Raid rules suggestion

[Kraal]

Let's face it, I hate the variance... What it breeds is a large pool of anti-social, druid stocking, boxing, phone bombing, rule breaking, training ass hats.

The rules as they are, are quite gray and just like a loose-constructionist on Roe v. Wade. It can be interpreted in a way that benefits the situation at hand (I.E Draco) and exploited to be shifted to get "favor" in a purely case by case basis.

If the variance was removed, and raid encounters were reset (let's say Vox, Naggy, CT, Inny all pop at 8 CST on a Friday) there are four possible targets per week that spawn within the same window and it opens up raid encounters to be negotiated between guilds based on certain rule sets.

I agree there needs to be a sizeable force present to engage an encounter a spawn shouldn't be held by a group, but there shouldn't be massive amounts players flocking to get one kill.

There shouldn't be a 30 minute timer to engage a mob, if one force has 15 in the zone at the time they should be able to engage without other guilds breathing down their neck and they have sole rights to that raid encounter until one of two things happen:

1) they defeat the mob

2) they wipe


Under the second rule any guild can come swipe that mob because they failed to successfully defeat the encounter under normal raid means.

With four raid targets up at the same time guilds can be spaced out evenly without any friction in zones over who has claim on what mob, and there is zero rushing another guild and "leapfrogging" them due to where a mob spawns, how the zone is cleared, and how the time limit is running.

This also opens up diplomacy and exchange of targets (I.E trans wants Naggy, IB wants CT) and they can exchange targets under terms that seem reasonable if they've got current claim on the target and NO other guild is in line for the target at that moment (No other guild in the zone)

This keeps the competition by assembling your raid forces(you can get multiple targets if you've got the man power to drop yours quick enough and move to another zone that's one guild occupied and they wipe) in advance and claiming spawns, but it also prevents many inadequacies that occur because of the murky rules that are set for how to engage a target.

This of course is assuming all guilds in question are mature and can handle simple diplomacy, and work with a system that keeps friction out of the raid zones.

[Heebee]

If the variance was removed, and raid encounters were reset (let's say Vox, Naggy, CT, Inny all pop at 8 CST on a Friday) there are four possible targets per week that spawn within the same window and it opens up raid encounters to be negotiated between guilds based on certain rule sets.


Removing the variance and spawning everything at a specific convenient peak time for Americans, also cuts out any guilds who are not based in America. No thanks.

With four raid targets up at the same time guilds can be spaced out evenly without any friction in zones over who has claim on what mob, and there is zero rushing another guild and "leapfrogging" them due to where a mob spawns, how the zone is cleared, and how the time limit is running.

Soon there will be more than four guilds capable of running raids - what then?

[Kraal]

Removing the variance and spawning everything at a specific peak time for Americans, also cuts out any guilds who are not based in America. No thanks.

You mean like on live when Europeans slapped raid mobs down 24/7?

There is a golden hour when Europeans and Americans are on at the same time, I've been on when there are 30 Remedy members present in a zone alongside 30 divinity members so that is moot point.

[Heebee]

You mean like on live when Europeans slapped raid mobs down 24/7?

There is a golden hour when Europeans and Americans are on at the same time, I've been on when there are 30 Remedy members present in a zone alongside 30 divinity members so that is moot point.

I'm not in Europe, nor does my guild play in this "golden hour" you speak of. There are plenty of players who aren't based in either of those continents.

[Kraal]

Soon there will be more than four guilds capable of running raids - what then?

Didn't say it's fair, this isn't a rotation not everyone gets an equal slice of the raid cake... If four mobs are camped by four guilds at the time and you're the fifth guild then you either needed to get to that zone sooner and prep, or you're going to be praying for a wipe... This isn't much different than four guilds currently waiting around fear for a CT pop

[Kraal]

I'm not in Europe, nor does my guild play in this "golden hour" you speak of. There are plenty of players who aren't based in either of those continents.

I guess you're SOL then, either be a zombie and be up at the time this occurs or don't raid the mob, there are plenty of unemployed people who already sit druids in zones 36 hours straight tracking, again this is no different than those cases.

[Heebee]

I guess you're SOL then, either be a zombie and be up at the time this occurs or don't raid the mob, there are plenty of unemployed people who already sit druids in zones 36 hours straight tracking, again this is no different than those cases.

So you're saying that holding down a job, having a family and playing EQ should all be mutually exclusive just because you don't like the variance?

If you're going to come up with a solution, perhaps try to come up with one that doesn't leave people "SOL" because they don't live in your country, because all your suggestion of "spawning everything at 8pm CST" does is exclude non-Americans from the equation.

[Kraal]

So you're saying that holding down a job, having a family and playing EQ should all be mutually exclusive just because you don't like the variance?

