpicky, but when you list my guild's "infractions" might as well have them be accurate.

Going back to reading.....

Erati
10-29-2014, 09:43 AM
Maz,

I dont want to go back and forth with you in the raid discussion.

We have essentially just slung poo at each of our guilds and it looks very bad. Taken has been blamed for the current FFA problems ( hilighted by your post ) and yes I am sorry but TMO was the first guild to escalate the re-newed socking.

You refer to it as 'keeping players around to buff' which my guild also did but we would camp those toons out because we feared having more than the 2 trackers in the zone would DQ us. TMO kept people at the zone lines and would basically 'dare' others to prove they were in the wrong. That is a 100% fact. Even Jeremy was refusing to move from his favorite afk KC spot. Heallun spoke his mind and it hilighted the mindset of TMO members regardless it being a RnF post, many shared his same viewpoint about the legitimacy of TMO hangin out at the zone in with mobs in window.

I think its cute you say I was indifferent about the Tracker not FTEing thing when I agree'd with such a rule and not only that, Taken's own guild leader was the first to post such a ruleset proposal here:

http://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139118

However continue to take credit for the idea.

I love that you and IB enjoy your racing in VP, that is great but just because you guys came to an agreement in 20 min does not mean that the rest of the server for 'not agreeing' to a race with you guys are in the wrong.

My post is not only not solving anything but not constructive.

I will say one last thing.

The horror of a Class R guild having it's members band together for a specific goal ( FFA VS ) and putting in effort that is well within the current ruleset. Shame on Taken for letting it's guild members know via text that we were all hanging out in KC and if they were interested in joining to come sit.

It was not required at all, nor was it something forced upon anyone.

Class R rosters and make up are different than yours. Sometimes we have to go to more extreme measures to simply 'have a shot'. Kinda bad for yourself, someone who has killed Venril Sathir well over 200 times ( at least encountered him that much), to be talking down to my guild who has many members who not only never seen VS on P99 but certainly never experienced a FFA kill on him.

I am sorry our strategy worked out and I apologize to the rest of the raid discussion members/readers/moderators that such a pointlessly unproductive post had to be written in a good thread.

Ella`Ella
10-29-2014, 10:36 AM
TMO has no further official comment in this thread - take it to RnF.

Derubael
10-29-2014, 10:49 AM
Everquest is a game where you wait for things. You are asking people to not play the game. We are simply asking to wait a shorter amount of time for things.

I will restate the point of the whole "stop the sock" post, then - I know not all the guilds were present for the raid talks, the specific one being referred to was the final one where everyone asked for lowered variance. The meeting was basically finished (the real world equivalent of picking up your briefcases and walking out the door) when almost in unison everyone made this request.

We paused for a moment, and then told everyone present that we would promise to get Rogean to lower the variance windows if - and only if everyone stopped with the massive, force sized sockfests. an eager cry of "yes!" "of course!" "absolutely we can do that" rang out among the crowd.

a month later everyone was sitting at KC entrance stinkin up the place with a 80 man sockfest for VS.

obviously theres a difference between your two trackers exchanging socks waiting for a spawn and 3/4's of a guild waiting at Kc entrance with two other guilds' forces. Everyone did really well for a while and then it fell apart.

We just want the current variance to be able to stay based on your guys' own agreement to stop socking - an agreement everyone made with this system in place and this system alone - there were no stipulations of - well, we will stop the sock if xyz happens to abc.....

arsenalpow
10-29-2014, 11:14 AM
So this problem is two fold. First you have class C (with the staff holding this mindset as well) saying to "compete" if you want something. That's always been the mantra, work harder nerds. Secondly, there's no line of demarcation between competing and holy shit you guys are sociopaths.

It's an arms race and the line will continually get pushed. Right now we're at the absurd place of coth mages ducking their spells to gain a fraction of a headstart and FTEers being pointed directly at their intended target ahead of time and auto running to hit the ground running after being summoned.

The sock was on the spawn point, then we moved it to the login screen, then we moved it to the zoneline, and now people want to move it one zone over. The socking will never change, it hasn't in almost 5 years.

