Simulated Patch Day Repop's

[Felix]

I'm pretty sure President has won this thread.

[Cars]

[QUOTE=President;211347](whether you announce a time frame, or do it randomly) it is going to encourage racing to QUOTE]

If you announce the timeframe absolutely nothing will change. The only difference would be IB and DA would get almost double the loot. On simulated server downs maybe 1 seperate guild would get a boss target well IB and DA both split their raid forces to 2 seperate targets and downed both of them. The only time a seperate guild would get a single target would be if IB and DA camped a team each at the same spawn leaving one boss open. But when they repopped without any variance the guilds would be there again, this time not missing a single boss.

Although their should be more god loot in the game by this point and even though in classic they had server downs that refreshed mobs..it just wouldnt fix the issues we have here like everyone seems to think, or rather not to the extent that everyone would hope.

This server has a WAY higher population of level 50 players then live did on classic on ANY server. Its a very simple issue of extremely big fish in an extremely small pond. Which is probably why the GMs look at this entire thread and shrug it off because they know the only answer to this problem is Kunark and thats why they are working so furiously on it.

If you didn't announce the simulated server repop then you would have entire dungeons popping on "the majority" of players well they are grinding or playing casually. The flip side to that is if you make it so that the simulated server down only repops bosses then what your asking for is not at all classic and you lose the basis of your argument to make things more like classic. I am not in a guild that is getting Boss mobs, but we can and have had opportunities to compete. Variance DOES allow it to be competitive but competition is stiff when the server has 4 times as many raid capable people that there were during this era on live (ballpark figure). Personally I would rather that they focused on Kunark rather then a solution to a problem that will most likely be fixing itself in the near future. And if it doesn't fix the problem they can look into a solution when they dont have so much on their plate like they do now.

my two cents anyways. Flame on

[President]

[QUOTE=Cars;211443]

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

(whether you announce a time frame, or do it randomly) it is going to encourage racing to QUOTE]

If you announce the timeframe absolutely nothing will change. The only difference would be IB and DA would get almost double the loot. On simulated server downs maybe 1 seperate guild would get a boss target well IB and DA both split their raid forces to 2 seperate targets and downed both of them. The only time a seperate guild would get a single target would be if IB and DA camped a team each at the same spawn leaving one boss open. But when they repopped without any variance the guilds would be there again, this time not missing a single boss.

Although their should be more god loot in the game by this point and even though in classic they had server downs that refreshed mobs..it just wouldnt fix the issues we have here like everyone seems to think, or rather not to the extent that everyone would hope.

This server has a WAY higher population of level 50 players then live did on classic on ANY server. Its a very simple issue of extremely big fish in an extremely small pond. Which is probably why the GMs look at this entire thread and shrug it off because they know the only answer to this problem is Kunark and thats why they are working so furiously on it.

If you didn't announce the simulated server repop then you would have entire dungeons popping on "the majority" of players well they are grinding or playing casually. The flip side to that is if you make it so that the simulated server down only repops bosses then what your asking for is not at all classic and you lose the basis of your argument to make things more like classic. I am not in a guild that is getting Boss mobs, but we can and have had opportunities to compete. Variance DOES allow it to be competitive but competition is stiff when the server has 4 times as many raid capable people that there were during this era on live (ballpark figure). Personally I would rather that they focused on Kunark rather then a solution to a problem that will most likely be fixing itself in the near future. And if it doesn't fix the problem they can look into a solution when they dont have so much on their plate like they do now.

my two cents anyways. Flame on

You are wrong on many points. The only reason I included "announced simulated patch days" was because it has been brought up by other people. Your last paragraph(well really, the whole thing) is so filled with flaws I don't even know where to begin.

[Cars]

lol well feel free to educate me, I definitely had a quote fail moment so you could always start there.

[President]

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

If you announce the timeframe absolutely nothing will change. The only difference would be IB and DA would get almost double the loot. On simulated server downs maybe 1 seperate guild would get a boss target well IB and DA both split their raid forces to 2 seperate targets and downed both of them. The only time a seperate guild would get a single target would be if IB and DA camped a team each at the same spawn leaving one boss open. But when they repopped without any variance the guilds would be there again, this time not missing a single boss.