If you're going to come up with a solution, perhaps try to come up with one that doesn't leave people "SOL" because they don't live in your country.

If you're not AMERICUNN GTFO! J/k

There shouldn't be any issue with a certain time slot, not EVERYONE can play around the clock, and there are times I've been busy doing something else and missed out on a raid, Big deal! I couldn't be on at 5 A.M to slay Nagafen!

It's opportunity cost, if you go to work, want to spend time with your family then you're giving up a certain slot to raid an encounter, if you're willing to place importance on this encounter by cutting out sleep, family time, work etc. then your opportunity cost is spending time with your family or doing some other activity.

That's pretty basic man

[Uaellaen]

If the variance was removed, and raid encounters were reset (let's say Vox, Naggy, CT, Inny all pop at 8 CST on a Friday)

You are assuming the whole world lives in your timezone?

Varianz is for an even contest between different countries ... they can pop during chinese / european / australian / american / mexican whatever prime time, randomly ... so basicly everyone one has a chance to get a spawn.

With four raid targets up at the same time guilds can be spaced out evenly without any friction in zones over who has claim on what mob

right, we currently have ~6? raid cappable guilds ... are 2 of them on vacation in your example?

[Heebee]

If you're not AMERICUNN GTFO! J/k

There shouldn't be any issue with a certain time slot, not EVERYONE can play around the clock, and there are times I've been busy doing something else and missed out on a raid, Big deal! I couldn't be on at 5 A.M to slay Nagafen!

It's opportunity cost, if you go to work, want to spend time with your family then you're giving up a certain slot to raid an encounter, if you're willing to place importance on this encounter by cutting out sleep, family time, work etc. then your opportunity cost is spending time with your family or doing some other activity.

That's pretty basic man

Opportunity cost of your short-sighted solution? The cost of my entire guild skipping work (yes its the middle of the day here) to raid at "8pm CST" means all of us getting sacked. Not exactly an option. The variance will actually give us a shot occasionally.

[Heebee]

You are assuming the whole world lives in your timezone? Varianz is for an even contest between different countries ... they can pop during chinese / european / australian / american / mexican whatever prime time, randomly ... so basicly everyone one has a chance to get a spawn.


Bingo!

[Uaellaen]

The cost of my entire guild skipping work (yes its the middle of the day here) to raid at "8pm CST" means all of us getting sacked.

thus you can make the next spawn cause you all get your unemployment checks now? /sarcasm off

[Kraal]

When I said 8 PM CST that was an example

It could be 7 AM EST for all I care

For example:

If it's 7 AM here in the U.S it is the following;

Berlin/Germany 1 PM

Bangkok 6 PM

Brisbane/Australia 6 PM


I just hit every time zone from 3 different continents (South American excluded cause it can run alongside U.S times)

So there we go, that is a golden time where it's early morning/late evening for everyone, put it on a Saturday and this is no issue whatsoever

[Jeebus]

No

[YendorLootmonkey]

First, allow me to remind you that you guys are fighting over 10-year-old content on an emu server that, quite frankly, could be shut down at any point by Sony's legal team.

Having said that, all it would take is the GMs to enforce the raid rules consistently and fairly with the threat of bans/guild disbanding/whatever heavy-handed approach they want to take to make sure that the consequences of training/leapfrogging/whatever is SO GREAT that the guilds are fighting to make sure each other gets their fair shot before their own guild makes their attempt out of pure fear of being dealt with by the GMs for not "playing nice".

I don't care how the actual mechanics of this happen, but in my mind it would be a version of:

a) Guild A demonstrates ability/intent to raid target X first and claims one attempt on the target. Screenshot this with a timestamp in case the proof is required later to settle disputes and determine who needs banning/guild disbanding.

b) Contesting guilds (B, C, D,...) stay the hell out of the way until that attempt is complete. If a guild cannot demonstrate the ability to do that, they should be guild disbanded. This will put them in a more cooperative mood. Also, three random players on each guildmembers' friends list should be banned.

c) Raid leader from Guild A concedes defeat and contesting guilds attempt the raid target *once* in the order in which they demonstrated ability/intent. If a guild cannot demonstrate the ability to concede defeat when they have wiped to the point where they can no longer engage the raid target, they should be guild disbanded. This will put them in a more cooperative mood. Plus all of their rare items/weapons/armor should be removed from all their toons, and their characters should all be turned into assling druids.

All guilds present and attempting to demonstrate ability/intent should designate one raid leader via /shout, and only those raid leaders should be communicating. If they can't work it out between themselves, ban all of the raid leaders. This will put them in a more cooperative mood. Plus go to their houses in real life and leave bags of flaming poo on their doorsteps.

Trust me, everyone will be tripping all over themselves to cooperate. :) Remember, rule with an IRON FIST!!

[Kraal]

No

Explain? Don't just be an idiot.

