Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
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.