Thought Experiment: How Could Rotations Be Competitive?

[loramin]

I'm tired of "competition vs. rotations" conversations. Fact: some classic EQ raid mobs were competed for, and some weren't. More relevant fact: our benevolent dictators for life want competition ... and it's their server.

But, what if we took a different angle, and asked: how could rotations be competitive?

As a simple example (just to get the ball rolling), what if guilds had "bag limits" on certain targets (eg. only 3 ST key mobs per week). However, to encourage competition the guild that kills their three targets the fastest gets to increase their "bag size" by two for the next week ... while any guild that gets caught violating a server rule loses their entire "bag" for the next cycle.

What other ways could you imagine "competitive rotations"? Perhaps, if we can imagine something awesome, the staff might even try it in the future.

[Elizondo]

It's never been about the game, the content or rotation vs non rotation

It's about the mentality of the players that want to raid at the highest level

Can't change it and never will

[starkind]

As this is a combat game unfettered pvp is the only answer.

[Homesteaded]

Man who has shown a supreme lack of insight into human nature wants to devise a system that bucks all systems of human nature. Good luck.

[starkind]

You have to beat the entitlement to pixels outta ppl otherwise they are just going to be bad actors

[loramin]

Y'all are a bunch of pessimists :(

Surely someone can come up with an interesting idea that promotes competition in a "rotated" environment?

[robayon]

Man who has shown a supreme lack of insight into human nature wants to devise a system that bucks all systems of human nature. Good luck.Negative nancy, not everyone thinks selfishness is a virtue

I realize you have to make it so to reconcile your two faiths with one another, but some people are naturally cooperative and experimental

[Elizondo]

Y'all are a bunch of pessimists :(

Surely someone can come up with an interesting idea that promotes competition in a "rotated" environment?

btvSE6tVHzQ

[robayon]

John Wayne was a pedophile, coward who avoided service in World War 2, raging abusive alcoholic, hypocrite, and a sex trafficker. Look how old Chata was when he cheated on his first wife and met Chata at a brothel

In other words, the perfect conservative idol

[Elizondo]

John Wayne was a pedophile, coward who avoided service in World War 2, raging abusive alcoholic, hypocrite, and a sex trafficker. Look how old Chata was when he cheated on his first wife and met Chata at a brothel

In other words, the perfect conservative idol

Ok Groomer

[Reiwa]

Rolls are a type of competition.

[robayon]

Ok GroomerIt is pretty funny that he got nuked

God punished him for being slime and trying to be Genghis Khan

[Elizondo]

It is pretty funny that he got nuked

God punished him for being slime and trying to be Genghis Khan

Sad Rob just flingin poo

[starkind]

Rolls are a type of competition.

Lotteries wife.

[Old_PVP]

As this is a combat game unfettered pvp is the only answer.

[robayon]

Sad Rob just flingin pooThere's few things more gratifying than shitting on conservatives with facts and seeing them struggle to come up with a meaningful response

[Elizondo]

There's few things more gratifying than shitting on conservatives with facts and seeing them struggle to come up with a meaningful response

Says the guy who claims John Wayne was a pedophile

You're just a pathetic cartoon of a poster, man

Maybe you have him confused with John Wayne Gacy, who was a Democrat

[Nocht]

its funny because rob's first comment is literally the type of reaction that the duke is describing

unhinged liberals are always so hilarious

[Danth]

...

...And here you thought you'd get a serious discussion out of this bunch. Best thing to do, in my opinion, is stop caring about raid loot or the raid game and leave them be in their little self-made jail while folks like us hang out in the rest of the vast game in peace. If you want to raid, do it someplace else that has a more sane ruleset. I'm not interested in trying to come up with anything involving competition in this game because I regard the entire notion of this game being competitive anything as absurd, if not outright stupid. But that's a matter of opinion and theirs obviously differs. Competition aside, the powers-that-be have a particular disdain for rotations so you're advised to re-brand your efforts if you continue.

Danth

[Reiwa]

its funny because rob's first comment is literally the type of reaction that the duke is describing

unhinged liberals are always so hilarious

Yeah neoliberals are annoying.

[MrSparkle001]

John Wayne was a pedophile, coward who avoided service in World War 2, raging abusive alcoholic, hypocrite, and a sex trafficker. Look how old Chata was when he cheated on his first wife and met Chata at a brothel

In other words, the perfect conservative idol

Where is my John Wayne
Where is my prairie song
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone

[robayon]

and just like that, by spitting facts about one dead racist, a bunch of hypocrites get bent out of shape

sorry, fellas, facts don't care about your feelings.

[Mblake1981]

In other words he was one-of-the-crowd in the Hollywood, a liberal stronghold, and was a pedo and racist.

Facts don't care about your feelings either.

Edit: John Waynes greatest sin was not calling himself a liberal, a heretic against the cult.

[robayon]

In other words he was one-of-the-crowd in the Hollywood, a liberal stronghold, and was a pedo and racist.

Facts don't care about your feelings either.Hehe this guy thinks I like Hollywood and limousine liberals just because I criticize the sleazebag John Wayne

I've been to LA once. Good mexican food, I'll give it that

[Mblake1981]

Hehe this guy thinks I like Hollywood and limousine liberals just because I criticize the sleazebag John Wayne

I've been to LA once. Good mexican food, I'll give it that

Wouldn't go speaking for another man like that you vapid ape.

[robayon]

Wouldn't go speaking for another man like that you vapid ape.Let me know when you find another man, then

[Jibartik]

This is a great thread I hope it never dies.

Bill cosby is the fuckin shit i love the cosby show.

[Mblake1981]

This is a great thread I hope it never dies.

Bill cosby is the fuckin shit i love the cosby show.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3005381&postcount=23

[starkind]

Rolls are a type of competition.

So the problem with this is its just gambling.

Time = rewards. Competitively its just time.

Time = money.

Ppl give their money = time for rewards. It's straight up gambling. Rewards = time = money.

Gambling is bad in most jurisdictions.
:o

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm tired of "competition vs. rotations" conversations. Fact: some classic EQ raid mobs were competed for, and some weren't. More relevant fact: our benevolent dictators for life want competition ... and it's their server.

But, what if we took a different angle, and asked: how could rotations be competitive?

As a simple example (just to get the ball rolling), what if guilds had "bag limits" on certain targets (eg. only 3 ST key mobs per week). However, to encourage competition the guild that kills their three targets the fastest gets to increase their "bag size" by two for the next week ... while any guild that gets caught violating a server rule loses their entire "bag" for the next cycle.

What other ways could you imagine "competitive rotations"? Perhaps, if we can imagine something awesome, the staff might even try it in the future.

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to pull off what you are asking. Competition has winners and losers, where-as rotations do NOT have losers. Once you try to add the concept of losers back in to rotations, you basically just end up at competition again lol.

The only thing I could think of would be to revert the game to the way it was before. Whichever guild gets the mob first gets it. There are no bag limits, rotations, etc. However, you would have a "consolation prize" for the guild that came in second. They would get to pick one piece of loot after the winning guild got their top 1 or 2 picks.

However, I think that is a bad idea, because it would be hard to determine who was in "second place", and there would have to be some criteria to prevent a lazy guild from just loot training the "consolation prize". You would need to be able to disqualify the losing guilds from the "consolation prize" if they did not try hard enough.

There is a reason why games are either competitive or rotated (instanced). You just can't really mix them due to their antithetical natures.

[Jibartik]

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to pull off what you are asking. Competition has winners and losers,

yeah cant have competition with only groups of losers.

[YendorLootmonkey]

The only true competition is Red.

No one wants actual true competition.

The only "competition" on Blue/Green is who has the better elf lawyers and/or OBS footage.

Next server release, make a "competitive" server and a "rotation" server. Play on whichever you prefer. Everyone is happy. Except for the competitive people butting heads for the same pixels the rotation people are getting while still maintaining a normal life, and the CSRs who get assigned to the "competitive server".

Same as telling someone to go play a TLP if they want welfare pixels. Except now you could tell them to go play the rotation server if they want welfare pixels. So they don't impact you one bit. Unless the whole point is needing casuals to lord pixels over. Which I suspect it is.

[Reiwa]

PvP is only competitive if you have FV style item loot. 👍

[Smoofers]

Jesus, these fucking threads. Have you tried competing for mobs?

[Jibartik]

I haven't got a square to spare.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Jesus, these fucking threads. Have you tried competing for mobs?

No. Law degrees are fucking expensive.

[loramin]

Unfortunately it's almost impossible to pull off what you are asking. Competition has winners and losers, where-as rotations do NOT have losers. Once you try to add the concept of losers back in to rotations, you basically just end up at competition again lol.

