Staff - Players - TMO, a Treatise on the Future of the Server - Page 4

Supaskillz · #31 06-23-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

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

this is where a rotation comes in, a classic solution to a classic problem

I would be fine with a rotation, although I balk at a gm organized rotation. I feel this needs to be a player run and policed policy like the ragefire rotation was, but I do not think the community has the will for this and I can sympathize with a desire for competition though I think classic eq is poorly setup to compete for raid mobs and creates issues.

Lazortag · #32 06-23-2012, 03:33 PM

So then make the variance shorter? It doesn't need to be 4 days long. No variance would suck, but it would be better than what we have currently.

Quote:

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

One huge difference that I've witnessed on p99 compared to my eqlive server experience is the massive amounts of players per raiding guild.

On classic live, I'm not sure if it was the inter-guild conflicts, lack of enough loot to go around, or generally wanting to compete, but there were never guilds this large.

Why so large, raid guilds?

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

I'm sure this has been said but the main reason is the time investment required to compete on this server vs. eq live. Tracking a raid mob for the entire duration of its window can take as long as 4 days, whereas on Live the variance for mobs was markedly shorter if not nonexistent. One person simply can't do this alone without either (a) wasting insane amounts of time or (b) missing several hours of tracking where the mob in question may have spawned. So the easiest way to track a mob for its whole window (and therefore have a higher chance of getting that mob) is to have a large number of people taking smaller tracking shifts. This leads to larger guilds being competitively far more successful than smaller guilds.

Also, if spawn times are unpredictable then having more players allows you to mobilize faster. If guild A has 200 players and guild B has 20, then assuming players in both guilds are equally skilled and equally good at mobilizing, then guild A mobilizes ten times faster simply because they have more players. In the time it takes for guild B to get 2 players to skyfire to kill talendor, guild A already has an entire raid force.

TLDR: The variance is entirely at fault for every single problem with the raid scene, ever.

Tanthallas · #33 06-23-2012, 03:39 PM

People also make the server what it is, don't forget....

**nilbog** · #34 06-23-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

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

TLDR: The variance is entirely at fault for every single problem with the raid scene, ever.

Did you happen to see the raid scene prior to variance? I mean.. ultimately we would have everything we could 100% classic with no changes.. but there's a reason it was instituted in the first place.

Quote:

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

this is where a rotation comes in, a classic solution to a classic problem

Rotations - Cool, whatever you guys decide, but not GM-enforced rotations. It should be a player decision.

Quote:

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

Duuuurrrrrrrr --- FTE shout.

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?

The players themselves have opportunities to change the raiding scene. They do not.

Versus · #35 06-23-2012, 03:41 PM

I'm pro no long variance windows
I'm against shitsocking and carebear rotations.

What's the greater evil?

I know it's been said a dozen times, but with the release of Velious and simulated patch days every week or two, it would alleviate the need for a lot of this rotation talk or variance windows. One guild can only do so much when everything is up. Especially once Velious drops. Once Winter comes, every Kunark encounter will be FFA and whoever the top dog is will be relegated to a few select boss options. Velious bosses have more HP and take longer, it won't be a roflstomp like it is now.

Also, simulated patch days are classic.

Lazortag · #36 06-23-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

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

Did you happen to see the raid scene prior to variance? I mean.. ultimately we would have everything we could 100% classic with no changes.. but there's a reason it was instituted in the first place.

No, but I imagine it was full of poopsocking. I guess I didn't make this clear but I don't think the variance should be removed entirely. The main reason I say this is because this is an international server, and european players would be screwed if everything spawned at 6 in the morning for them. What I don't understand is why the variance is 96 hours long for 7 day spawns, when a 24 hour window would accomplish the same goals? A mob is just as likely to spawn at 8PM if the window is 24 hours long vs. 96 hours long, it just changes the day on which it might spawn at that time, and also makes it mind numbingly harder for casual players and smaller guilds to compete.

I think either the variance should be shortened substantially, or there should be simultaneous repops, or both.

Razdeline · #37 06-23-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

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

Did you happen to see the raid scene prior to variance? I mean.. ultimately we would have everything we could 100% classic with no changes.. but there's a reason it was instituted in the first place.

Rotations - Cool, whatever you guys decide, but not GM-enforced rotations. It should be a player decision.

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?

The players themselves have opportunities to change the raiding scene. They do not.

Well when internet anonymity comes into play, primal human nature comes out. People are greedy at heart, and have less inhibitions when sharing these bad traits with others.

Similar to a riot being civil, to going more and more out of control

Shiftin · #38 06-23-2012, 03:50 PM

Quote:

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

Did you happen to see the raid scene prior to variance? I mean.. ultimately we would have everything we could 100% classic with no changes.. but there's a reason it was instituted in the first place.

For probably the 10th time directly addressing this point at you, there was minor variance on live. No variance with 4 raid targets in pre-kunark with a server of 800 average players on a night was insane. There are now many raid targets on both 3 and 7 day respawns.

4 day variance is insane on any server, ever.

You could actually be classic AND make people happy. The solution is an incredibly simple one of significantly reduced variance and at least bi-weekly simulated patches. It's impossible for 1 guild to get everything on a patch or pseudo patch and having most or nothing in window forces guilds to choose and allows more than the top 1-2 guilds to get stuff even on non patch days. It also burns people who choose to pursue raiding out much slower because they get off days.

Why do you completely ignore cogent arguments like this that have a tremendous amount of player support AND bring your classic server more in line with the classic EQ experience?

**nilbog** · #39 06-23-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

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

For probably the 10th time directly addressing this point at you

You could actually be classic

Why do you completely ignore cogent arguments like this

By responding to this thread, last week mentioning I was looking into ways to fix the raid scene, and pointing out a few flaws of suggestions here, I'm completely ignoring you.

No response is better than responding? Gotcha.

You're not ignored.

Razdeline · #40 06-23-2012, 04:05 PM

Quote:

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

For probably the 10th time directly addressing this point at you, there was minor variance on live. No variance with 4 raid targets in pre-kunark with a server of 800 average players on a night was insane. There are now many raid targets on both 3 and 7 day respawns.

4 day variance is insane on any server, ever.

You could actually be classic AND make people happy. The solution is an incredibly simple one of significantly reduced variance and at least bi-weekly simulated patches. It's impossible for 1 guild to get everything on a patch or pseudo patch and having most or nothing in window forces guilds to choose and allows more than the top 1-2 guilds to get stuff even on non patch days. It also burns people who choose to pursue raiding out much slower because they get off days.

Why do you completely ignore cogent arguments like this that have a tremendous amount of player support AND bring your classic server more in line with the classic EQ experience?

Abrasiveness aside, this sounds like a great idea.