This is the most economical FFA choice you can have it gives guilds a decision of which target they want to pick and offers up negotiations on certain targets, and they can be totally undercut if one guild mobilizes faster.

It keeps zones from being overcrowded by several guilds pressing for one mob causing trains, mistakes on "what is classified as the encounter" and blatant account boxing/power logging campers as this requires the whole guild to be present and not just trading off who gets to play the ranger tonight.

[Kraal]

.

Having said that, all it would take is the GMs to enforce the raid rules consistently and fairly with the threat of bans/guild disbanding/whatever heavy-handed approach they want to take to make sure that the consequences of training/leapfrogging/whatever is SO GREAT that the guilds are fighting to make sure each other gets their fair shot before their own guild makes their attempt out of pure fear of being dealt with by the GMs for not "playing nice".


You mean how Salty and crew got a ban for KSing Transcendance, and IB didn't get a slap on the wrist and got a free draco re-pop?

Iron fist ruling isn't fair ruling, there is no tribunal of players who get to decide what happens we don't take a democratic vote so it is in no way legit or honest. GM's can waiver on a case to case basis and depending on their mood be draconic or be downright showing favoritism, we can't keep this in check so it should NOT be by all means "iron fisted"

[Kraal]

Adding onto that since you're separating guild forces here and fro there should be minimal friction or "violations" so GM intervention should be lessened, they really shouldn't have to baby sit every single raid cause there are 80 players in one zone running amok causing grief and havok

[Izzni]

Was there really this many raid capable people on live during the classic period? If there weren't, then decreasing the spawn times on raid targets would help. I can't imagine what its gonna be like with 60 clerics trying to complete their epics.

[yaaaflow]

You mean how Salty and crew got a ban for KSing Transcendance, and IB didn't get a slap on the wrist and got a free draco re-pop?


If you don't see any differences between those two situations then you are dumber than your thread makes you seem.

[rioisk]

I say make it a FFA. May the best guild win.

[Kraal]

If you don't see any differences between those two situations then you are dumber than your thread makes you seem.

I've used larger words in this thread than you have in your entire life :mad:

There is no difference in these situations, the end sum is the same. You can twist whatever logic you want into the grey area to make it seem like it's totally different but at the end of that night what it came down to was the current set of rules being un-respected and shifted to benefit one party over another.

If I were a GM I would've given out chestplates of sad exploitation and dropped both raid forces in the middle of OOT, neither party deserved loot, and neither party deserved a re-pop because no one there showed any sign of compromise or mutuality.

As for you and your guild:

In my honest opinion quit trying to be a Afterlife/FoH/LoS clone guild it doesn't suit you well because you don't have the balls to pull of some of the things they did without crying petition, you want FFA so you can be ultra-dominant but the moment you get trained to oblivion, have mobs bugged, or in the future having people drop glowing black swords/velium swiftblades on raid targets you're going to be suckling a GM's teet for vindication.

[Shamaeso]

First, allow me to remind you that you guys are fighting over 10-year-old content on an emu server that, quite frankly, could be shut down at any point by Sony's legal team.



How can it be shut down if the server has not violated their EULA , They do not charge for service, and sony has our money from purchasing the client side software?

[Clique]

I have a thought:

Since this is all for funsies and whatnot, why not just jack the spawn rate for these high end mobs? Crank that shit up to 11 to allow more attempts by more guilds. Couple this with a very simple and easy calendar system and you're pretty much squared away.

The calendar system worked wonders for KTF on Prexus. And there were minimal complaints.

[Hasbinbad]

http://bharrison.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/spinal_tap_but_it_goes_to_eleven.jpg

[Clique]

Oh, I like you. You brought pictures and everything!

[karsten]

i just found this thread, and boy am I glad that I did!

[YendorLootmonkey]

How can it be shut down if the server has not violated their EULA , They do not charge for service, and sony has our money from purchasing the client side software?


From http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/83055/page/4

"Trademark rights can come from a number of game elements. Titles are the most obvious, but trademark rights can arise from well-known characters (e.g., MASTER CHIEF), settings (SAN ANDREAS), and even game items (ASHBRINGER). If the emulator continues to use EQ terminology, they may run into trademark problems." Even though the emulator does not compete with the original EQ game, Monahan notes that Sony could assert its trademark rights in the well-known EQ franchise including EQ2 and other EQ merchandise. "Even without direct sales of emulator accounts, the project faces brand problems, because trademarks protect against consumer confusion as to sponsorship and affiliation. It is not hard to expect consumers to believe that the emulated EQ game does not have the sponsorship or approval of Sony."

[Grento]

This was one good thing about Rallos Zek. If your guild was having issues with another guild, you could just go and stomp them while they were pulling inny or cazic and be done with it.

