System rotation target ? - Page 31

Ronas · #**301** 06-02-2011, 08:27 PM

Trying to get a timeline what would probably happen on this server off what happen on my live server

http://doa4life.tripod.com/DoA4Life/id11.html

This part the best to resolve issues

Well all day on the 7th, our guildmotd said "Starting VP as soon as we get 4 warriors and 4 clerics online" and for some strange reason it took until 9 PM cst for that to happen. Lo and behold we start filing into VP and ANOTHER guild(cough* SR cough*) starts heading to VP as well. At one point there were 49 people in there and we were about to start shouting camp check when a GM showed up. He gave us 4 options to figure out the dilemma. 1) Have the guild leaders decide amoung themselves 2)Work together to clear 3)random 1 100 for VP 4) have a single member from our guild fight a single member from their guild. Clearly option 4 was the only choice. We sent one of our best duelers, Tyranid the Nerfo, and they sent their flagship leader Faelagund. We are not the type of guild that flaunts victory on their main page, so please click this link for the pics LOL.

Rhambuk · #**302** 06-02-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

July 7-8, 2001 VP CLEARED(more or less hehe)

Well all day on the 7th, our guildmotd said "Starting VP as soon as we get 4 warriors and 4 clerics online" and for some strange reason it took until 9 PM cst for that to happen. Lo and behold we start filing into VP and ANOTHER guild(cough* SR cough*) starts heading to VP as well. At one point there were 49 people in there and we were about to start shouting camp check when a GM showed up. He gave us 4 options to figure out the dilemma. 1) Have the guild leaders decide amoung themselves 2)Work together to clear 3)random 1 100 for VP 4) have a single member from our guild fight a single member from their guild. Clearly option 4 was the only choice. We sent one of our best duelers, Tyranid the Nerfo, and they sent their flagship leader Faelagund. We are not the type of guild that flaunts victory on their main page, so please click this link for the pics LOL.

Sounds like this issue took about 2 minutes to solve, and could be applied in tons of circumstances right now.

He also sounds surprised at 49 people being in one raid zone at a time, lawl at pofears 100+ on p99

Hobby · #**303** 06-02-2011, 08:42 PM

The current system is just fine. There is nothing wrong with it except "its not classic". Well tough titty said the kitty. Until there is a better system that does not require any sort of GM involvement (like now....), then we will simply not change it.

Skope · #**304** 06-02-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

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

The current system is just fine. There is nothing wrong with it except "its not classic". Well tough titty said the kitty. Until there is a better system that does not require any sort of GM involvement (like now....), then we will simply not change it.

Removing variance altogether settles the issue of having swarms of players on the same target. And if they are on the same target just make them /roll, or go FTE with a shout, or PvP. All of these mean less or equal GM involvement, Hobby. The idea of FTE w/ a shout is something that would be very close to what we have now.

If all targets pop at the same time every week (minus 3-day targets, but they too would share the same exact window) you'd have fewer guilds going for the same single target. It's actually a smart idea to leave the 2 other guilds at trak while you down VS. Or go after sev or gore while there's a clusterfuck elsewhere. The issue resolves itself, this notion that everyone wants 1 target and 1 target only is because this server works on variance and having 2 targets pop at once is practically unheard of.

Troy · #**305** 06-02-2011, 09:23 PM

Quote:

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

The current system is just fine. There is nothing wrong with it except "its not classic".

EQ Live is just fine. There is nothing wrong with it except "it's not classic."

Classic is why the damn server exists. Intentionally introducing non-classic things is ridiculous on this server.

Hell, if the problem is just GM involvement then recruit someone to deal with the issues. I bet multiple people would step forward willing to help out. I know this because I'd be one of them.

Hobby · #**306** 06-02-2011, 09:46 PM

Never mind. Im finished with this topic as it is not going anywhere,

Troy · #**307** 06-02-2011, 09:48 PM

Why? I'm offering to solve your problems for you. I'd call that getting somewhere.

Skope · #**308** 06-02-2011, 09:51 PM

Quote:

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

Never mind. Im finished with this topic as it is not going anywhere,

yet you won't say what can and can't be done to limit involvement, but sure like to get your uninformed and unreasonable opinion out. A couple of ideas have already been tossed around, and instead of explaining why they would or wouldn't work you simply choose to ignore them.

Hobby · #**309** 06-02-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

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

We are not opposed to editing and improving rules. But, as they are right now, theres very little reason to change anything. If better ideas become public consensus, then its now something we would consider amongst ourselves.

Keep in mind that we enjoy the competition, and reducing competition to a poopsock time-sink only causes more problems. Its nice to think "well we wont need gm's if we do this..." but this isnt a fairytale. Every change in a rule will either increase work for us or decrease it. We have FTE Varience because it takes us almost out of the equation --- 200 people do not sit on a spawn point, its clearly a race and people will see who engage it first 90% of the time, thus leaving very little to us to monitor.

A smaller varience is nice in theory, but it increases the risk of poopsocking, thus increasing the risk of causing US issues.

My favorite idea has been and always will be a completely random spawn. Sunday to Saturday, every mob has a chance to pop only once in that entire week (except draco), if the mob hasnt popped by saturday night it would be forced. Then sunday all timers start again. That will never happen, but i personally like it.

Quote:

And creating more work for gm's is what is out..It is easy to change a timer, its easy to change and enforce rules...The thing that will never change is : Mob A spawns, players B~Z kill. We will not make zone-repops happen for every mob, we will not change encounters period.

Mob A spawns, players B~Z kill it.

Quote:

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

Skope I am not going to say anything more than this: There are 20x more issues involved with having static timers as compared to a varience.

I call bullshit, sir.

Skope · #**310** 06-02-2011, 10:06 PM

And i just told you no variance = less people at each target. Unlike you I have proof: it's called classic. That's how it happened. And on classic every guild didnt go for 1 single target, they went for 1 each and would bump into other guilds.

You telling me that there's "issues" doesn't explain to me what these issues are. I said before there would need to be GM guidelines as to what could and can't be done. Shit, I can tell you there's a giant flying spaghetti monster, too. In fact here's a website. http://www.venganza.org/

Ask me what it is and why it's there? Oh, i'm not answering those right now.

EDIT: and you're *really* changing encounters as soon as you add a 96 hour variance. You may not think it's a big deal now, but i can promise you it will need an overhaul come velious. And a rather big one if you want to claim that you're not changing encounters and keep a straight face.