Raid Changes

[khanable]

Does /guildwar work?

Fight it out, guilds.

[SupaflyIRL]

This is what you posted as your thesis:

As the situation currently stands, I feel that the variance does a reasonable job at preventing FTE camp-fests, however, numerous late-window examples prove that the variance is not completely efficient at discouraging the FTE camp-fests.

The only thing your solution does differently from current variance is to provide more opportunity for late window examples to arise. Your solution fails to address the causes you yourself defined. Either your thesis is inaccurate or your solution is ineffective.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

This is what you posted as your thesis:



The only thing your solution does differently from current variance is to provide more opportunity for late window examples to arise. Your solution fails to address the causes you yourself defined. Either your thesis is inaccurate or your solution is ineffective.

But my solution changes the mechanics of a late window from a guaranteed mob appearance to a % chance of a mob's appearance. Apples and oranges. Let's tweak the numbers a bit.

When a mob's window reaches 75% completion, the system has a 95% chance to extend the window another 500 hours. If the 500 hour window begins to close, the system has a 90% chance at another 300 hour extension.

Clearly, the above numbers would all but eliminate socking.

Now, follow me here, this discussion is about bringing the above numbers down to a reasonable amount so as to discourage socking at least .00001% more than it is discouraged now. The discussion then becomes what the right balance of numbers versus reduced spawns becomes should the goal of reducing the sock become worth it.

I understand you've invested yourself in your idea, but...well, I think you know the rest.

[SupaflyIRL]

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

But my solution changes the mechanics of a late window from a guaranteed mob appearance to a % chance of a mob's appearance. Apples and oranges. Let's tweak the numbers a bit.

When a mob's window reaches 75% completion, the system has a 95% chance to extend the window another 500 hours. If the 500 hour window begins to close, the system has a 90% chance at another 300 hour extension.

Clearly, the above numbers would all but eliminate socking.

Now, follow me here, this discussion is about bringing the above numbers down to a reasonable amount so as to discourage socking at least .00001% more than it is discouraged now. The discussion then becomes what the right balance of numbers versus reduced spawns becomes should the goal of reducing the sock become worth it.

I understand you've invested yourself in your idea, but...well, I think you know the rest.

Should the check fail to extend the window, there is a 100% chance the spawn will happen by the end of the current window. This is the monkey wrench in your plan's gears.

e: It doesn't change the "what" of the spawn mechanics, just the "when"

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Should the check fail to extend the window, there is a 100% chance the spawn will happen by the end of the current window.

But the playerbase will not know the check's results. Thus, they must gamble. Uncertainty will dissuade at least a few, and thus a reduction in the current symptoms.

[gotrocks]

you are *grossly* underestimating peoples desire to kill raid targets.

like alarti just said, will this decrease poopsocking? probably. but also probably not by much.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

will this decrease poopsocking? probably. but also probably not by much.

Thus, the discussion becomes: "does adding this mechanic improve the efficacy of the variance system?"

Even a slight improvement is still an improvement.

[Alarti0001]

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

Thus, the discussion becomes: "does adding this mechanic improve the efficacy of the variance system?"

Even a slight improvement is still an improvement.

Again at what cost?

Any details regarding my previous questions about time investment etc.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again at what cost?

Any details regarding my previous questions about time investment etc.

As Loraen mentioned, and I mentioned on the TMO forums, the impact upon the number of spawns per year would be in the single digit range. Likely between 2-5% depending upon the numbers utilized.

I suspect coding such a scheme would be an exceptionally trivial matter, though I am not a coder. FTE shouts and the like have not been implemented for a want of time and the difficulty thereof.

Worst case scenario, I suspect that coding and implementing such a scheme would delay Velious by about, oh a few hours?

EDIT: For reference, Loly did a detailed simulation on the "Variance Simulator" thread on the TMO forums, which you may peruse at your leisure.

Originally Posted by Loly

This simulates variance windows in a crude fashion and looks to see if they end in the last 15% of the window.


The result page will tell you this after a full run;

Single extend checks; 3447, Single extends; 1715, Double extend checks; 0, Double extends; 0, Counts until double extend 10001

Ignore everything but the first two entries.

When you look at the tables displayed it will show you the randomly chosen end window with Xasten's poopsock defeat idea applied to the first half. (I.e. If the window ends in the last 15%, it will roll a d2 and if 2 then it will choose to add a random number of seconds from 1 to a full day)

I think the secondary code is broken, but whatever. If you see what I've messed up on please point it out.

Note, greyed rows are those that extended beyond the normal window.

[gotrocks]

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

Thus, the discussion becomes: "does adding this mechanic improve the efficacy of the variance system?"

Even a slight improvement is still an improvement.

but at what cost...?

if it drives the playerbase insane and causes them to murder their families, lose their jobs, and delete their characters, was it worth it..?

in all seriousness though, I think it does boil down to "is this worth it?" will it make enough of a difference vs time required to setup, implement etc.

in my humble opinion, it does not.