The only thing I could think of would be to revert the game to the way it was before. Whichever guild gets the mob first gets it. There are no bag limits, rotations, etc. However, you would have a "consolation prize" for the guild that came in second. They would get to pick one piece of loot after the winning guild got their top 1 or 2 picks.

However, I think that is a bad idea, because it would be hard to determine who was in "second place", and there would have to be some criteria to prevent a lazy guild from just loot training the "consolation prize". You would need to be able to disqualify the losing guilds from the "consolation prize" if they did not try hard enough.

There is a reason why games are either competitive or rotated (instanced). You just can't really mix them due to their antithetical natures.

While I appreciate your staying on topic, I disagree with "Competition has winners and losers, where-as rotations do NOT have losers".

I mean, c'mon: I gave a very clear example in my initial post of a rotated system with "winners and losers". And I came up with that in five minutes, just to get the ball rolling.

It's not my fault y'all have a serious lack of imagination ... but competitive rotations are absolutely possible. :p Try being creative instead of repeating the same tired arguments over and over (and that's addressed to everyone, not you specifically Deaths).

[Mblake1981]

https://i.imgur.com/bTdbYvr.jpg

[starkind]

Jesus, these fucking threads. Have you tried competing for mobs?

I won everquest back in 2001 and 2011 and 2013

what more do you want me to do? win it again by /rolling on 3 servers?

merge green-red-blue

launch FVRPPVP teams and remove exp penalty for death and shit don't arbitrate mob camps or kill stealing or training and call it a day -- at the very least ezmode

never launching velious would be a +

[Reiwa]

launch FVRPPVP teams

[DeathsSilkyMist]

While I appreciate your staying on topic, I disagree with "Competition has winners and losers, where-as rotations do NOT have losers".

I mean, c'mon: I gave a very clear example in my initial post of a rotated system with "winners and losers". And I came up with that in five minutes, just to get the ball rolling.

It's not my fault y'all have a serious lack of imagination ... but competitive rotations are absolutely possible. :p Try being creative instead of repeating the same tired arguments over and over (and that's addressed to everyone, not you specifically Deaths).

No offense taken! I disagree with the premise your example actually blends competition and rotations. Basically bag limits are rotations that turn on and off. So you aren't blending competiton and rotations, you are just switching between the two. Your example simply changes the frequency of bag limits.

[JDAm0nk]

I find it interesting how a segment of the player base seems so hung up on the idea that "competition" is essential for an enjoyable EverQuest experience. Like it validates and justifies their spending 30+ hours awake camping legacy items and/or shitting in a sock. In a completely meaningless, artificially handicapped setting. Lost in it all is a sense of community. Which, to me at least, was always one of the most important aspects of EverQuest & MMOs. And has anyone who has played on Green for an extended period ever honestly said, "yeah, this community rocks"? It wasn't my experience. This thread on the Blue forum (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3457818#post3457818) shows older members of the community mourning what the project's culture has devolved into - "a greedy affair." Seems to be closely related with these concepts of competition.

(Saying this, I hope other people have had nothing but positive experiences with the community here. As the most visible + popular EQemu, I hope it continues to succeed. I caught Sugz's stream yesterday where someone was saying they had lost their 22 bard's corpse at the bottom of TD and didn't know how to get it back. I ran over, emptied out my bank (17kpp), and gave them all my 57 bard's equipment - not great but probably ~20-30kpp's worth. I hope they have a grand ol' time and pay it forward when they get the chance. But certainly leveling up two toons 50+ was enough time spent on these servers for me.)

[Jibartik]

What if you had a system where you split the raid bosses into different leagues to balance competition, and force mobs to be left up for the slower guilds.

Naggy, vox, gore idk level 1 raid bosses

Level 2 raid bosses

Level 3 raid bosses

And your guild would be ranked, and you could only compete for raid bosses in your tier against other guilds that are in that tier.

If you ever down all the mobs on a tier then you are moved up a rank or something? If you failed to down a mob during a cycle you would be moved down a tier.

That been tried before?

[Danth]

I find it interesting how a segment of the player base seems so hung up on the idea that "competition" is essential for an enjoyable EverQuest experience.

It's less about competition--I've never seen a losing side say they love competition--so much as it's about the feeling of "winning" something and having control over one's virtual life. I know many (hundreds, at this point) of the top-end players who've come and gone pretty well after going on 13 years here. The large majority are exactly what you'd expect--drug addicts, mentally ill, drunkards, forever-aloner's, divorcees, a few high-functioning mentally challenged, under- or unemployed, layoffs, the occasional retiree, a smattering of college students, and generally people who's real lives are trainwrecks or at least incomplete/missing something in some fashion. In many cases they desperately need EQ because it's a refuge and it's the only bright spot they have. So I'm okay with letting them have it, they need it more than I do. I won't name names since I do actually like quite a few of these people, and for a *lot* of them P99 was a transitory thing and they later pulled their lives together. I'm not going to kick a man for being down at some point because most of us go through hard times sooner or later.

------------------------------------------

You want competition without rotations, that's easy: Everything respawns on scheduled weekly downtime, with occasional unscheduled quakes (as we already have) to maintain the batphone aspect. To hell with variance and staring at walls. You do that, everyone knows it's coming and is ready for it and you don't need rotations to ensure one guild doesn't gobble everything up. You're certain to have plenty of guilds fighting over pixels. Doubt the staff wants the petition workload it'd generate, though. I sure wouldn't. The present ruleset is the result of many years of trying to maintain competition while minimizing staff workload, two seemingly contrary goals.


Danth

[Mblake1981]

It's less about competition--I've never seen a losing side say they love competition--so much as it's about the feeling of "winning" something and having control over one's virtual life. I know many (hundreds, at this point) of the top-end players who've come and gone pretty well after going on 13 years here. The large majority are exactly what you'd expect--drug addicts, mentally ill, drunkards, forever-aloner's, divorcees, a few high-functioning mentally challenged, under- or unemployed, layoffs, the occasional retiree, a smattering of college students, and generally people who's real lives are trainwrecks or at least incomplete/missing something in some fashion.

Danth

What will we name our new video game studio.

[Danth]

What will we name our new video game studio.

The wife has spent about the past ten years or so insisting she'd love to make a game. She has a vision for one, at least. That's about as far as it'll go since neither of us are coders, I'd just as soon hit my PC with a hammer as try to program something, and she is blissfully unaware of the scope of such a project.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am not sure why people think competition is bad. We have plenty of games that revolve around competition, Basketball, Chess, Etc. If you don't like those games, don't play them. Everquest has competition built into it, which isn't a bad thing.

[Reiwa]

I am not sure why people think competition is bad. We have plenty of games that revolve around competition, Basketball, Chess, Etc. If you don't like those games, don't play them. Everquest has competition built into it, which isn't a bad thing.

Why is competition good for those things and why is it good for EverQuest? What is measured?

[loramin]

I find it interesting how a segment of the player base seems so hung up on the idea that "competition" is essential for an enjoyable EverQuest experience.

As I said in my opening post, it's not about the players. Rogean and Nilbog want competition: it doesn't matter what anyone else wants, because they make the server and set its rules.

[Mblake1981]

Why is competition good for those things and why is it good for EverQuest? What is measured?

quantifying fun?

[Reiwa]

quantifying fun?

DKP?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why is competition good for those things and why is it good for EverQuest? What is measured?

Competition has been a part of human games for thousands of years. There's something we like about it, or it wouldn't be a key component of games anymore.

[Reiwa]

Competition has been a part of human games for thousands of years. There's something we like about it, or it wouldn't be a key component of games anymore.

What is measured by competition in EverQuest?

[Ooloo]

What is measured by competition in EverQuest?

Being good at everquest

[Ooloo]

For some reason people think EQ requires no skill but then also moan all day about how hard it is to win

[Reiwa]

Being good at everquest

How to be good at Everquest? Press buttons in a certain sequence to receive a reward? (https://psychology.uiowa.edu/comparative-cognition-laboratory/glossary/skinner-box#:~:text=A%20Skinner%20Box%20is%20a,the%20chamb er%20as%20a%20reinforcer.)

[Ooloo]

How to be good at Everquest? Press buttons in a certain sequence to receive a reward? (https://psychology.uiowa.edu/comparative-cognition-laboratory/glossary/skinner-box#:~:text=A%20Skinner%20Box%20is%20a,the%20chamb er%20as%20a%20reinforcer.)

Haha you asked what competition measures in EQ and I told you. Thanks for the psyche lesson though.