[YendorLootmonkey]

You mean how Salty and crew got a ban for KSing Transcendance, and IB didn't get a slap on the wrist and got a free draco re-pop?

Iron fist ruling isn't fair ruling, there is no tribunal of players who get to decide what happens we don't take a democratic vote so it is in no way legit or honest. GM's can waiver on a case to case basis and depending on their mood be draconic or be downright showing favoritism, we can't keep this in check so it should NOT be by all means "iron fisted"

If you couldn't tell my post was tongue-in-cheek with threats of leaving flaming bags of dog poo on people's real life doorsteps, you might be functionally retarded. ;) Come on, now.

However, there's something to be said for deterrence...

[mitic]

First, allow me to remind you that you guys are fighting over 10-year-old content on an emu server that, quite frankly, could be shut down at any point by Sony's legal team.


this "sony could shut down emu" argument is flawed and should be taken out as argument per se in any discussion about any server-issues.

emu was here for years and will stay for the years to come. this is, for now, a fact. we are playing now and not in the future.

[Zordana]

srsly EVERYONE shut the hell up.. instead of making big posts about whats wrong with any ideas, how about THINK for yourself and come up with a solution?

and incomming flames on me: RESISTED!

[YendorLootmonkey]

this "sony could shut down emu" argument is flawed and should be taken out as argument per se in any discussion about any server-issues.

emu was here for years and will stay for the years to come. this is, for now, a fact. we are playing now and not in the future.

Fine, then address the fact that people are acting like spoiled 12-year-olds fighting over 10-year-old content. :)

The crux of the issue is this:

There is not enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it.

Therefore, this implies the fix is either:

a) Generate enough raid content to go around, or
b) Ration the existing raid content in a fair and even manner.

Since what we have is what we got, the only available option in (a) is to increase spawn frequency. Pretty sure that is out the window, but if the server raid-level population grows (which it will grow much faster this time around since everyone knows the game) too quickly, that competition for raid targets could tear the server apart. Maybe in recognition that the raid-level server population will increase at a rate faster than it did ten years ago, the only way to compensate for it is to increase the frequency of raid-level target spawns. Depends on what the administrators are willing to do here to "feed the hungry masses" who are fighting each other over the scraps.

We are more familiar with (b) because that, historically, has been what we have been forced to do. However, the people currently "getting theirs" by whatever nefarious means they use to do so are only hurt by methods of rationing out the raid targets (by use of calendars, rotations, etc.) because after the rationing is put into effect, they get less. They will fight this to the core and will always be in favor of "might makes right" or "first to engage" sorts of policies, relying on their existing tactics to maintain their status quo. I submit to you that this issue occurred on every non-PVP live server, because there was always an uber guild in the beginning that hit the raid level content first, and then subsequently had to learn or be forced to share it with other guilds as they caught up with them.

So what do we know?

"Might makes right/first to engage" rules keep the raid targets in the hands of the few guilds willing to do what it takes to make sure they are the mightiest or the first. This deprives other guilds of raid level content and creates end-game friction like we're seeing here.

"Rationing" rules hinder the guilds who are currently able to monopolize the content, but help the other guilds who have the numbers/ability but can't necessarily "do what it takes" to acquire raid targets under the other ruleset.

If you put this to a vote, the top guilds would vote one way and the up-and-coming guilds vote the other way. Each and every time. And therein lies the problem.

[mitic]

classic everquest = fighting over dragons = drama = fun = keep as is

if u start to fasten up spawn timers u could also start to implement instanced zones as well, and thats exactly one of those things why i stoped playing on life

[YendorLootmonkey]

classic everquest = fighting over dragons = drama = fun = keep as is

if u start to fasten up spawn timers u could also start to implement instanced zones as well, and thats exactly one of those things why i stoped playing on life

And the rest of us probably stopped because of the drama you think is "fun".

[Grento]

And the rest of us quit because of the drama you think is "fun".

Why would you quit over it? Have people become this sensitive over the past 10 years? I remember having 15 guilds fighting over mob spawns in classic, most people didn't quit over it. Maybe it was different because I was on RZ, where you could actually take out your aggression on those annoying you but even when I played on zebux it didn't seem like it was that big of a problem.

[Finawin]

FFA is fucking terrible and just promoted dickery like we're seeing now.

Training, KSing, and being assholes is "classic" but it also got you banned on live too. If you've ever done it to another guild you got banned if caught. The main problem was GMs were scarce as fuck and so it rarely happened.

If you're of the mindset that a guild should be able to come up to your engaged mob and just DPS zerg it for the win, you're fucking terrible and should get the fuck out.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Why would you quit over it? Have people become this sensitive over the past 10 years? I remember having 15 guilds fighting over mob spawns in classic, most people didn't quit over it. Maybe it was different because I was on RZ, where you could actually take out your aggression on those annoying you but even when I played on zebux it didn't seem like it was that big of a problem.

