Raid rules suggestion

[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]

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

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.

[karsten]

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

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]

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

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.

[Grento]

^^

Nice idea. Those were fun races

[Irregardless]

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

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. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

[Omnimorph]

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

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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Why have your wizard nuke someone when you can have your monk train 30 mobs on them [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] 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 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] 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!