[Reiwa]

Haha you asked what competition measures in EQ and I told you. Thanks for the psyche lesson though.

The rodent is proud of himself.

[Jibartik]

How to be good at Everquest? Press buttons in a certain sequence to receive a reward? (https://psychology.uiowa.edu/comparative-cognition-laboratory/glossary/skinner-box#:~:text=A%20Skinner%20Box%20is%20a,the%20chamb er%20as%20a%20reinforcer.)

thats more like wow

eq is exploit features in a certain sequence.

[Ooloo]

Jib nobody is talking about cheating though. Obviously I have nothing but sympathy for the people who have to deal with petitions about cheating in the game, but the idea is that *they are cheating*. This isn't 'nam, there are rules. Abide the rules and see who wins, it really is a primal and timeless human instinct.

[Ooloo]

The rodent is proud of himself.

Why shouldn't he be? Sorry you don't got mouse maze treats.

[Elizondo]

Jib nobody is talking about cheating though. Obviously I have nothing but sympathy for the people who have to deal with petitions about cheating in the game, but the idea is that *they are cheating*. This isn't 'nam, there are rules. Abide the rules and see who wins, it really is a primal and timeless human instinct.

Tell Walter, I'm sorry

[Ooloo]

Also I do like OP's idea..

[Reiwa]

Why shouldn't he be? Sorry you don't got mouse maze treats.

https://i.imgur.com/aea6oBx.jpeg

[JDAm0nk]

It's less about competition--I've never seen a losing side say they love competition--so much as it's about the feeling of "winning" something and having control over one's virtual life. I know many (hundreds, at this point) of the top-end players who've come and gone pretty well after going on 13 years here. The large majority are exactly what you'd expect--drug addicts, mentally ill, drunkards, forever-aloner's, divorcees, a few high-functioning mentally challenged, under- or unemployed, layoffs, the occasional retiree, a smattering of college students, and generally people who's real lives are trainwrecks or at least incomplete/missing something in some fashion. In many cases they desperately need EQ because it's a refuge and it's the only bright spot they have. So I'm okay with letting them have it, they need it more than I do. I won't name names since I do actually like quite a few of these people, and for a *lot* of them P99 was a transitory thing and they later pulled their lives together. I'm not going to kick a man for being down at some point because most of us go through hard times sooner or later.

Well said!

I am also sympathetic to a lot of these issues. The last couple of years especially have been extremely difficult for a lot of people. It's understandable to want a bit of an escape. I'm never going to judge anyone for "no-lifing" EQ. If there is a safe space for obsessive EQ nerdery, these communities should be it IMO. But I do think that P99's community is really, really selling EQemu short. Not so much because the devs (seemingly) want to keep their database + code changes private and closed sourced. More so because there is almost a Stockholm Syndrome here where people are firmly fixed that this is the one, true way to (properly) play EQ. And the project's longevity and popularity has made it to where a lot of people are starting to associate that P99 is 'Classic EQ.'

So while I'm happy to let them "have" their server, I'm a little resentful of their broader claims to the franchise and/or community. My experience with EQ has ran from 2000-2001 & then 2020-now, so I have the nostalgic hook but there is a lot to EQ that I've never seen. I think a lot of people like me are drawn into P99 - Live is so overwhelming and intimidating - and although P99 can be fun, it doesn't have to be the end all be all. You can enjoy EverQuest without having to dedicate your life to it and you do not have to play on an overcrowded server with a greedy culture and limited content. Even if you're chasing the classic EQ dragon :)

[loramin]

Well said!

I am also sympathetic to a lot of these issues. The last couple of years especially have been extremely difficult for a lot of people. It's understandable to want a bit of an escape. I'm never going to judge anyone for "no-lifing" EQ. If there is a safe space for obsessive EQ nerdery, these communities should be it IMO. But I do think that P99's community is really, really selling EQemu short. Not so much because the devs (seemingly) want to keep their database + code changes private and closed sourced. More so because there is almost a Stockholm Syndrome here where people are firmly fixed that this is the one, true way to (properly) play EQ. And the project's longevity and popularity has made it to where a lot of people are starting to associate that P99 is 'Classic EQ.'

So while I'm happy to let them "have" their server, I'm a little resentful of their broader claims to the franchise and/or community. My experience with EQ has ran from 2000-2001 & then 2020-now, so I have the nostalgic hook but there is a lot to EQ that I've never seen. I think a lot of people like me are drawn into P99 - Live is so overwhelming and intimidating - and although P99 can be fun, it doesn't have to be the end all be all. You can enjoy EverQuest without having to dedicate your life to it and you do not have to play on an overcrowded server with a greedy culture and limited content. Even if you're chasing the classic EQ dragon :)

I think it's the single boxing, not a slavish adherence to R&N's beliefs.

95% of this server (in my completely unscientific estimation) doesn't share the beliefs of its founders. The majority of the player base wants Luclin (and PoP!), wants instancing, wants DoT damage displayed, etc.

But no other EQ Emu server offers single boxing, and every non-single-boxed server is ... a bunch of nerds automating their playing of multiple boxes (which isn't really EQ).

[Ooloo]

I think it's the single boxing, not a slavish adherence to R&N's beliefs.

95% of this server (in my completely unscientific estimation) doesn't share the beliefs of its founders. The majority of the player base wants Luclin (and PoP!), wants instancing, wants DoT damage displayed, etc.

But no other EQ Emu server offers single boxing, and every non-single-boxed server is ... a bunch of nerds automating their playing of multiple boxes (which isn't really EQ).

I know what you mean but I don't think it's close to 95%. I think much closer to a 50/50 split.

I mean some people on the server want luclin, and some people meticulously research what isn't classic and report it like a hall monitor.

I definitely don't want luclin. I could maybe go for PoP with heavy modification like no pok. I always thought PoP made more sense as an expansion after Velious; they added two new planes in Velious, it's just logical that the next expansion would be ALL new planes instead of mooncats and weird sci-fi crossover concepts.

[loramin]

I know what you mean but I don't think it's close to 95%. I think much closer to a 50/50 split.

I mean some people on the server want luclin, and some people meticulously research what isn't classic and report it like a hall monitor.

I definitely don't want luclin. I could maybe go for PoP with heavy modification like no pok. I always thought PoP made more sense as an expansion after Velious; they added two new planes in Velious, it's just logical that the next expansion would be ALL new planes instead of mooncats and weird sci-fi crossover concepts.

Right, well 95% was just my guesstimate, and obviously it will vary depending on which exact issue you pick (eg. PoP likely has greater support than Luclin).

But my point was that we don't all play on P99 (and ignore the rest of EQ Emu) because we agree about everything with R&N ... we do it because this is the only server that actually feels like EverQuest, and not a "how good are you at programming bots?" server.

[zati]

that's tall order for a game that wasn't even suppose to be competitive in the first place by the original creators. racing not even classic. in 99' multiple live servers with over 1k population and racing for "first-time-ever kills" was the so-called 'competition'. end game on p99 is jus an evolution of neckbeards setting the rules on the game board

not saying it ain't impossible, but its 2022 and since the server came out there hasn't been a great solution besides FTE it or a full-time GM babysitting a bunch of 30-50 yr olds. without gm intervention to code in some non-classic stuff you'll just end up right back to fte's or some troublesome intricate rules that would put off any new raiders from wanting to play. (too many rules to follow)

my stance is.. If you wanna really truly desire to raid endgame either join the top 2(3?) guilds, accept the unfavorable fate of tracking,batphones,dkp hoarders,neckbeards etc. stop trying to make an unfair game-"fair" you'll just break the thing is the sad truth after playing on this server for 7 yrs lol

[zati]

going off topic here sorta:

we need server-wide fte/kill messages that can be filtered in its own channel. there's no point to keeping spawn timers when quakes r abundant and dbl fte is a concern. it will give neckbeards something to feel good about, spawntimers for not-so competitive guilds, verifying no dbl fte by same guild occurs w/o gm investigation. /shrug

[JDAm0nk]

I think it's the single boxing, not a slavish adherence to R&N's beliefs.

95% of this server (in my completely unscientific estimation) doesn't share the beliefs of its founders. The majority of the player base wants Luclin (and PoP!), wants instancing, wants DoT damage displayed, etc.

But no other EQ Emu server offers single boxing, and every non-single-boxed server is ... a bunch of nerds automating their playing of multiple boxes (which isn't really EQ).

I would agree that the single boxing is a huge draw here. And most people running servers (understandably) don't want the headache of trying to enforce that policy.

