Simulated Patch Day Repop's

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

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

Depends who all we have log on before CT engage. Yes, we've had 60 before that I can remember. I also remember doing the same tactic with low 30's and still winning. IMO, CT comes down to who has the balls to engage first with amount of mobs left in zone.

I wasn't suggesting that with low 30s DA would have to clear the entire zone, but that DA would clear MORE of it than they would if DA had 55+ available to burn CT. it's not rocket science, it's simple math. 32,000hp goes to 0 faster if a raid has 25 more people applying damage.

I'm not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios or insult DA, you guys sometimes have a very large hammer (big numbers) at your disposal. Why not use it? I only brought up the point because people talked about how IB and DA would split their forces to cover multiple mobs. Doing so has consequences on the race for each of those mobs. I was just trying to talk reasonably about what those consequences would be when 5 raid targets are spawned at the same time with notice. At this point though, it's fair to say you and I just interpret the consequences differently, and are not likely to persuade each other. So, I'll drop it.

[President]

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

The biggest problem that I see is with the mentality those of you who want to compete are approaching this with. The current system lends itself to the truest free-for-all competition, for anyone willing to put forth the effort. If you had everything spawning at the same time, you would instead be complaining that {insert desired target} is always chosen by {DA or IB}.

Assumption, likely wrong.

When players compete for a mob with a known window coming up, their perception is that it's not their problem that they couldn't reach a resolution on their own, it's our problem for deciding who was merited the kill.

Don't see how this is relevant with the current poopsocking situation. Whatever guild decides to sit on their ass longer likely gets the kill, unless there is a unfortunately and unlikely wipe.

When players want to lobby for a different system of mob spawning, their perception is that it's not their problem to solve with creativity, cooperation, and cunning problem-solving skills, but that it's our problem to re-arrange the entire system to suit the latest complaint.

You mean when players want the system to be more along the lines of classic on a *gasp* classically recreated server? To bring back the fun of racing to get all the mobs instead of sitting around with 15+ thumbs up our asses?

Spotting a problem doesn't take any special talent. It's one of the most base aspects of human nature. So is pleading for an advantage, or expecting someone else to solve that problem for you. But what does take special talent, is solving that problem yourself.

Nice attempt at condescending the player base.

And not just saying 'I think this should happen because I don't like what's happening now', but really thinking through the consequences of what would happen if it was changed. Live is a perfect example of listening to short-sighted self-interest.

See every response above.


Not responding to the rest because it's pretty much irrelevant to the argument of making the server more like classic.

[Bushido]

Originally Posted by Dumesh Uhl'Belk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wasn't suggesting that with low 30s DA would have to clear the entire zone, but that DA would clear MORE of it than they would if DA had 55+ available to burn CT. it's not rocket science, it's simple math. 32,000hp goes to 0 faster if a raid has 25 more people applying damage.

I'm not trying to piss in anyone's cheerios or insult DA, you guys sometimes have a very large hammer (big numbers) at your disposal. Why not use it? I only brought up the point because people talked about how IB and DA would split their forces to cover multiple mobs. Doing so has consequences on the race for each of those mobs. I was just trying to talk reasonably about what those consequences would be when 5 raid targets are spawned at the same time with notice. At this point though, it's fair to say you and I just interpret the consequences differently, and are not likely to persuade each other. So, I'll drop it.

Fair points, I didn't bother reading the entire thread either, so that was my bad. But there's some truth to splitting targets and still getting all or almost all reasonably. Split force to Vox/Naggy for first, jump to Inny right after if guild still clearing way, then off to fear as it will still being cleared. If hate was cleared before Inny spawned would most likely miss him but would have shots at vox, naggy, draco, ct still. That's just how I would see it happen, I might be wrong though.

[Starklen]

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

The biggest problem that I see is with the mentality those of you who want to compete are approaching this with. The current system lends itself to the truest free-for-all competition, for anyone willing to put forth the effort. If you had everything spawning at the same time, you would instead be complaining that {insert desired target} is always chosen by {DA or IB}.

When players compete for a mob with a known window coming up, their perception is that it's not their problem that they couldn't reach a resolution on their own, it's our problem for deciding who was merited the kill.

When players want to lobby for a different system of mob spawning, their perception is that it's not their problem to solve with creativity, cooperation, and cunning problem-solving skills, but that it's our problem to re-arrange the entire system to suit the latest complaint.

Spotting a problem doesn't take any special talent. It's one of the most base aspects of human nature. So is pleading for an advantage, or expecting someone else to solve that problem for you. But what does take special talent, is solving that problem yourself.

And not just saying 'I think this should happen because I don't like what's happening now', but really thinking through the consequences of what would happen if it was changed. Live is a perfect example of listening to short-sighted self-interest.

From a developer standpoint, we can reasonably take ownership of a problem when a player has no ability to solve it themselves. This is not one of those situations. We don't really give a shit who gets the mobs. If you perceive this to be a problem: Brainstorm. Collaborate. Compete. Raid targets are a scarce resource. If you want them badly enough, you will approach it with realistic expectations, find a way to compete for them, and persevere when you fail.

If you expect a higher authority to solve your every problem, and cede all personal responsibility, and externalize all blame, take the time to read this over.

In PDF

On Kindle


It's public domain, and both of those links are free. Read it while you're shitting in your socks.

Based on this, I would think you'd support a virtually 'anything goes' ruleset where any or all agreements, actions, expectations, and/or resulting consequences are the business of players and guilds. With respect to this matter, I think your philosophy might actually be the best.

[Nealio]

It's almost like Rogean and Uthgaard are reading just enough of the first one or two posts, then posting a response that defends their stance.