If you want to remove socking remove the FFA tier. It is literally the only thing that is currently causing socking. Don't ask C and R to agree, don't tell us there's a way to work it out, don't increase variance, don't reduce variance. Socking is a cancer that has spread alllll over the FFA cycle, cut that entire bitch out.

Erati
10-29-2014, 11:36 AM
^ well said Chest.

Deru, I think part of the problem is the fact that guilds will have people in these zones during the windows.

What is considered a poopsock by the staff which is deemed frowned up?

Currently within this ruleset you are allowed ( when competing for a Raid target):

2 Trackers near the spawn point. Since things shifted to favor COHing FTEers, you will most likely also have 2 FTEers grouped with your 2 mage trackers.

so far a min of 4 people in the zone....

TMO stated they like to have someone there buffing, so ench/clr/shaman buffing the 2 FTEers....around 1 full group 6 people.

6 people seems reasonable to not call it a 'poopsock' even tho it still technically is....so where is the line drawn.

Lets continue to use the whipping boy Taken as an example here.

Just me quickly typing that and thinking, I realize that its pretty normal to expect competition to have at least a group parked at the zone line for FTEers + buffers. Considering they have far more experience/numbers/gear than any Class R roster, the only way to combat that advantage is numbers. Like Chest points out, we are constantly told to 'try harder', mostly by our own Server GM Sirken.

So if we say bring a second group for 'support', suddenly we are in the wrong for doing so.

How exactly are guilds who lack the experience, gear, roster and levels able to ever 'up the ante' in a way that is not deemed frowned upon?

We cant use numbers ( get flamed for poopsocking )
We cant use creative strats ( get flamed for ducking COH, binding, poopsock rushing )

Like I have stated in fun on-going server chat thread....the system is currently C/C/R...

The FFA tier is anything BUT FFA since apparently there is more rules to a FREE FOR ALL than there are in the Class R rotation.

Lets get rid of it and have a real FREE FOR ALL when the world shakes and swift decisions, movement, communication, coordination and tactics can be on display.

It would be a beautiful thing, and poopsocks would die instantly. I have no idea why we cant even at least 'try' it for a month.....what is the harm?

-Catherin-
10-29-2014, 12:16 PM
C/R + FFA repops continues to be the easiest solution to most of the problems.

eliminates the rule book for new raid guilds entering the scene

eliminates the socking

eliminates the drama

fosters REAL competition

Class C can keep VP. And compete on a true level playing field without the lawyer's handbook on everything else.


You want the socking to stop at the same time that you want people to compete and try harder. this is an obvious answer to it all



Also I am not the leader of Taken and I don't get why certain individuals and guilds keep saying this while pointing fingers at me. Dislike me and accuse me of what you will, but the "actual" leader of Taken is Fearstalker.

So if you have some sort of grievance against me then try taking it up with him. I follow his instructions. And if he actually agrees with you that I have been somehow out of line I can promise you that I will be dealt with. Good luck.

jpetrick
10-29-2014, 02:25 PM
Everquest raiding is basically a virtual chat room until you have a target. Your posts about not wanting people to wait around on a mob are delusional. There is nothing else to do with your character except wait around on a mob and talk to people. People want to play Everquest you want them to play another game it seems.

bktroost
10-29-2014, 02:50 PM
So, drama aside, it actually seems like all the guilds here are of one mind in regards to the necessity of utilizing certain tactics in the FFA scene and we also are of one mind in saying none of us like them. We all seem to consider them a necessary evil. If that is true, what action must the guild leaders of p99 do to motive the GMs to consider rehandling the FFA rotation slot?

Would it take a written petition signed by the guild leaders? Would we be allowed a trial period of C/R/C/R-repop FFA? Is there any possibility of considering this, given the unified concern across the guilds?

Pint
10-29-2014, 05:41 PM
Unpopular opinion here but getting rid of the ffa portion of the cycle and just giving us more free mobs is only appealing bc its more free mobs that we don't have to do jack for. The ffa portion was meant to make the classes overlap somewhat, which isn't really a bad thing, as pointed out before it has been mostly R guilds responsible for making ffa a bad experience. This is probably too extreme but maybe we could try something like absolutely no one is allowed to be in zone during an ffa window and no one is allowed to be bound in that zone/gate into that zone. Every time an ffa mob spawns it is announced server wide so that every guild knows the mob spawned at the exact same time and then the race is on. If someone from a guild is in zone at the time of the pop then that guild is disqualified for that encounter. I definitely took it to an extreme, but that would be a literal free for all. Maybe even make it where a mob in ffa changes window from 16 hrs to any time within the week so that ppl have more trouble coordinating alt armies for a week in tt or dl etc.