FWIW, Secrets has been streaming a new single box PoP-locked server that they're testing:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1489604182

It looks like there are a number of changes that will put 'EQ purists' off (myself included :D) but I appreciate all his work on EQ(emu), think all the innovation is cool, and I hope it sticks around for awhile.

[Jibartik]

most people want faster horses too.

[loramin]

that's tall order for a game that wasn't even suppose to be competitive in the first place by the original creators. racing not even classic. in 99' multiple live servers with over 1k population and racing for "first-time-ever kills" was the so-called 'competition'. end game on p99 is jus an evolution of neckbeards setting the rules on the game board

not saying it ain't impossible, but its 2022 and since the server came out there hasn't been a great solution besides FTE it or a full-time GM babysitting a bunch of 30-50 yr olds. without gm intervention to code in some non-classic stuff you'll just end up right back to fte's or some troublesome intricate rules that would put off any new raiders from wanting to play. (too many rules to follow)

my stance is.. If you wanna really truly desire to raid endgame either join the top 2(3?) guilds, accept the unfavorable fate of tracking,batphones,dkp hoarders,neckbeards etc. stop trying to make an unfair game-"fair" you'll just break the thing is the sad truth after playing on this server for 7 yrs lol

No one said anything about "fair": I just asked about competitive rotations.

Such rotations are simply a different way of handling the fact that we have more players than raid mobs ... not necessarily a more "fair" way.

[Homesteaded]

I think two servers is the only viable solution.

[sessual]

I'm tired of "competition vs. rotations" conversations. Fact: some classic EQ raid mobs were competed for, and some weren't. More relevant fact: our benevolent dictators for life want competition ... and it's their server.

But, what if we took a different angle, and asked: how could rotations be competitive?

As a simple example (just to get the ball rolling), what if guilds had "bag limits" on certain targets (eg. only 3 ST key mobs per week). However, to encourage competition the guild that kills their three targets the fastest gets to increase their "bag size" by two for the next week ... while any guild that gets caught violating a server rule loses their entire "bag" for the next cycle.

What other ways could you imagine "competitive rotations"? Perhaps, if we can imagine something awesome, the staff might even try it in the future.

I think your method definitely adds a competitive aspect to rotations. I'm not sure its enticing enough to make current raid guilds see it as viable. But rotations themselves are by nature designed to remove competition.

Also, and I think this is an important detail, the top two guilds will likely never allow / agree to any form of rotation, because it directly conflicts with one of the secondary goals of killing raid mobs, denying the other guild the opportunity to collect loot.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No one said anything about "fair": I just asked about competitive rotations.

Such rotations are simply a different way of handling the fact that we have more players than raid mobs ... not necessarily a more "fair" way.

Again, you can't have "competitive rotations". Competitions and rotations are antithetical. You're example you gave at the beginning of the thread was bag limits, which is switching between competitions and rotations, rather than blending the two into "competitive rotations".

The biggest issue with your example (besides what I mentioned above), is that kill speed is heavily determined by how many people you can bring on average to the raid. So basically the biggest guild would always win the "competition" and get their higher bag limit. It would also further incentivize creating one giant guild who always wins, lowering competition. If the bag limit increase is unlimited, then you end up back where we were before bag limits, and if the bag limit is simply increased once, then that is the new bag limit.

As I stated before, the only way you could blend the two is something like a consolation prize. You keep up the competition because the killer of the raid mob gets first picks at the loot. That is the incentive to place first. But the second place guild gets a "consolation prize". You are effectively rotating the loot between the two top guilds, but sometimes an underdog could claim the "consolation prize" too. However, I don't like the idea, as it would be a headache to figure out who was in second place.

Honestly the server was much better when Dragons were unrooted, pushing mobs was a thing, and clickies were un-nerfed. We had FOUR guilds competing in ToV. Kittens, Azure Guard, Aftermath, and Riot. You had two casual guilds and two top guilds to pick from to try and get loot. It was a much better system in terms of smaller guilds being able to snag mobs without a massive response team. That ability for smaller guilds to compete with bigger guilds is what allowed for guild diversity. With rooted dragons, the push nerf, and the clickie nerfs, you are now basically required to have a large guild if you want to kill the bigger targets, which means small guilds basically cannot compete.

[Jibartik]

pretty sure having leagues creates competition, and has rotations.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

pretty sure having leagues creates competition, and has rotations.

Leagues wouldn't work in P99 because the game doesn't work quite the same way as a purely competitive game, like bowling. In bowling everybody is playing the exact same game, the same number of times, and the winner is determined by overall score. Also, it isn't a "rotation" in the same sense as P99, because there is only one grand prize winner in a league. It isn't like everybody in the league gets the grand prize rotated to them without having to do anything.

To mimic this in P99 with the existing rules, you would have to create a mini-game within P99 that can be played multiple times before the winner of the mob is determined. For example, multiple foot races to the same raid mob, and the lowest aggregated time would win the mob. I don't think that would be very fun though.

The reason why you would have to create a mini-game like this is because the respawn times on the mobs are just too long. If you wanted a weekly league that determined which guild earned the mob's loot that is more in keeping with core gameplay mechanics, you would probably need to have custom content that respawns the raid boss every day WITHOUT loot, and the guild who kills them the most times in the week gets the loot.

[Jibartik]

hmm, you just make it so

x, x x and x, mobs are league 1 and you can only engague those mobs if your guild is in league 1 and as soon as the spawn, anyone in league 1 can engage whenever they can but regular engament rules apply

y y y and y are league 2 same rules above apply

and then mobs AAAAA are epic raid loot.

make a rule that epic raid guilds can kill 1 mob from each rotation below or let GM's change the mobs in each league every month so everyone has a shot at everytning that they'd need.

This way there is still competition, but it's not 1 guild stomping on everyone.

if you want to move up a league just down a mob in that league and then you're up untnil you dont down something for 3 full rotations or something.

[loramin]

Again, you can't have "competitive rotations". Competitions and rotations are antithetical. You're example you gave at the beginning of the thread was bag limits, which is switching between competitions and rotations, rather than blending the two into "competitive rotations".

You're being pedantic. From context I thought it was pretty clear that "rotations" meant "GM enforcement of raid limits" ... but in case it wasn't, let me be explicit.

The biggest issue with your example (besides what I mentioned above), is that kill speed is heavily determined by how many people you can bring on average to the raid. So basically the biggest guild would always win the "competition" and get their higher bag limit. It would also further incentivize creating one giant guild who always wins, lowering competition. If the bag limit increase is unlimited, then you end up back where we were before bag limits, and if the bag limit is simply increased once, then that is the new bag limit.

As I stated before, the only way you could blend the two is something like a consolation prize. You keep up the competition because the killer of the raid mob gets first picks at the loot. That is the incentive to place first. But the second place guild gets a "consolation prize". You are effectively rotating the loot between the two top guilds, but sometimes an underdog could claim the "consolation prize" too. However, I don't like the idea, as it would be a headache to figure out who was in second place.

Now you're theorycrafting! Again, my example was meant to be a dead stupid one just to get the conversation started, and you've identified a legitimate weakness in the overall system it would create (it would prioritize zerg guilds over regular ones).

But I don't think it means the idea is impossible, I think it just means no one is being creative and proposing something new and interesting yet.

Honestly the server was much better when Dragons were unrooted, pushing mobs was a thing, and clickies were un-nerfed. We had FOUR guilds competing in ToV. Kittens, Azure Guard, Aftermath, and Riot. You had two casual guilds and two top guilds to pick from to try and get loot. It was a much better system in terms of smaller guilds being able to snag mobs without a massive response team. That ability for smaller guilds to compete with bigger guilds is what allowed for guild diversity. With rooted dragons, the push nerf, and the clickie nerfs, you are now basically required to have a large guild if you want to kill the bigger targets, which means small guilds basically cannot compete.

Now you're just rehashing the same tired arguments we've had a million times here ... but we've had them a million times already! Let's stick to theorycrafting something new instead in this thread.

[loramin]

hmm, you just make it so

x, x x and x, mobs are league 1 and you can only engague those mobs if your guild is in league 1 and as soon as the spawn, anyone in league 1 can engage whenever they can but regular engament rules apply

y y y and y are league 2 same rules above apply

and then mobs AAAAA are epic raid loot.

make a rule that epic raid guilds can kill 1 mob from each rotation below or let GM's change the mobs in each league every month so everyone has a shot at everytning that they'd need.

This way there is still competition, but it's not 1 guild stomping on everyone.

if you want to move up a league just down a mob in that league and then you're up untnil you dont down something for 3 full rotations or something.

Now we're theorycrafting! And actually this sounds kinda vaguely like the old Class C and Class R system we had for a bit here.