Most people in the thread seem to acknowledge pros and cons to many of the scenarios presented here today. That is a fine example of working together with creativity, cooperation, cunning problem-solving skills. I suppose when there is a flaw in the system, it is the "dev's" stance that "their perception is that it's not their problem that they couldn't reach a resolution on their own"

I'm getting rather tired of hearing the card being tossed around that if you cry about not getting to see the planes then get up and do something about it. I want someone to explain to me exactly what skill set is required to camp CT's spawn point and zerg him before the zone aggros and arrives? What amazing creative genius is required to sit in front of a flat screen and wait. That argument fallls flat on its face, lacking any merit or validity at all.

The current status quo does not support or inspire any initiative for guilds to work together to rub out the accused farming guilds because it simply cannot happen at this late stage in the issue. It's the EXACT same problem as with LIVE, just in a different dress and you are lying both to yourself and to the user base by arguing it's not. Large guilds, filled with people around the globe, who have nothing to do for large amounts of time, sitting on boss spawns. At least in LIVE smaller guilds had an opportunity, and succeeded quite often, due to idiosyncrasies in the game mechanics.

What I think is sad in this particular issue is that not once have the 'dev's" popped in and said something to the effect of "Ya know, we understand the system in place atm isn't perfect, but ...". Rather I have seen two insuffucient posts aimed at insulting a large portion of the user base, arrogant rebuffs that don't even address issues brought up in this thread, and nothing at all remotely helpful. I'm very disappointed as my first few encounters with GM's were very good.

[Chanus]

You could always stop paying your subscription fee to show them you're not going to take that kind of attitude from them!

[Akame]

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

What I think is sad in this particular issue is that not once have the 'dev's" popped in and said something to the effect of "Ya know, we understand the system in place atm isn't perfect, but ...". Rather I have seen two insuffucient posts aimed at insulting a large portion of the user base, arrogant rebuffs that don't even address issues brought up in this thread, and nothing at all remotely helpful. I'm very disappointed as my first few encounters with GM's were very good.

Well for one the Dev's aren't classic. They aren't being paid to make us happy, it's not all that surprising that they'll actually just up and say no, because I said so! At the end of the day, it's their sandbox to play in, and they are the big kid on the playground. At best we can bring up thoughtful well laid out suggestions to possibly make their job easier and benefit the community in some way at the same time.

[Nealio]

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

At best we can bring up thoughtful well laid out suggestions to possibly make their job easier and benefit the community in some way at the same time.

And that's what this thread largely has been doing, and we are getting shot down without so much as a thought. That much is evident from their two responses to the thread.

Earlier, I believe in another thread, I pointed out to someone else that this is THEIR project (sandbox as you put it) and that the person should not argue but make suggestions. I totally understand and agree. However if they are going to open a forum for suggestions from the player base, it should be utilized as that and not just blown off, even more used to insult those making the suggestions.

[Akame]

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

And that's what this thread largely has been doing, and we are getting shot down without so much as a thought. That much is evident from their two responses to the thread.

Earlier, I believe in another thread, I pointed out to someone else that this is THEIR project (sandbox as you put it) and that the person should not argue but make suggestions. I totally understand and agree. However if they are going to open a forum for suggestions from the player base, it should be utilized as that and not just blown off, even more used to insult those making the suggestions.

I think of it like this. Patch day re pops were there because of problems in classic, not because they were intentionally giving the player base more god loot. Likewise they have fixed things ahead of time on this server that were broken in classic, whether or not it was on a time-line to fix.

However, you could say that Dumesh's idea of no variance with a +6 hour respawn timer on even 24 hour timers (to rotate them around the clock) and either shortened respawn timers, or these ideas of random world respawns of all gods without warning, could be a way to keep the (ever growing) level 50 playerbase entertained while we wait for Kunark to come out.

Because! Yes there is a reason - Because Kunark came out much faster in classic than here, opening up more raiding content and higher levels for that growing 50 playerbase to funnel into, whereas on this server there is no place for the 50 playerbase to funnel into (higher levels, kunark, epic weapon quests, the hole etc).

I could see using that as a viable reason to push for simulated patch day repops, not because we want to emulate spotty unreliable servers and bad coding which worked in the favor of the bored high level playerbase, but to stave off the boredom of the extra 6-12 months waiting for Kunark/more stuff to do.

[Lazortag]

I'd like to make one last response in this thread with some data defending my earlier suggestion, that we have the server repop raid mobs after every N number patches, where 1/N is the proportion of patches live had compared to p99.

Firstly, the reason I suggested the "every N number of patches" part was because we patch more often than live, so this is the most fair and classic solution. From looking at old patch notes for here and for Live, I found the following:

-There were 10 patches in 1999 (from April 6th onwards, when the first patch happened)
-There were 33 patches in 2000
-There were 29 patches in 2001 (before Luclin was released)

The above was taken from the extensive pages on Alla which detail eq's patch history. I omitted patches which most likely didn't involve restarting every server (like press releases and announcements, or things that affected only one server, like server splits).

From the Announcements forum I gathered that we had roughly 49 patches in the past year on p99. This means we have roughly 4.08 patches per month, and Live had 2.18 patches per month during the entire classic period (which spanned 33 months). So we patch about 1.87 times more often than they did. If we make things simple and just round that up to 2, then we could have raid bosses respawn every two patches. I really don't think this would be hard to keep track of, nor would it be unfair, nor would it be a huge departure from what was done in classic.

One objection to this was that we typically patch really early in the morning. While this isn't always the case, this would also sometimes happen on Live, and honestly if it gives the euro guilds (or the guilds with the most insomniacs) a brief advantage every time a patch happens, that's not really a big deal and I'm sure it wouldn't be the end of the world. Either way, this issue could be worked out somehow, and apart from it I see no other issues with my suggestion.

If someone wants to correct any mistakes in the above data, please mention something.