Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:03 PM
Elements Elements is offline
Fire Giant

Elements's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you remove the bag limits within C, then C will just go after FFA mobs before attempting C mobs. This is exemplified by the repops over the last two years where TMO would go after VP only after all the non-VP mobs were downed.
You think if higher priority targets are C and lower are FFA on repops that people are just going to let the C sit there while they go for FFA? no. there is still competition in C. The issue is that if we chose to compete in FFA then the class C mobs are no loner class C they are defaulted to R which is not a 33/33/33 system as was intended by the plan. Having a bag limit within class C is silly.
  #72  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:07 PM
Elements Elements is offline
Fire Giant

Elements's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 501
Default

Even once we get more guilds in class C the bag limit remains silly. We are in class C to compete not take 2 mobs and sit out watching the other guys in class C casually roam around slaying dragons.
  #73  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:11 PM
Alenon Alenon is offline
Aviak


Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elements [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Even once we get more guilds in class C the bag limit remains silly. We are in class C to compete not take 2 mobs and sit out watching the other guys in class C casually roam around slaying dragons.
sooo go to vp before other class c guilds and get more vp loots?
  #74  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:12 PM
Erati Erati is offline
Planar Protector

Erati's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,561
Default

well it should be noted that this problem only arises because of a mechanic that we have never really fully implemented here ( sim patch repops on reg basis)

things need to work themselves out, if this continues to be a reoccurring theme then there no reason the Class C guilds write up a proposal to amend the way bag limits work for them

Repops are literally brand new to this server, before big R rubber stamped doing them in the current raid system, I think we got a server reset/repop maybe 3-4 times over the course of a calendar YEAR?

So while its not a perfect system, it is a new system. Lets see what happens the next couple times repops happen and more Mob 'Scenarios' occur

then we can further develop a proper solution. Simply saying Tier C mobs or guilds should not have a bag limit on repop is looking at too small of sample size to determine that is the proper way to fix the problem
  #75  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:15 PM
Hitpoint Hitpoint is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
But you are choosing to relinquish those mobs, likely because FFA mobs are tastier. You are trading competition within your own tier (going after C-mobs only) for competition amongst the entire server (FFA). If anything, you've likely increased competition by going for FFA mobs over C mobs. If C is worried about losing C mobs to R guilds, then kill your C mobs. FFA mobs are for everyone to compete over, they aren't yours by default. If you decide to go after them first, that's a choice you'll now have to live with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If you remove the bag limits within C, then C will just go after FFA mobs before attempting C mobs. This is exemplified by the repops over the last two years where TMO would go after VP only after all the non-VP mobs were downed.
Yes all of this is true. But this system that we agreed to was designed to allow it. I'm not say going for FFA mobs first on a repop is morally right or whatever, because this isn't about that. 33/33/33 was the deal that was made, period. If you disagree with us getting 33% from class C and then potentially another 33% from FFA, then you simply have a problem with the way the plan was written. Nothing else is relevant to this discussion.
  #76  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:22 PM
falkun falkun is offline
Planar Protector

falkun's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ruins of Old Sebilis
Posts: 2,464
Default

The plan as implemented has always had the 2-mob bag limit. Saying its strictly 33/33/33 is ignoring the rules (which haven't changed since original implementation btw). That's ignoring the rules that VP is excluded (from bag limits and outside the 1:1:1 split) and that there's a two mob limit.
Last edited by falkun; 01-15-2014 at 05:24 PM..
  #77  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:28 PM
Hitpoint Hitpoint is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The plan as implemented has always had the 2-mob bag limit. Saying its strictly 33/33/33 is ignoring the rules (which haven't changed since original implementation btw). That's ignoring the rules that VP is excluded (from bag limits and outside the 1:1:1 split) and that there's a two mob limit.
Then it isn't 33/33/33 at all, and never has been. Only one side is ever losing mobs here, and only one side is ever gaining. We've been arguing against the bag limit from the start, even class R guilds. It simply doesn't make sense for this plan.
  #78  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:32 PM
falkun falkun is offline
Planar Protector

falkun's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ruins of Old Sebilis
Posts: 2,464
Default

Except its been proven that virtually all C's "losses" are made up by the additional repops. The only thing C is "losing" is the ability to stop R guilds from killing dragons. That's shadenfreude.
  #79  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:39 PM
Hitpoint Hitpoint is offline
Sarnak


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by falkun [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Except its been proven that virtually all C's "losses" are made up by the additional repops. The only thing C is "losing" is the ability to stop R guilds from killing dragons. That's shadenfreude.
They aren't additional repops when the regular rotation applies to them. They are mobs we would have killed normally, that we now cannot kill because they happened to spawn on a repop.
  #80  
Old 01-15-2014, 05:42 PM
falkun falkun is offline
Planar Protector

falkun's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ruins of Old Sebilis
Posts: 2,464
Default

Spawns per week (from earlier math): 22
Spawns per repop (from earlier math): 18
2-4 repops per month, 4.3 weeks per month.
~94 regular spawns per month, ~54 repop spawns per month, 148 spawns per month.
~44 VP spawns per month (4.3*6+6*3)
~104 spawns to rotate per month, ~35 spawns per class per month.

So R is guaranteed 35 spawns per month, and has a shot at another 35 FFA spawns. Before this raid agreement, there were approximately 94 spawns per month (same regular, no repops). Taking out R's 35 spawns, there are still 113 spawns C can go for, an increase of 19 spawns from C's previous 94. Now saying that C can only kill 2*(# of C guilds) during repops, that's still 6 mobs outside VP per repop, 6 mobs inside VP per repop, 35 spawns per month for C, and 35 spawns per month for FFA. Assuming an average of 3 repops per month, that's still 106 mobs per month that C can compete for, 12 mobs more than the 94 per month they had before the new raid rules.

Please tell me, where is C "losing" mobs compared to before these new raid rules?
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:55 AM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.