Raid Changes

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Xasten, and Sirken, you cannot be more "catastrophic" than zero. Why are neither of you recognizing this? Giegue points it out every post.

Small guilds do not benefit from a head start, they benefit from not having to face off head-to-head, "If TMO is over there killing that mob, they cannot be over here killing the mob our guild is after."

You'll notice the other guilds got Inny, Maestro, Tal (attempt only?), Fay, and Gore. They got them because those mobs are lower on your priority list than VS or Trak. If you kill/prioritize in the order you posted (which I can believe), then the targets the other guilds got is nearly expected.

If the other guilds had further agreement among themselves, they may have even gotten additional kills. Three guilds wasting time around Talendor is stupid when other mobs are up, but BDA didn't recognize that Full Circle was there.

I suppose I should elaborate. I am (ass)uming a few things. First, I seem to recall the server staff saying that WEEKLY repops will not happen because it would introduce far too many spawns.

Yes, if repops happened so often as to prevent "spawn timer drift" then clearly smaller guilds would benefit because we would be backlogged and inundated with too many spawns. However, once drift begins to occur, we have enough members to effectively kill three (maybe more) targets simultaneously. Keep in mind, if we know when mobs will pop we can plan around that VERY effectively.

I am further assuming that it is better to open a larger variety of mobs to smaller guilds than the same mobs over and over. (Vox/Gore would never be touched if we ONLY had simultaneous repops/no variance). Granted, under either case VS and Trak will be on lockdown.

However, I freely concede that some mobs are better than no mobs flat out. And, with NO spawn drift and NO variance, some mobs will invariably be killed by smaller guilds. However, I don't think that is likely to occur, thus my hesitation to eliminate the variance.

I simply think that with the repop methodology I proposed, under my above assumptions, a variance would be better than no variance.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Also, as a follow up:

I think the biggest thing that could be done, BY FAR, is simultaneous repops that are announced at least 24 hours in advance.

I will acknowledge that with only ONE uber-guild no variance might yield better results. Assuming spawn timers do NOT drift (for whatever reason), no variance might be superior.

However, with two (or more) uber guilds a variance will yield better results. The variance was initially implemented because of the socking issues and it did solve them fairly well. It is obviously not without problems, but the question is where do we emphasize efficiency?

Do we promote a stable environment should two big guilds exist? (Variance)

Or do we promote a stable environment where many smaller guilds can flourish despite the presence of an uber guild? (no variance AND controlling for spawn timer drift)

P.S. Non-authoritative FTE shouts for informational purposes only would be extremely convenient.

[falkun]

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

I suppose I should elaborate. I am (ass)uming a few things. First, I seem to recall the server staff saying that WEEKLY repops will not happen because it would introduce far too many spawns.

TMO is already selling many BIS items, and the rest of the server has seen too few to even have their most dedicated members geared. How would "too many spawns" hurt anyone other than TMO's market value of items? We're all playing a 13 year old game, the "haves" and the "have nots" can be left in 1999.

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

Yes, if repops happened so often as to prevent "spawn timer drift" then clearly smaller guilds would benefit because we would be backlogged and inundated with too many spawns. However, once drift begins to occur, we have enough members to effectively kill three (maybe more) targets simultaneously. Keep in mind, if we know when mobs will pop we can plan around that VERY effectively.

Ok, then you'd have a reason to open up recruiting again: recruit until you can down all raid content simultaneously. You already possess the largest L60/125+MR force on the server, why not get larger? Massive guild size has been your go-to solution since you merged with DA, and this would make that solution even more applicable!

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

I am further assuming that it is better to open a larger variety of mobs to smaller guilds than the same mobs over and over. (Vox/Gore would never be touched if we ONLY had simultaneous repops/no variance). Granted, under either case VS and Trak will be on lockdown.

Some mobs is better than no mobs. And if TMO had Trak and VS every week, but lost the others due to other guilds during simultaneous respawn, that would provide bargaining power for target swapping (rotation) to the smaller guilds. Or TMO would get bored of going for the same targets every week, also providing bargaining power for the smaller guilds. Or TMO would get bored, which would allow other forces to kill new mobs (only because TMO has already killed everything possible in current content).