Because it got old, dude. Same damn guilds doing the same damn shit, all because some people thought the drama was fun? A bunch of drama queens halfway across the country doing their best to deprive other guilds of content that they all paid the same monthly fee to enjoy?

I don't know if it had anything to do with sensitivity. I and a lot of other people had better ways to spend our time, I imagine. I spend all day at work dealing with people and resolving conflict and troubleshooting issues... it started to get to be the same thing at home during my recreation time. :)

[bionicbadger]

The solution is that when a raid target is up, the zone gets flagged for PVP. Then whatever guilds are there can fight it out over who gets the raid mob.

[Finawin]

Also a terrible idea...

Deciding on who gets to do PVE by who can zerg PVP is fucking retarded.

[Grento]

Because it got old, dude. Same damn guilds doing the same damn shit, all because some people thought the drama was fun? A bunch of drama queens halfway across the country doing their best to deprive other guilds of content that they all paid the same monthly fee to enjoy?

I don't know if it had anything to do with sensitivity. I and a lot of other people had better ways to spend our time, I imagine. I spend all day at work dealing with people and resolving conflict and troubleshooting issues... it started to get to be the same thing at home during my recreation time. :)

I guess we just value different things about old EQ. What I liked about it was the harshness, the fact that you could get screwed out of things easily. If you annoy the wrong people, you are blacklisted and might never see a raid again. If you can't 1 up your competition, you get left behind.

Something that worked well when I was playing was guilds forming raiding coalitions. X and Y guild hate how Z guild is working, X and Y guild decide they are going to start working together by using each others trackers and informing each other when mobs are up. You have to split the loot but oh well, at least Z guild aint getting it.

[yaaaflow]

True story, I had the competition vs rotation discussion with Rallyd one time, and he was adamant that the competition system was analogous to communism (since only a few people were getting raid targets) while the rotation system would be more like capitalism (since they would be shared with everyone, yay!). And being a good, hardworking American who hates commies, he was obviously for the rotation system.



Yeah I know this has nothing to do with this thread.

[Grento]

True story, I had the competition vs rotation discussion with Rallyd one time, and he was adamant that the competition system was analogous to communism (since only a few people were getting raid targets) while the rotation system would be more like capitalism (since they would be shared with everyone, yay!). And being a good, hardworking American who hates commies, he was obviously for the rotation system.



Yeah I know this has nothing to do with this thread.

I thought everyone sharing was communism and everyone for themselves based on who puts in the most time and work was capitalism.... :confused:

[YendorLootmonkey]

True story, I had the competition vs rotation discussion with Rallyd one time, and he was adamant that the competition system was analogous to communism (since only a few people were getting raid targets) while the rotation system would be more like capitalism (since they would be shared with everyone, yay!). And being a good, hardworking American who hates commies, he was obviously for the rotation system.



Yeah I know this has nothing to do with this thread.

LOL, that's all ass-backwards. I would say competition system is analogous to capitalism (wealth goes to a few, screw the rest), and rotation system is more like socialism (everyone gets their fair share!)

[Grento]

LOL, that's all ass-backwards. I would say competition system is analogous to capitalism (wealth goes to a few, screw the rest), and rotation system is more like socialism (everyone gets their fair share!)

I think we may have just missed the joke behind it ;p

[guineapig]

Just a few words on this concept of "competition" that people keep mentioning.

True competition comes from some sort of an even playing field to begin with. And by this I'm not referring to both teams having the same skill level (no two teams are exactly the same, each has its strengths and weaknesses).

But in every other case I can possibly think of, competition requires somebody to compete against. How does a basketball team compete if the other team is not on the court?

So being able to be online at any hour of the day might show some crazy form of dedication on your part, it does not show much else.

True competition would be 2 groups of the same number of people, online at the same time when the raid target is up. "Ready, set, go."

Geting raid targets when the rest of the server population is at work or asleep is like playing tennis with nobody on the other side of the net.

(Sorry if this was slightly off topic but I've been meaning to bring it up for a while.)

[Alawen Everywhere]

Fine, then address the fact that people are acting like spoiled 12-year-olds fighting over 10-year-old content. :)

The crux of the issue is this:

There is not enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it.

Therefore, this implies the fix is either:

a) Generate enough raid content to go around, or
b) Ration the existing raid content in a fair and even manner.


This is an example of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Your entire argument is nonsense.

[Grento]

Just a few words on this concept of "competition" that people keep mentioning.

True competition comes from some sort of an even playing field to begin with. And by this I'm not referring to both teams having the same skill level (no two teams are exactly the same, each has its strengths and weaknesses).

But in every other case I can possibly think of, competition requires somebody to compete against. How does a basketball team compete if the other team is not on the court?