[Jibartik]

Yeah Im not sure if it is (the old system) i cant remember how it worked but it seems like it was like that at one point? why did it change?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're being pedantic. From context I thought it was pretty clear that "rotations" meant "GM enforcement of raid limits" ... but in case it wasn't, let me be explicit.

I am not being pedantic. In P99 "rotations" does have a very specific definition, which is: "There is a list of qualified guilds, and they take turns killing the raid content." There is no competition in "rotations", because "rotations" are a primitive form of instancing, designed to remove the need to compete for a non-instanced raid boss.

There really isn't much wiggle room for this definition without custom changes to P99, because any form of the GM's telling Guild A they can kill a mob, but Guild B cannot is a form of rotations, just with a different ruleset. I do understand that you are asking for a "competitive" ruleset within "rotations", but it is just not really possible, due to their antithetical nature. "Rotations" in the context of P99 are designed specifically to remove competition.


Now you're theorycrafting! Again, my example was meant to be a dead stupid one just to get the conversation started, and you've identified a legitimate weakness in the overall system it would create (it would prioritize zerg guilds over regular ones).

But I don't think it means the idea is impossible, I think it just means no one is being creative and proposing something new and interesting yet.


I think the issue here is you are making a request that is too constrained. You want there to be some form of "rotations" that have "competition" without the heavy use of custom content. There just isn't any wiggle room there.


Now you're just rehashing the same tired arguments we've had a million times here ... but we've had them a million times already! Let's stick to theorycrafting something new instead in this thread.

I am indeed, because we did have a better system before that worked within P99's framework. I don't see why that is an invalid thing to suggest, as it basically worked better than our current system, and is approaching what you are actually asking for, which is a way in which smaller guilds can get content. That is your real end goal when asking for "competitive rotations", you are looking for a way to avoid one top guild dominating all the content.

[Gustoo]

Deleted comment because not constructive.

[Ooloo]

Silky still spitting truth. Get good, and yes I failed to get good so I don't gots warder loot. That's hardly why I play the game though, and I think it's hardly why most people play, even the neckbeards.

[loramin]

I am not being pedantic.

Yes, you are. "Rotations" in this forum can literally mean "content rotated on a schedule" (eg. Thursday is Foo Guild's Plane of Sky night) ... or it can mean "any system where GMs constrain raiders instead of just letting them 'race' to the content" (aka "FTE"). In context, I meant the latter.

It's like if I said "how can we make carriages less shitty?" ... and you respond with "you can't, because carriages have horses in front of them and horses shit". Yes, I understand the word "carriage" can mean the kind with a horse in front, but it can also mean a "horseless carriage" (ie. car).

You have a choice: you can write essays about how I'm "using the word wrong", because you like your particular definition of carriage and can't imagine anyone else using the word any other way (like a robot) ... or you can try (like a human being) to understand what I'm trying to say, interpret the word in context, and write an essay about a competitive GM-enforced system.

[Ooloo]

Account sharing is still the one thing that throws a wrench in the whole analysis of old EQ, but there's literally no way to prevent that here. Everyone will have a preference as to which original live server they played on and how the meta developed on that server. Which is fine, but we only have one server here (green, which has blown blue out of the water like every day since forever sorry; crappy UI notwithstanding cause that's kinda part of the game).

[Ooloo]

If I wasn't jealous of people who have cool looking stuff, it wouldn't be EQ. And I wouldn't really feel jealous if I just got it for free.

Thanks but no thanks for the lvl 80 winged mount fairy or whatever that I started with in EQ2 when I randomly signed up, kinda felt like a used car salesman selling me a piece of shit.

[Fammaden]

I am not sure why people think competition is bad. We have plenty of games that revolve around competition, Basketball, Chess, Etc. If you don't like those games, don't play them. Everquest has competition built into it, which isn't a bad thing.

Yes, and other competitive events like that have rules and enforcement in real time by a third party arbiter. Referees, umpires, judges, etc.

The biggest issues plaguing the raid scene are that we have rules that aren't enforced and the players aren't monitored or penalized. And when they are enforced its months later, which is not helpful in behavioral shaping when punishments aren't dealt in a timely manner.

With all due respect to our overworked and underappreciated volunteer staff (who believe it or not have a lot of other shit to do that's unrelated to raiding), the raid game is totally lacking in this enforcement that's necessary for head-to-head competition.

This is not a controversial take. Basically every raider agrees with this issue, doesn't matter if you're Vanq or Riot, Seal/Force or Kingdom/Safe, everyone agrees this is a problem. They only disagree on who should be getting the most penalty flags thrown at them.

Because the raid scene is lacking the needed officiating, its not valid to hold up competitive raiding as some sort of virtue on P99. Competitions need straightforward and consistent rulebooks with someone ensuring that both teams are playing by the rules at all times, or it devolves into a chaotic race to the bottom.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, you are. "Rotations" in this forum can literally mean "content rotated on a schedule" (eg. Thursday is Foo Guild's Plane of Sky night) ... or it can mean "any system where GMs constrain raiders instead of just letting them 'race' to the content" (aka "FTE"). In context, I meant the latter.

You have a choice: you can write essays about how I'm "using the word wrong", because you like your particular definition of carriage and can't imagine anyone else using the word any other way (like a robot) ... or you can try (like a human being) to understand what I'm trying to say, interpret the word in context, and write an essay about a competitive GM-enforced system.


No, I am not. The problem is you are making new definitions of the word "rotation", and just assuming everybody agrees with them, without prior consent. You do this a lot on these forums. You have ideas in your head about what something means, and then you attack anybody who doesn't hold those same ideas. If you want to be understood properly, you need to write more than a few sentences, and stop making assumptions that people always know what you are talking about.

The problem isn't me being a robot, the problem is you are making wild assumptions about what you think people know, both in terms of your definitions, and what's going on in your head. You should really try writing a few more sentences. While you think a few sentences are an "essay", I guarantee you they are not:)


It's like if I said "how can we make carriages less shitty?" ... and you respond with "you can't, because carriages have horses in front of them and horses shit". Yes, I understand the word "carriage" can mean the kind with a horse in front, but it can also mean a "horseless carriage" (ie. car).

This is incorrect. If you ask "how can we make carriages less shitty?, most people these days would assume you mean horse drawn carriages, not cars. You are correct that cars were referred to as "horseless carriages" in the past, but that is not normal terminology these days, and you shouldn't assume most people are going to make that connection. This is exactly the problem I am talking about above. You have this strange assumption that the vast majority of people in 2022 would refer to a car as a "horseless carriage" lol.

Finally, your choice of words does matter if you write short, succinct sentences, because that changes the entire context of your question. The normal definition of a "rotation" is what I already mentioned. Do not blame me for not knowing about your customized definition of what rotations are.

[Danth]

Account sharing is still the one thing that throws a wrench in the whole analysis of old EQ, but there's literally no way to prevent that here.

Some other video game emulators use custom launchers that tie accounts to individual computers as a solution to that issue.

-----------------------------------

The biggest issues plaguing the raid scene are that we have rules that aren't enforced and the players aren't monitored or penalized. And when they are enforced its months later, which is not helpful in behavioral shaping when punishments aren't dealt in a timely manner.

That's not just an issue with the raid scene. GMs are barely seen anymore and it's been clear for awhile that there aren't enough staff manhours available for them to properly maintain the existing ruleset. I don't think there's a good solution to it. At its fundamental level this game was designed around the assumption of having fulltime professional customer support and we don't have that here.

Danth

[Reiwa]

Why not just set a gatekeeper competition mob for rotation entry?

Compete for that and save everyone the trouble of bearding for Zlezax or whatever dragon has bad item, as an example.

[zati]

ok so posky is on rotation already; perhaps we start there.. and we reorder OP's original tall order to.... can posky be competitive ? then replace those slowly to other raid targets

only thing i can think of without any implementation of unclassic stuff is:

guild that clears x isles quick as possible (timetrial)
guild that clears x isles wit least amount of people (minimalist)
guild that clears x least amount of player deaths (survivalist)
guild that clears x with no clerics or some whacky class combination (explorer)
guild that clears x wit lower lvl avg (adventurer)

Prob more examples but then it just raises the question.

How do you validate these things?
Who is in charge of compiling all the data?
What rewards are appropriate?
Have the changes increase players desire to raid?

^ now requires gm intervention to answer because people lie and needs unclassic coding --> hours of disputing on discord --> back to square 1 /shrug

[Ooloo]

Some other video game emulators use custom launchers that tie accounts to individual computers as a solution to that issue.