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

However, I freely concede that some mobs are better than no mobs flat out. And, with NO spawn drift and NO variance, some mobs will invariably be killed by smaller guilds. However, I don't think that is likely to occur, thus my hesitation to eliminate the variance.

According to giegue, content patches on Live were about once every 1.5 weeks on average. Why not have every other cycle be a full respawn, similar to classic?

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

I simply think that with the repop methodology I proposed, under my above assumptions, a variance would be better than no variance.

If I had to choose between simultaneous respawn and variance, I'd take SR every day of the week.

[Frieza_Prexus]

If I had to choose between simultaneous respawn and variance, I'd take SR every day of the week.

In this, we agree.

Also, to Giegue, I do not mean to imply to all smaller guilds are disorganized. Divinity is clearly well-organized.

However, it is my general impression that many of the smaller guilds are disorganized when it comes to raid content. In any case, my whole reason for bringing this up was to simply point out that pre-announcing repops gives MORE prep time for smaller guilds. TMO is fully prepped for a repop within 30 minutes. Perhaps I should have said some some guilds are simply more organized.

In any case, I simply noted the pre-announced repops would go a long way into leveling the playing field for any guild NOT as previously organized as the competition.

[Cars]

- Lower Variance significantly
- Simulate patch day
- Have buff timers count down even well logged out or cancel entirely upon logging out.
- FTE shouts

Raid scene saved...

[falkun]

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

- FTE shouts

Please explain how recording an event for all to see is more easily abusable than the mechanic being recorded?

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

Not to discount that FTE shout is a good idea in itself, but the responses to this are correct. LvL 1 gnome enchanter, sitting down, first in zone, sitting there for days. Should that really be the deciding factor of a claim?

If you're L1 can live long enough for the rest of your raid force to engage, it's the same as it is now. Monk/necro/SK lays FD under mob, raid force gets prepped, FDer stands up, raid force engages. If another raid force attempts to compete, the FDer stands up earlier. How is that any different than a L1 enchanter sitting on spawn? O wait, the FDer will survive the spawn and (assuming they pop up at the right time) will guarantee FTE over the competing raid force while the L1 enchanter is squashed like a bug and the raid mob goes back into seek mode.

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

This is taken into consideration in the raid changes I have proposed. When Rogean and I are in agreement, it will be discussed with the staff, then I will outline it to players to discuss.

Coming soon.

This is 3 months old now...any news?

[Writ3r]

Implement some of these fixes and then go back to Ambrotos'/Nilbog's rule set of there being NO trains allowed in zones such as Hate/Fear and the raid seen will be vastly improved by far. It will improve the state of those zones while increasing the competition within them rather than the petition. Should also force communication between guilds going for those targets simultaneously as it will require more time to down the targets in those zones allowing for other targets to remain up (if a simultaneous repop).

[Splorf22]

Just to beat a dead horse I also think Sirken is dead wrong, for two huge reasons:

#1. Casual guilds do not want to track shit for 96 hours. I know all the TMO guys like to brag about their great family/social lives, but the reality is in total that guild probably put in 500 hours of mindnumblingly boring 'wait-for-raid-mob-to-pop-while-watching-dvd' per week. I don't want to do that, and the majority of P1999 does not want to do that, because it is a huge waste of time.

#2. Because of #1, Casual guilds have very little experience at mobilization. Sure, TMO has a huge advantage there because they have practice and tons of spare accounts that they have purchased with all the pp they get from farming the raid mobs. I guarantee that if linked respawns are limited, the casual guilds will start putting a lot more time into resist gear, WC caps, OT hammers, and all around getting faster and mobilizing. Plus, TMO can't camp out everywhere.

Overall I find it hilarious that you are talking about how variance is there for the smaller guilds when under normal circumstances TMO gets 90% of raid targets, BDA gets 10%, and everyone else gets 0. In other words, linked respawns can hardly be worse than the current system.

TL;DR: How about instead of worrying about the freaking compass you guys fix the non-classic raid scene that literally no one on the server likes?

[Nlaar]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TL;DR: How about instead of worrying about the freaking compass you guys fix the non-classic raid scene that literally no one on the server likes?

Have my babies.

[Itap]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TL;DR: How about instead of worrying about the freaking compass you guys fix the non-classic raid scene that literally no one on the server likes except TMO?

Fixed