So being able to be online at any hour of the day might show some crazy form of dedication on your part, it does not show much else.

True competition would be 2 groups of the same number of people, online at the same time when the raid target is up. "Ready, set, go."

Geting raid targets when the rest of the server population is at work or asleep is like playing tennis with nobody on the other side of the net.

(Sorry if this was slightly off topic but I've been meaning to bring it up for a while.)


Interesting take. I think it all depends on what the end objective is and what exactly you are competing for. If you are just competing over the same mob then I would agree with you. If you are competing in an arms race to get everyone in your guild fully geared so you can be the first to tackle the next raid zone opening up and get all those server firsts, that changes the scenario quite a bit.

This is the same great debate that has been going on since the beginning of MMO’s, power gamers vs casual gamers. Unfortunately there will never be a way to make everyone happy, everyone is going to have to learn to be a little bit unhappy.

"The definition of a true compromise is when both parties walk away feeling they just got screwed"

*EDIT*

Just to clarify, I don't advocate any sort of griefing or training on a non pvp server.

[Kraal]

This is why I'm such a proponent of my system, not everyone is going to be 100% happy all the time because someone is going to be dicked over since raid targets at the moment are scare.

By popping them all on certain days and certain times (you can even switch the days up) you're allowing for an economic principle called substitution, and even if one guilds feels that an Inny kill is inferior to say a Nagafen kill based on loot garnered they still had the opportunity to get at least one raid target.

We've talked about capitalism a lot in this thread and how "competition" drives it, yet you fail to understand all goods and services have substitutes, every action has opportunity cost and you're only seeing the tiny portion of capitalism that involves a victorious mentality.

[guineapig]

Your idea reminds me of one that I had posted here a week or two ago (which I actually got from yet another even older post).

Simulated server reset

Have all raid targets pop at the same time like once a week or something, if possible during peak times (but obviously not always since we have many overseas raiders as well now). This forces everyone to pick their target of choice but maybe go for their second choice if they feel there will be too much competition for their number 1 pick.

It works on multiple fronts.

1.) IT SIMULATES CLASSIC!!! raid bosses respawned on actual server resets on live and we don't have that here, so lets simulate it.

2.) Every current raid capable guild should have a shot at at least 1 raid target a week without it being handed to them. If a guild thinks they are really hot shit they can try and go after multiple targets but will either be racing against the clock or have to split their raid force in 2!!!

3.) IT SIMULATES CLASSIC!!!

4.) It still involves strategy and competitive racing:
Where will everyone bind all week long? Who do we think Guild X will go after?
Is it worth it to race them? If they go after Inny/Cazic should we just let them get Maestro/Dracho as well or do we go after the minor boss?

5.) IT SIMULATES CLASSIC!!!

6.) If we count all the guilds that could currently take out a raid boss (in alphabetical order): Divinity, Fish Bait, Gothic Circle, IB, Remedy, Trans (forgive me if you feel your guild should be included and I didn’t mention you) this still doesn’t just give a guild a raid boss. In the case of a wipe, another guild who’s already done with their first target could swoop in and take yours. During off hours 1 guild could get multiple targets uncontested. Some guild might simply not be able to muster the numbers they feel they need and bow out one week. 2 smaller guilds might band together just for the hell of it. Hell you could even see pickup raids at like 4 in the morning. Anything could happen.

All that being said, we can still keep the current variance spawn cycle in effect for all the raid bosses but those timers will reset every time the server is reset. Voila!!! Everybody gets what they want and nobody gets any hand outs.

[Kraal]

Your idea reminds me of one that I had posted here a week or two ago (which I actually got from yet another even older post).


Right, we have several raid capable guilds on the server for four possible targets (Draco/Maestro excluded since those are 3 day timers) there is plenty of time for racing and competition as well as negotiation on guild parts

This whole forced spawned situation is only detrimental if one guild feel entitled because "Dey are da best" sorry folks there is no uber guild on this server all raid guilds are on par the only thing that sets the difference in getting mobs is how unemployed and how anti-social you want to be today.

[Grento]

^^

Nice idea. Those were fun races

[YendorLootmonkey]

This is an example of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy. Your entire argument is nonsense.

Care to elaborate beyond just "hurrrr ur wrong omg lol"?

[Beau]

This is going to get really fun when it comes to fighting over epic mobs and stealing mod rods during AoW... You know what would be better than a raid mob rotation? More use of the rants and flames board! At least gives me something fun to read. :)

[mitic]

you know guys, after reading this thread i do understand now why

1.) sony created instanced zones on life

2.) i played on pvp servers, since there was an easy solution to claim camps there

[karsten]

there is no uber guild on this server all raid guilds are on par the only thing that sets the difference in getting mobs is how unemployed and how anti-social you want to be today.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHahha hahahahahahahahahhaha

[Zexa]

When I heard P1999 was coming out, I went and got a 2nd job, just so I could quit it too. Now I'm the best EQr ever.