Yeah it's almost like there's a million ways around that, some of which are totally legitimate; like hey I'm just playing my normal account on a different computer. There are a million reasons people might change computers, and thus mac addresses. Which is why the box test here is just getting two people to do a very simple thing at the same time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

ok so posky is on rotation already; perhaps we start there.. and we reorder OP's original tall order to.... can posky be competitive ? then replace those slowly to other raid targets

only thing i can think of without any implementation of unclassic stuff is:

guild that clears x isles quick as possible (timetrial)
guild that clears x isles wit least amount of people (minimalist)
guild that clears x least amount of player deaths (survivalist)
guild that clears x with no clerics or some whacky class combination (explorer)
guild that clears x wit lower lvl avg (adventurer)

Prob more examples but then it just raises the question.

How do you validate these things?
Who is in charge of compiling all the data?
What rewards are appropriate?
Have the changes increase players desire to raid?

^ now requires gm intervention to answer because people lie and needs unclassic coding --> hours of disputing on discord --> back to square 1 /shrug

The issue with PoSky is the keys. That is the only reason why it is rotated. To make PoSky competitive, you would need to either make keys permanent, or have more keys drop. Both are non-classic changes, so that is the first hurtle.

For your specific suggestions:

1. Any time challenge is typically player number based, rather than skill based. Why? Because unless your raid is extremely unorganized or bad at the content, 60 players are going to clear content much faster than 40 players. If the intent of "competitive rotations" is to get lower skill, lower player count guilds into the mix, time challenges are out. The top two guilds would win the vast majority of the time.

2. The minimalist challenge is interesting, but again it is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. Unless you are on a server where everybody is equally geared or equally unfamiliar with PoSky, the big guilds would win in a minimalist competition. Why? Because they have top tier raid gear, which means they can typically clear things faster than normal/undergeared players. So ironically the only way to win the minimalist competition is to have all of the best gear, which you can't get because you are a smaller and/or less skilled guild.

3. Survialist has the same issue. More people = less deaths. Why? Because you can just bring a lot more clerics/druids/Shamans to keep players alive. You can also bring more DPS to kill mobs faster than they can kill you.

4. Explorer is similar to the minimalist challenge in the sense that the better geared you are, the better you would do, and the top guild is always going to be better geared.

5. Low level also has the same issue, since the top guild can twink.

[zati]

^nicely detailed, exactly. you get it. It doesn't have to be posky either. it's the game itself won't let you make rotations "competitive" without GM literally changing stuff at the base layer. we're back to square 1 no matter how many times or imaginative someone could be to spin it. I would love to be proven wrong if someone has legitimate ideas w/o GM hand holding throughout its process. until then im just gonna play EQ my way and if i desire to neckbeard to get x items you gotta just accept the terms n conditions that come along with endgame raiding

[DeathsSilkyMist]

^nicely detailed, exactly. you get it. It doesn't have to be posky either. it's the game itself won't let you make rotations "competitive" without GM literally changing stuff at the base layer. we're back to square 1 no matter how many times or imaginative someone could be to spin it. I would love to be proven wrong if someone has legitimate ideas w/o GM hand holding throughout its process. until then im just gonna play EQ my way and if i desire to neckbeard to get x items you gotta just accept the terms n conditions that come along with endgame raiding

Agreed!

[Ooloo]

If we could somehow solve human nature I think we could make the idyllic p99

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why not just set a gatekeeper competition mob for rotation entry?

Compete for that and save everyone the trouble of bearding for Zlezax or whatever dragon has bad item, as an example.

We tried that I believe with Vindi, since he is one of the only fast respawning raid mobs. Unfortunately the vast majority of raid mobs cannot be gate keeper mobs, due to their slow respawn rate. We would need some kind of custom content that allowed you to take your "rotation trial" whenever you wanted to. For example, spawning raid mobs in the Arena zone and letting the new guild fight them.

The core problem with rotations (besides a lack of competition) is you incentivize people to make a bunch of splinter guilds who meet the minimum requirement for rotation entry.

This basically makes rotations extremely unfun, because you could have 10+ guilds in the rotation. That means you basically get to kill raid boss X 5 times a year lol, and that assumes raid boss X even drops the item you are looking for in those 5 times.

The problem with rotations that lengthy is it disincentives people from playing the game while their rotation is on cooldown. So you are going to end up with more spikes of low population periods, which really hurts the health of the server.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, and other competitive events like that have rules and enforcement in real time by a third party arbiter. Referees, umpires, judges, etc.

The biggest issues plaguing the raid scene are that we have rules that aren't enforced and the players aren't monitored or penalized. And when they are enforced its months later, which is not helpful in behavioral shaping when punishments aren't dealt in a timely manner.

With all due respect to our overworked and underappreciated volunteer staff (who believe it or not have a lot of other shit to do that's unrelated to raiding), the raid game is totally lacking in this enforcement that's necessary for head-to-head competition.

This is not a controversial take. Basically every raider agrees with this issue, doesn't matter if you're Vanq or Riot, Seal/Force or Kingdom/Safe, everyone agrees this is a problem. They only disagree on who should be getting the most penalty flags thrown at them.

Because the raid scene is lacking the needed officiating, its not valid to hold up competitive raiding as some sort of virtue on P99. Competitions need straightforward and consistent rulebooks with someone ensuring that both teams are playing by the rules at all times, or it devolves into a chaotic race to the bottom.

I do agree with your assessment here. But the answer is quite simple: Remove the rules that require GM intervention, and let the players govern themselves. Yes, there will be a few weeks of people going wild and training other guilds ad-nauseum. But eventually everybody would get tired of it (including the trainers), and the players would govern themselves.

The staff should create a sandbox in which the players figure out what's best. That is what made Everquest a much more social game than most modern MMO's these days. You actually had to make friends and uphold agreements. It isn't like modern MMO's where you can get everything you want without needing to talk to anyone, due to the exact systems people are suggesting. Instancing is the modern form of rotations, and games have given you what you asked for close to 20 years now. P99 is awesome because it is one of the few MMO's that does something different.

[Ooloo]

The core problem with rotations (besides a lack of competition) is you incentivize people to make a bunch of splinter guilds who meet the minimum requirement for rotation entry.

Yeah this is the logic of scout roll rules, specifically not allowing your buddies to artificially weigh the roll in your favor. And it's a good rule.

TLDR p99 is seriously fine, in that I can't think of a single way it might be improved that doesn't also trespass against another playstyle or preference.

[Reiwa]

We tried that I believe with Vindi, since he is one of the only fast respawning raid mobs. Unfortunately the vast majority of raid mobs cannot be gate keeper mobs, due to their slow respawn rate. We would need some kind of custom content that allowed you to take your "rotation trial" whenever you wanted to. For example, spawning raid mobs in the Arena zone and letting the new guild fight them.

No we wouldn't. Just make it Sontalak and everyone compete for it every respawn.

Win the dragon? Grats you're on the rotation for a month or whatever starting next week on the day you killed. No more raid petitions about anything but Sontalak.

Qualification decay at X months? So everyone needs to continue competing to remain.

[Mblake1981]

Jump through hoops for the greater good.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No we wouldn't. Just make it Sontalak and everyone compete for it every respawn.

Win the dragon? Grats you're on the rotation for a month or whatever starting next week on the day you killed. No more raid petitions about anything but Sontalak.

Qualification decay at X months? So everyone needs to continue competing to remain.

The problem with using a 7 day spawn mob is you are basically permanently locking the mob out from the guilds who can kill Sontalak. There could be a new guild tryout every week if it's one guild per week.

Or you would have to ask a GM to sit there for literally hours watching multiple guilds try to kill Sontalak over and over on a specified time. Good luck getting people to agree to either of those situations.

[Reiwa]

The problem with using a 7 day spawn mob is you are basically permanently locking the mob out from the guilds who can kill Sontalak. There could be a new guild tryout every week if it's one guild per week.

Or you would have to ask a GM to sit there for literally hours watching multiple guilds try to kill Sontalak over and over on a specified time. Good luck getting people to agree to either of those situations.

I wouldn't ask for them to agree. Defend(by killing!) the rotation gatekeeper from interlopers or lose your other mobs to the rotation starting next week.

There will be no unearned attempts or kills.

And no petitions for the other mobs.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I wouldn't ask for them to agree. Defend(by killing!) the rotation gatekeeper from interlopers or lose your other mobs to the rotation starting next week.

There will be no unearned attempts or kills.

And no petitions for the other mobs.

Then why have this system at all? I guess I don't understand your point. If your idea is "the winner gets the mob", then that is just normal Everquest without rotations lol.