There are 5 major targets and 2 mini bosses that would respawn. It would be difficult for IB/DA to lock down both. Would both guilds get more loot than they are right now? Yes, but it's not far from classic. As Nilbog stated there were days where the server was taken down multiple times, I definitely remember weeks that had 2-3 patch/hardware maint days. Sure, DA/IB might be able to split up forces and cover more than 1 boss each right off the start, but its still a race to the rest. And still better than what we have now. I would rather IB/DA spend 3 hours poopsocking than 48 hours with a known respawn time that at least gives some of us a chance to race. Though, I would definitely be more for an unknown time.

Although their should be more god loot in the game by this point and even though in classic they had server downs that refreshed mobs..it just wouldnt fix the issues we have here like everyone seems to think, or rather not to the extent that everyone would hope.

Yes, actually, it would. Being able to poopsock each mob in its window would be a thing of the past if all mobs spawn at once. Sure, they may be able to sock one of the 5 that spawn, but not each of the 5 as they spawn.

This server has a WAY higher population of level 50 players then live did on classic on ANY server. Its a very simple issue of extremely big fish in an extremely small pond. Which is probably why the GMs look at this entire thread and shrug it off because they know the only answer to this problem is Kunark and thats why they are working so furiously on it.

Kunark is far from the only answer. This server has a higher population of 50's and far fewer raid spawns. As I stated earlier in the thread, its going to be quite a treat for guilds to attempt to get VP keys with Trak working as timers currently do. And, with Kunark, I assume they will institute the level 52 and less requirement for Naggy/Vox, effectively removing them from the target rotation for guilds that don't decide to have 15/20 level 52 alts sitting around. As it was back on the live, the spawn after patch happened during Kunark, which opened up racing even more. Now Trak/Inno/CT both require fighting to the boss before engaging (assuming you aren't poopsocking Trak or CT's spawn point).

If you didn't announce the simulated server repop then you would have entire dungeons popping on "the majority" of players well they are grinding or playing casually. The flip side to that is if you make it so that the simulated server down only repops bosses then what your asking for is not at all classic and you lose the basis of your argument to make things more like classic.

What I am asking for is to get as close to classic as possible. Do we wan't 6 hour down times every Tuesday? No. Do we want all the respawns to be at 4/5pm in the afternoon when Europe is going to bed? No, and there isn't a euro server. Will doing simulated patch days get us far closer to classic than what we have now and prevent poopsocking each mob as they spawn? Yes.

I am not in a guild that is getting Boss mobs, but we can and have had opportunities to compete. Variance DOES allow it to be competitive but competition is stiff when the server has 4 times as many raid capable people that there were during this era on live (ballpark figure). Personally I would rather that they focused on Kunark rather then a solution to a problem that will most likely be fixing itself in the near future. And if it doesn't fix the problem they can look into a solution when they dont have so much on their plate like they do now.

my two cents anyways. Flame on

Already commented on Kunark above. You must not have been playing here very long or you would know that the current solution does not allow it to be competitive, unless of course, being competitive is recruiting enough people to be able to sit 15+ people on top of a spawn for 48 hours.

And, to add it in again, the one time this did happen, DA & IB got all but 1 target. Assuming that something like this is a hand out to all the up and coming guilds is ridiculous. If DA & IB are as good as they say they are, they will continue to get the majority, if not all of the raid targets with simulated patch days. But at least, at least, we have a chance at them that doesn't require sitting on top of a spawn for 48 hours.

[Cars]

Ok I follow, and thanks for the clarity on your reasoning. I guess it also depends how often these simulated server repops would happen that would really determine the effectiveness. I know on live you would purposefully delay the kill on certain mobs so that you could control even more the next repop (as long as there wasnt another server down between) and I am certain that wouldn't change here.

Also the whole VP key issue I agreed with you on the entire time, but from a developer standpoint what is going to be higher on their list of things to do, make the current 6 or 7 Raid targets more available to everyone or realease an additional 9-10 immediate targets? I think Kunark will help either way and once they get it out they can stress the simulation of server repops or whatever it is they decide to do to adress the issue.

[President]

Kunark adds Trak, VS, and three world spawn dragons, while removing Naggy & Vox from 53+ players.

Not quite 9-10 immediate targets.

[Lazortag]

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

Kunark adds Trak, VS, and three world spawn dragons, while removing Naggy & Vox from 53+ players.

Not quite 9-10 immediate targets.

Well, to be perfectly fair, it also adds the later islands in sky.

[Felix]

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

Kunark adds Trak, VS, and three world spawn dragons, while removing Naggy & Vox from 53+ players.

Not quite 9-10 immediate targets.

Faydedar. Royals too.

[President]

I considered Faydedar a lesser encounter but I suppose the loot is still good. The islands in sky is true as well.