[Grento]

When I heard P1999 was coming out, I went and got a 2nd job, just so I could quit it too. Now I'm the best EQr ever.

It wasn't called evercrack for no reason, you aint playing unless you look like a heroin addict after a few months.

[Alawen Everywhere]

Care to elaborate beyond just "hurrrr ur wrong omg lol"?

I said nothing anything like that. You posted propaganda and pretended it was a logical argument. I pointed out the particular error at the beginning of your post which renders your entire argument nonsensical.

Feel free to continue pretending that I am the idiot.

[YendorLootmonkey]

I said nothing anything like that. You posted propaganda and pretended it was a logical argument. I pointed out the particular error at the beginning of your post which renders your entire argument nonsensical.

No you didn't. Feel free to point out the error in the following, though:

1) The crux of the issue is there is not enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it.

2) Therefore, this implies the fix is either:

a) Generate enough raid content to go around, or
b) Ration the existing raid content in a fair and even manner.

If you think (1) is false, I'm not sure why all these threads are appearing regarding all the raid content disputes and I guess the discussion stops here, doesn't it? Therefore, I think we can agree (1) is true.

Therefore, if (1) is true, then the solution is for there to be enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it. (2) contains the two means by which to do so... a) generate more content, or b) take the existing content and distribute it evenly. Can you think of more options to create enough raid content to go around? I can't. Be my guest. I guess there's option c) reduce the population of the server, but I figured that'd be off the table. :P

[Alawen Everywhere]

No you didn't. Feel free to point out the error in the following, though:

False dichotomy. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=false+dichotomy)

[YendorLootmonkey]

No, intelligently address the questions I asked instead of just tossing out a link. :) Unless you can't...

Or, to spell it out for you, if you think there are more than two options than the ones I presented as possible solutions, what did you have in mind? Without just blurting out "FALSE DICHOTOMY!!!!!!! HURRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!" and concluding that you've sufficiently made your case.

[FrogKing]

Never happen but this what I'd do: have raid-designated mobs apply a tag to all those that registered a successful melee hit or spell cast at the death of said raid mob. Then disallow any such tagged player from hitting or landing a spell on any other raid-designated for some duration of time. Pick your target but can't have them all. Its a lame solution but people completely incapable of sharing and that will go out their way to prevent others from experiencing content is pretty lame too.

[Irregardless]

No you didn't. Feel free to point out the error in the following, though:

1) The crux of the issue is there is not enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it.

2) Therefore, this implies the fix is either:

a) Generate enough raid content to go around, or
b) Ration the existing raid content in a fair and even manner.

If you think (1) is false, I'm not sure why all these threads are appearing regarding all the raid content disputes and I guess the discussion stops here, doesn't it? Therefore, I think we can agree (1) is true.

Therefore, if (1) is true, then the solution is for there to be enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it. (2) contains the two means by which to do so... a) generate more content, or b) take the existing content and distribute it evenly. Can you think of more options to create enough raid content to go around? I can't. Be my guest. I guess there's option c) reduce the population of the server, but I figured that'd be off the table. :P

I'm not sure we know the truth conditions for what you call "(1)." First of all, (1) assumes that there is a problem based on the fact that threads have appeared about it, in which case many things can be considered problems, such as 'two-boxing,' whether Kunark will be out, the best duo, etc. Sure, people will post about things and complain, but whether they are problems, or 'issues,' that warrant a solution is left for debate in the first place, which is what this thread is about, partly. Second, what qualifies as "enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it"? One boss per guild per week? One boss per 15-players in zone per day? This is murky, and I doubt very much we will ever reach a conclusion everyone will agree to, especially not in classic EQ, thus there will usually be threads about it. So (1), which you need to prove true in order to make the solutions in (2) be viable, is not as straight-forwardly true as you may think.

In (2) you state your first version of (a), which was entirely within your premise (1), which doesn't make it logically false (A implies A, after all) but it makes it a very poor argument. Regardless, you post a second (a) which suggests to generate more content, which I take it is meant to get us closer to fulfilling the supposedly promised "enough raid content" for everyone, which not only gets us further away from classic EQ, but also makes it another issue to determine what is "enough." You also post (b) which may not even be a solution to your own stated problem in (1) because even if the bosses are distributed in a "fair and even manner" (whatever that means, which is another issue in itself) there is no guarantee there will be "enough raid content to go around for those capable of raiding it." There never will be enough classic EQ content for everyone.

Also, (a) and (b) might not be the only solutions to (1), thus why this is being labelled as a false dilemma or dichotomy. (c) could be but is not limited to: (c1) have everyone learn to deal with it, (c2) have everyone learn to deal with until someone suggests an solution better than (a) and (b), (c3) any other possible solution is worse than the original problem so let's leave it as it is.