[Reiwa]

Then why have this system at all? I guess I don't understand your point. If your idea is "the winner gets the mob", then that is just normal Everquest without rotations lol.

Because the topic of the thread is how to make rotations competitive. Not the specific details of the rotation itself.

Keep up, son. 😎🍦

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Because the topic of the thread is how to make rotations competitive. Not the specific details of the rotation itself.

Keep up, son. ����

LOL true, if you just play Everquest without rotations, but say you are playing with rotations, then everybody is happy!

[Reiwa]

LOL true, if you just play Everquest without rotations, but say you are playing with rotations, then everybody is happy!

A qualified rotation is still a rotation.

Hammer out the rotation details on your own, I've answered the question.

It doesn't have to be Sontalak even, tier gatekeepers would fine if staff felt like doing 2 or 3 instead of 1.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A qualified rotation is still a rotation.

Hammer out the rotation details on your own, I've answered the question.

It doesn't have to be Sontalak even, tier gatekeepers would fine if staff felt like doing 2 or 3 instead of 1.

EDIT: If you are trying to say there is one single mob that is contested to give guilds the right to a rotation, that wouldn't work because it would just incentivize the biggest guild to get bigger and Zerg the target down every week. Then you would literally have just one big guild monopolizing the whole game because they are the only ones on the rotation. It wouldn't be the exact opposite of what is intended by suggesting rotations. That is why Vindi was used for a little bit as a "qualifier" mob, because it respawned every day at least. If the mob was on a weekly respawn, then the first guild to get on the "rotation" would spend all of it's energy keeping that specific target down, locking the rest of the server out of content. Vindi at least spawns every 8 hours, so it's harder to keep him down all the time. But Vindi isn't a super good indicator for how skilled a guild is, because he isn't super hard.

[Reiwa]

Oh, you were being serious? Your example is just "winner gets the mob". That is how it works without rotations. I am not sure why the "gatekeeper" mob is relevant, because whoever kills it gets "rotation rights". But if a different guild kills it every week, then you just keep switching "rotation rights", and there is no difference between not having rotations at all. What is the benefit of having "rotation rights" if you are still killing the mob every week?

Because you only have to kill the gatekeeper mob every X time to be on the rotation for other mobs for Y time.

I hope this helps with your pedantry. 👍

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Because you only have to kill the gatekeeper mob every X time to be on the rotation for other mobs for Y time.

I hope this helps with your pedantry. ��

It's not pedantry, you are just not explaining your idea well:) And it isn't a good idea, because what is to stop the top guild from locking the rest of the server out of the rotation? That would do exactly the opposite of what's intended by rotations. You are just incentivizing a single mega-guild who can kill Sont way faster than anyone else, and thus locking the other guilds out of the rotation. Then they get free reign on all the mobs in the game.

[Reiwa]

It's not pedantry, you are just not explaining your idea well:) And it isn't a good idea, because what is to stop the top guild from locking the rest of the server out of the rotation? That would do exactly the opposite of what's intended by rotations.

You seem to understand it perfectly well but are still complaining. That's pedantry.

Compete for 1 mob, then leave the staff alone and rotate the others. It's not hard to understand.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You seem to understand it perfectly well but are still complaining. That's pedantry.

Compete for 1 mob, then leave the staff alone and rotate the others. It's not hard to understand.

It isn't pedantry when I am discussing the primary thrust of your argument. It isn't a minor detail to say your system literally allows a mega guild to control the entire game, which is the opposite goal of the proposition lol.

Why not just compete for all the mobs and leave the staff alone? No rotations. That would be easier, and at least smaller guilds would get a shot at content, instead of being perma-locked out of the rotation.

[Reiwa]

Why not just compete for all the mobs and leave the staff alone? That would be easier, and at least smaller guilds would get a shot at content, instead of being perma-locked out of the rotation.

Because you can't spell competition without 'petition'.

1 mob is clearly less staff involvement than every mob.

You're bright as a well.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Because you can't spell competition without 'petition'.

1 mob is clearly less staff involvement than every mob.

You're bright as a well.

And no staff involvement on any mobs is even better for them:) Just ignore all petitions and let people play.

[Reiwa]

And no staff involvement on any mobs is even better for them:) Just ignore all petitions and let people play.

You digress.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You digress.

Lol you are the one digressing here by bringing up petitions in the first place. I am simply pointing out the major flaw in your argument that a "gatekeeper" mob would reduce petitions. It honestly wouldn't, because people would be pissed that they can't get into the rotation because the "gatekeeper" mob spawns once a week, it's FFA, and the biggest guild on the server is going to perma-lock it to keep people out of the rotation.

[Reiwa]

Lol you are the one digressing here by bringing up petitions in the first place. I am simply pointing out the major flaw in your argument that a "gatekeeper" mob would reduce petitions. It honestly wouldn't, because people would be pissed that they can't get into the rotation because the "gatekeeper" mob spawns once a week, is FFA, and the biggest guild on the server is going to perma-lock it to keep people out of the rotation.

My topic is rotations and competition.

Your topic is introducing irrelevant garbage because you think it makes you good at arguing.

We are not the same.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My topic is rotations and competition.

Your topic is introducing irrelevant garbage because you think it makes you good at arguing.

We are not the same.

So having one mega-guild monopolize the rotation is in keeping with the intent of rotations? Just admit your idea is flawed.

[Reiwa]

So having one mega-guild monopolize the rotation is in keeping with the intent of rotations? Just admit your idea is flawed.

Win the mob and get on the rotation for awhile.

Win it again to maintain your spot on the rotation for awhile.

Competition.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Win the mob and get on the rotation for awhile.

Win it again to maintain your spot on the rotation.

Competition.

So if Guild A wins week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, etc., who is on the rotation besides Guild A?

[Reiwa]

So if Guild A wins week 1, week 2, week 3, week 4, etc., who is on the rotation besides Guild A?

Noone because they didn't win the competition within Y time?

Guild A is bound to lose sometimes.

Maybe busy eating turkey or BBQ.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Noone because they didn't win the competition within Y time?

Guild A is bound to lose sometimes.

Maybe busy eating turkey or BBQ.

Honestly, if the top two guilds on each server can't complete the competition in the correct time, then no one is getting raid mobs and the server dies.

Considering both servers only have two top guilds, your system would basically lock the top two guilds in a rotation, which is again basically no different from having two big guilds competing lol.

You don't seem to understand how raiding works on P99.

[Reiwa]

Considering both servers only have two top guilds, your system would basically lock the top two guilds in a rotation, which is again basically no different from having two big guilds competing lol.

1 night of sweaty nerd petitions vs however many nights of worthy velious targets petitions there are.

Sure sounds different.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1 night of sweaty nerd petitions vs however many nights of worthy velious targets there are. Sure sounds different.

Again, you are avoiding my point. I don't understand how you think you can create a timed challenge that is difficult enough for the top guild on the server to fail, but somehow smaller guilds are going to get into the rotation? It makes zero sense. You are completely defeating the purpose of a rotation.

[Reiwa]

Again, you are avoiding my point. I don't understand how you think you can create a timed challenge that is difficult enough for the top guild on the server to fail, but somehow smaller guilds are going to get into the rotation? It makes zero sense. You are completely defeating the purpose of a rotation.

Your point that I'm avoiding(?) is that the top guilds are too bitchmade to defeat Sontalak regularly?

It's a computer game, git gud. 🐲

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Your point that I'm avoiding(?) is that the top guilds are too bitchmade to defeat Sontalak regularly?

It's a computer game, git gud. 🐲

The point is that if you add a timed component to Sontalak that is strict enough for the top guilds to fail, then smaller guilds will never get into the rotation. For most guilds on the server killing Sontalak is already an extremely difficult challenge.

You would just end up locking the rotation into the top guild or the top two guilds, depending on the difficulty of the challenge. The point of rotations is to avoid the server's raid content being controlled by one or two guilds.

It's just a bad idea, and you need to git gud and thinking:)

[Reiwa]

The point is that if you add a timed component to Sontalak that is strict enough for the top guilds to fail, then smaller guilds will never get into the rotation. For most guilds on the server killing Sontalak is already an extremely difficult challenge.

You would just end up locking the rotation into the top guild or the top two guilds, depending on the difficulty of the challenge. The point of rotations is to avoid the server's raid content being controlled by one or two guilds.