Erati
10-29-2014, 06:03 PM
Just very telling to me that most the answers to 'stop the sock' has to do with keeping X number of people in the zone to a finite number.

These type of solutions are not only impossible in a practical means, but also near impossible to enforce.

Why do we want to go from one bandaid solution to another?

R/C FFA = repop is not 'more free mobs' in the slightest. Asgard has to race everyone else for their 'free' pixels on the FFA repop without having to put up with the restrictions of either needing a COH mage or limiting their members to not be in zones to bag a FFA kill.

3 months of mage tracking did not erase 3 years of the attitude which cockblocked the server.

3 months of mage tracking did not invent the idea of poopsocking

3 months of mage tracking did not create the tactic of 'spam targeting' while you track

however those who feel my guild is responsible for this all continue to blindly tote your pitchforks and torches.

Pint
10-29-2014, 06:27 PM
man.. in what way is taking 1/3 of the pie and splitting it between the 2 classes not going to result in asgard getting more free mobs. R mobs are free mobs man, we dont have to pretend otherwise just bc this is a public forum.

i totally agree that 3 months of mage tracking didnt erase 3 years of cockblocking and ill will towards tmo, but i will say that my personal opinions regarding each of the established guilds on this server pre raid change have changed. the finger consistently got pointed at tmo for a reason, it is also consistently being pointed at taken for a reason.

ive definitely officially done my part in making myself look bad today so i will step away unless this thread starts to bear fruit.

bktroost
10-29-2014, 07:38 PM
man.. in what way is taking 1/3 of the pie and splitting it between the 2 classes not going to result in asgard getting more free mobs. R mobs are free mobs man, we dont have to pretend otherwise just bc this is a public forum.

i totally agree that 3 months of mage tracking didnt erase 3 years of cockblocking and ill will towards tmo, but i will say that my personal opinions regarding each of the established guilds on this server pre raid change have changed. the finger consistently got pointed at tmo for a reason, it is also consistently being pointed at taken for a reason.

ive definitely officially done my part in making myself look bad today so i will step away unless this thread starts to bear fruit.

So are you representing your entire guild's stance on the ffa situation? Or are you posting your personal opinion? If your guild is opposed to FFA repops then there is no point in attempting to confer and ratify.

Pint
10-29-2014, 09:44 PM
No we are not opposed to ffa repops, gms seem to be though.

Komodon
11-03-2014, 12:50 AM
We just want the current variance to be able to stay based on your guys' own agreement to stop socking - an agreement everyone made with this system in place and this system alone - there were no stipulations of - well, we will stop the sock if xyz happens to abc.....

The general problem with this line of thought Deru is that it more or less ignores the fact that it's the variance issue at the root of the poopsocking to begin with. Which if anything, just offers evidence that the real "fail" in everything you stated was that we didn't think to reduce it enough.

While it may appear that way due to an increased presence, Class R guilds are not poopsocking "more" directly because variance was reduced. They do it because unlike the "business as usual" approach of IB/TMO, the overall commit level that goes into 16 hour windows for them is still viewed as a much larger investment that takes a harder toll on their guilds (especially when they lose). Which in turn just ends up tugging at that always overly tempting (and in most cases, inexperienced) appeal to do anything they believe will absolutely best min/max their chances if/when they do decide to invest that effort. With some Class R guilds (Taken) better equipped and more willing to fight that type of battle then others (Asgard).

Class C on the other hand has mostly abandoned large scale poopsocks, due to the fact that the evolved FTE game has made most of them fairly pointless. I mean outside being on the team in game and going out to get FTE, the only real difference between the one guy who can make the raid to begin with by getting to his pc within 1-2 minutes (longer in more cases), and the other guy sitting in game at the zoneline, is one doesn't need to refresh their buffs :). VS being the only target under normal circumstances that really tempts us to cheat the poopsock count up these days, but even that's mostly negated by the knowledge that the tank running in has a few minutes worth of OP heal stall clickies to buy everybody the run down time we otherwise wouldn't have without them (this in turn only factors in because he still can't be pulled out of his room).