[YendorLootmonkey]

Fair enough, maybe I was simplifying the options way too much. But clearly there is a problem with the current distribution of limited raid content. To deny otherwise is like denying there is currently a problem with the U.S. economy. It's right there in our face, and it is impacting a lot of players and guilds on this server. It is an emotional topic, and as the server population grows, things are only going to get worse. You know this, and I know this. People will make stay or go decisions based on the amount of drama/grief they're willing to take, or how long they're able to enjoy the game while being deprived of end-game content.

On the other hand, I understand some people love the drama/grief. Since that is what's most fun about the game for them, maybe someone can make an emu server where there's only one mob and they can all fight over it 24/7. :)

Right now, from my understanding, the options are:

a) Free-for-all/Might makes right - One or two guilds bullying all the others
b) First-with-force - my understanding this is currently the case, so this includes the "have everyone learn to deal with it" options. Some of the interpretations of these rules probably need to be fine-tuned.
c) Increase raid spawn frequency - non-classic, changes rate at which items enter the world
d) Adjust raid spawn variance - someone keeps suggesting this, thoughts?
e) Reduce the server population - not an option
f) Raid Calendar - top tier guilds get less than they have, may not agree to this

Some other issues surrounding any of these options are 1) fairness and consistency of policy enforcement, 2) amount of GM intervention required.

Any others anyone can think of?

[mitic]

g) make fear, hate, sky, solb, pf, kedge + ecommons (for funs sake) pvp enabled

win win for everyone

[Finawin]

If you want to play fail pvp there is a place for it.

A pve server is not that place.

Deciding who gets pve targets based on who can zerg pvp harder makes no fucking sense.

[rioisk]

The only solution is FFA. Might makes right. Otherwise we're whining brats cause we didn't get our share of the pie.

I know guilds in many MMORPGs that have designated "watchers" checking spawns constantly. Every member of guild/raid is on call 24 hour a day and thus the watcher calls each raiders cell phone to inform them that a raid target is up. They must wake up/drop what they're doing and report for the raid within a certain amount of time else they're dropped from guild.

Anybody ever do Avatars in EQ2? Plenty of guilds who employed this system of on call 24 hours a day.

If a guild is this organized/dedicated that they can identify up raid targets and get their raid force there and dish out the most DPS then they should win the loot. No contest. Anybody who suggests otherwise is upset they aren't as dedicated but still want badass loot.



Just remember everybody. Having badass raid loot pretty much means you're an EQ addict.

[Omnimorph]

g) make fear, hate, sky, solb, pf, kedge + ecommons (for funs sake) pvp enabled

win win for everyone

That just means training and screwing people over will take precedence to killing them :p Why have your wizard nuke someone when you can have your monk train 30 mobs on them :p easier kills.

Increases frequency of raid mobs just means you'd have more opportunites for their to be disputes. Without the option of having constantly spawning raid mobs, top guilds will always want to dominate everything.

A solution would be to get all the guilds who want to raid a mob, each elect a raid leader, and submit a group to a raid :p then have a collaborate raid with a group (or 2) from each guild!!! It'd be beautiful, everyone getting along nicely working together to bring down a common foe.

you know it's the answer!

[Grento]

Each guild should have to choose a gladiator to represent them. If there is a dispute, there should be a duel to settle it. Same weapons and armor also, just so the gear card can't be pulled.

[rioisk]

Each guild should have to choose a gladiator to represent them. If there is a dispute, there should be a duel to settle it. Same weapons and armor also, just so the gear card can't be pulled.

Lol, according to some "PVP Tournaments" I've read about in EQ, gear is equivalent to skill because it shows how long you've worked on your character.

[Grento]

Lol, according to some "PVP Tournaments" I've read about in EQ, gear is equivalent to skill because it shows how long you've worked on your character.

I agree to some extent but that is the most common excuse for losing a duel in any PVP game where gear plays a large role. Take that away and what excuses are left? Lag? My dog was humping my leg? ;p

[rioisk]

I agree to some extent but that is the most common excuse for losing a duel in any PVP game where gear plays a large role. Take that away and what excuses are left? Lag? My dog was humping my leg? ;p

Well I agree with you. It's not really an excuse either because gear does play a huge role in most PvP scenarios. I think we sometimes forget that EQ is game based on the roll of a dice + statistic modifiers. Assuming the best possible strategy to win is employed by all parties then the party who will likely win is the party with the best statistic modifiers (i.e. best gear/buffs/etc). Again, the luck of dice rolls is involved, but in general, better gear = more likely to win.

The only true way to evaluate skill is to give people identical equipment/stats/buffs/internet connection/computer/all controllable factors. This would make it so only the human being is tested.