It's just a bad idea, and you need to git gud and thinking:)

Weeks/months is not a strict timer and I won't let you pretend it is. 😉

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Weeks/months is not a strict timer and I won't let you pretend it is. 😉

Oh you were referring to that. You're weeks/months timer is irrelevant because the top two guilds are going to be monopolizing Sontalak every week to stay in rotation. I am not sure why you think the top guild on the server is just going to take a month off trying to kill Sontalak lol. And if you think a bunch of small guilds are going to kill Sontalak 4 weeks in a row out from under the top guild, again you do not understand how P99 raiding works.

[Reiwa]

Oh you were referring to that. You're weeks/months timer is irrelevant because the top two guilds are going to be monopolizing Sontalak every week to stay in rotation. I am not sure why you think the top guild on the server is just going to take a month off trying to kill Sontalak lol. And if you think a bunch of small guilds are going to kill Sontalak 4 weeks in a row out from under the top guild, again you do not understand how P99 raiding works.

Not sure where you're getting this kill it every week to qualify nonsense. I'd say a Sontalak kill is worth 2 months in the loot monsoon, but that's just me others can disagree.

https://i.imgur.com/biRzyEy.jpg

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Not sure where you're getting this kill it every week nonsense. I'd say a Sontalak kill is worth 2 months in the loot monsoon, but that's just me others can disagree. Top guilds would have to compete each respawn to prevent this.

https://i.imgur.com/biRzyEy.jpg

You don't understand. It doesn't matter how long Sontalak puts you into the rotation, even if it is years. Unless the GM's prevent the top guild from killing Sontalak every week, they are GOING to kill him every week to keep the rotation as small as possible. Without custom content, Sontalak still only spawns once a week, and if there is no limit on who can kill him, the top guild will do it every week.

If you prevent the guilds who are already in rotation from killing Sontalak, then not only are you blocking Sontalak from multiple guilds who are in the rotation, but at that point you might as well just put guilds in a rotation without the extra paperwork of requiring the GM's to keep track of who is currently eligible for rotation.

[Reiwa]

You don't understand. It doesn't matter how long Sontalak puts you into the rotation, even if it is years. Unless the GM's prevent the top guild from killing Sontalak every week, they are GOING to kill him every week to keep the rotation as small as possible. Without custom content, Sontalak still only spawns once a week, and if there is no limit on who can kill him, the top guild will do it every week.

They will certainly try. :p

[DeathsSilkyMist]

They will certainly try. :p

At this point I can only assume you haven't raided a lot on P99. The top guild is going to be considerably more equipped and well manned than the other guilds on P99. They wouldn't be the top guild otherwise lol. They WILL monopolize Sontalak and encourage their members to attend the Sontalak kill with DKP bonuses and whatnot. I am not sure how you think the other guilds will stand a chance against the top guild's resources, plus trying to kill Sontalak, who is very difficult and costs a good amount of money to kill.

[Reiwa]

At this point I can only assume you haven't raided a lot on P99. The top guild is going to be considerably more equipped and well manned than the other guilds on P99. They wouldn't be the top guild otherwise lol. They WILL monopolize Sontalak and encourage their members to attend the Sontalak kill with DKP bonuses and whatnot. I am not sure how you think the other guilds will stand a chance against the top guild's resources, plus trying to kill Sontalak, who is very difficult and costs a good amount of money to kill.

I'm well aware of all that. If you don't like Sontalak as gatekeeper, suggest something else. I'm all ears.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm well aware of all that. If you don't like Sontalak as gatekeeper, suggest something else. I'm all ears.

It honestly doesn't matter who the "gatekeeper" mob is, because the top guild WILL monopolize them every week. Even if you made it something easy like Nagafen, the top guild is going to have way more level 52 alts who are better equipped. That is the flaw with your idea. The real "gatekeeper" is the top guild, not the mob assigned to be the "gatekeeper".

Rotations are designed to prevent monopolization of content from one or two guilds, and your idea doesn't really do that.

[Reiwa]

It honestly doesn't matter who the "gatekeeper" mob is, because the top guild WILL monopolize them every week. Even if you made it something easy like Nagafen, the top guild is going to have way more level 52 alts who are better equipped. That is the flaw with your idea. The real "gatekeeper" is the top guild, not the mob assigned to be the "gatekeeper".

Rotations are designed to prevent monopolization of content from one or two guilds, and your idea doesn't really do that.

You haven't named a mob that would be fair. I said Sontalak, what do you say?

Guilds aren't unbeatable no matter how much pomp they feel.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You haven't named a mob that would be fair. I said Sontalak, what do you say?

Guilds aren't unbeatable no matter how much pomp they feel.

For most casual guilds the top guild is hard to beat. If the random spawn times stayed the same, that means casual guilds wouldn't be able to kill the "gatekeeper" mob the majority of the time, because it isn't even going to spawn at a time where they can get enough people to compete with the top guild. The top guild is going to have trackers 24/7 and the hardcore players are going to make the "gatekeeper" mob their top priority.

As I said before, the specific mob is irrelevant, because the top guild can clear all content faster and more consistently than everybody else, at any time of day.

[Grumph]

How to make rotations competitive?

Simple.

Rotate competitve metas.

Rooted. Unrooted.

Coth. Footrace. Dps race. Guild war.

Thats 8 options right there. More maybe possible.

Keep guilds and players on their toes. Shake things up.

Everyone has so much fun they stop complaining. And since meta constantly changes, loosing isnt so bitter bc you have to try something new next time anyway.

[Reiwa]

For most casual guilds the top guild is hard to beat. If the random spawn times stayed the same, that means casual guilds wouldn't be able to kill the "gatekeeper" mob the majority of the time, because it isn't even going to spawn at a time where they can get enough people to compete with the top guild. The top guild is going to have trackers 24/7 and the hardcore players are going to make the "gatekeeper" mob their top priority.

As I said before, the specific mob is irrelevant, because the top guild can clear all content faster and more consistently than everybody else, at any time of day.

Aren't you anti rotation in most of this thread?

Explain your opposition to me now. 😛

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Aren't you anti rotation in most of this thread?

Explain your opposition to me now. 😛

Your idea is bad. I would love to see someone have a good idea for "competitive rotations", but it is highly unlikely to occur, due to the antithetical nature of rotations and competition.

[Reiwa]

Your idea is bad. I would love to see someone have a good idea for "competitive rotations", but it is highly unlikely to occur, due to the antithetical nature of rotations and competition.

You haven't explained why it's bad, you one-note liar bird 🦃

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You haven't explained why it's bad, you one-note liar bird 🦃

I have. Multiple times. You can act silly if you want, but it doesn't make you correct. Just go back and read my previous posts.

[Ooloo]

Reiwa is a giant retard, although he's very good at it (being a huge retard)

[Ooloo]

Here's my impression of reiwa: "Well how can you know until you do??" *link link link link*

Checkmate.

[Reiwa]

I have. Multiple times. You can act silly if you want, but it doesn't make you correct. Just go back and read my previous posts.

You shouldn't fear Sontalak. Just argue him to death it'll be easy.

Reiwa is a giant retard, although he's very good at it (being a huge retard)

Need you in a skirt if you gonna cheerlead bby. :p

[loramin]

Great conversation and theorycrafting, I love it!

However, gatekeeping just to "keep out the plebs" doesn't seem healthy on its own. What if (say) the raid mobs were split in half, and each week/month/quake/whatever one half was gate-kept by who killed that half last period? Maybe you have to have killed at least two (or three, or whatever) mobs.

For instance, let's say Vulak and Naggy are A mobs and and Dozekar and Vox are B mobs. Seal Team kills Vulak and Naggy this period, so next period they (and any other guild that killed 2+ A mobs) can kill the A mobs; anyone who didn't, can't ... let's say Castle in this example. But, Castle can kill B mobs, and they want access to the "B rotation" next time, so they kill two of them.

This would create an interesting dynamic when a quake happens: do you race to get your two kills in the A group, so you have access to 100% of the A mobs next period? Or do you race to get the mobs you "locked in" in the B group ... because they aren't exclusive to you, and other B guilds could take them if you don't?

Now the gatekeeping seems to add something interesting to the equation, and it seems like it would create situations where smaller guilds like Castle would have opportunities created by the bigger guilds "playing the game".

[Jibartik]

I have an idea.

Start a guild that's made up of people who's sole purpose is to grief raiding guilds, and whoever can actually succeed at downing a mob while that guild exists, gets to down the mob.

[Fammaden]

I have an idea.

Start a guild that's made up of people who's sole purpose is to grief raiding guilds, and whoever can actually succeed at downing a mob while that guild exists, gets to down the mob.

This is the current system we already have.

[Jibartik]

If we make a pvp teams server I want a comitment from you folks to help me make an all halfling cleric guild that can naked DA raid greif everyone to quitting.