Which again, isn't to say that we don't create our own eye rolling moments for everybody else (and probably you guys) though mind you. Such as buff teams, some of the large scale races to spawn in VP, or seeing the FTE'er count balloon up outside VP when people are awake/bored and nothing else needing tracked happens to be in window.

Of course if you really had that much an issue with any/all of the above, you could pretty much wipe it all away in one stroke by logically taking the same straightforward approach you took combating autofire, and simply extend the 2 tracker/no FTE rule to include a cap on how many people a guild is allowed to have in zone on mob spawn. Pushing most if not all poopsocking as far back as we can ever realistically hope to accomplish (out of game), and presenting the question why we would then need more then a bare minimum amount of variance to begin with.

It's not the fantasy "somebody just randomly checked and Talendor was up in SF. Quick everybody, mobilize from your random exp/cash camps spread out around the world and get to SF!!!!" scenario some seem to pine for, and the hate rules because they are rules crowd might not like it....but at least it would be an overall step forward i'm guessing most would end up agreeing with.

Sirken
11-03-2014, 07:47 AM
The general problem with this line of thought Deru is that it more or less ignores the fact that it's the variance issue at the root of the poopsocking to begin with. Which if anything, just offers evidence that the real "fail" in everything you stated was that we didn't think to reduce it enough.

While it may appear that way due to an increased presence, Class R guilds are not poopsocking "more" directly because variance was reduced. They do it because unlike the "business as usual" approach of IB/TMO, the overall commit level that goes into 16 hour windows for them is still viewed as a much larger investment that takes a harder toll on their guilds (especially when they lose). Which in turn just ends up tugging at that always overly tempting (and in most cases, inexperienced) appeal to do anything they believe will absolutely best min/max their chances if/when they do decide to invest that effort. With some Class R guilds (Taken) better equipped and more willing to fight that type of battle then others (Asgard).

Class C on the other hand has mostly abandoned large scale poopsocks, due to the fact that the evolved FTE game has made most of them fairly pointless. I mean outside being on the team in game and going out to get FTE, the only real difference between the one guy who can make the raid to begin with by getting to his pc within 1-2 minutes (longer in more cases), and the other guy sitting in game at the zoneline, is one doesn't need to refresh their buffs :). VS being the only target under normal circumstances that really tempts us to cheat the poopsock count up these days, but even that's mostly negated by the knowledge that the tank running in has a few minutes worth of OP heal stall clickies to buy everybody the run down time we otherwise wouldn't have without them (this in turn only factors in because he still can't be pulled out of his room).

Which again, isn't to say that we don't create our own eye rolling moments for everybody else (and probably you guys) though mind you. Such as buff teams, some of the large scale races to spawn in VP, or seeing the FTE'er count balloon up outside VP when people are awake/bored and nothing else needing tracked happens to be in window.

Of course if you really had that much an issue with any/all of the above, you could pretty much wipe it all away in one stroke by logically taking the same straightforward approach you took combating autofire, and simply extend the 2 tracker/no FTE rule to include a cap on how many people a guild is allowed to have in zone on mob spawn. Pushing most if not all poopsocking as far back as we can ever realistically hope to accomplish (out of game), and presenting the question why we would then need more then a bare minimum amount of variance to begin with.

It's not the fantasy "somebody just randomly checked and Talendor was up in SF. Quick everybody, mobilize from your random exp/cash camps spread out around the world and get to SF!!!!" scenario some seem to pine for, and the hate rules because they are rules crowd might not like it....but at least it would be an overall step forward i'm guessing most would end up agreeing with.

and your entire wall of text ignores the fact that deru pointed out, you guys already agreed to end the socking if we shortened variance. we shortened variance, you guys kept on socking.

why on earth would we do any thing but restore the full variance until you guys hold up to what was originally agreed upon? instead of just following the spirit and intentions of the rules (which all the guild leaders were aware of), you guys try to get as close to the line as possible without actually breaking the technical wording of the rule.