Raid Changes

[Sweetbaby Jesus]

agreed

Hi Nlaar, Rustytaco here. Long time no see

[Rooj]

If anyone out there believes that the smaller guilds are out there claiming raid spawns even a little bit frequently, you are completely wrong. It's pretty obvious that there should be some changes.

Here's what I don't get, though. And you'll have to forgive me as I did not raid on Live back then, so I don't know what system was used there and how it relates/compares to what we have on P99. But 48+- hours window is absolutely insane, and ridiculous. Windows aren't meant to be like that. Windows are supposed to be small, a few hours at most. I think the highest a window should ever be is +- 3 hours, though 1.5 or even heck, -+ 30 minutes would be ideal. And then instead of having an even respawn time - 5 days, for example - you make it 5 days minus like 8 hours or so (112 hours in this scenario), to cause the mob to spawn at a different time of day each time. These are just my opinions, not really suggesting anything.

[falkun]

Giegue is 100% correct.

• Variance caters to massive guild sizes to allow you to log on a sufficient size at any hour.
• Variance allows one guild to control every mob because it is statistically improbable that multiple targets will spawn at the same time, therefore forcing multiple forces that wish to compete into the same zone to fight for the same mob, instead of spreading them out amongst multiple targets.
• Variance increases the effort required to obtain kills/pixels beyond the point that most guilds are willing to work, and beyond a classic amount of effort.
• Variance caters to guilds large enough to track everything in window at the same time to know when they all spawn.
• The amount of boss kills guilds smaller than the #1 guild obtain is empirically higher on simultaneous repops than during "normal" weeks, and the sample size is large enough to invalidate any theoretical advantages variance provides to smaller guilds.
• Simultaneous repops historically reduce GM intervention because guilds simply move on to the next target instead of getting embroiled in a dispute.
• Simultaneous repops reduce GM intervention because all the content is killed within 2 hours instead of spread out over the week and at all hours of the day.
• Simultaneous repops are more classic than variance, especially to the extreme level P99 has taken variance (+/-48hrs instead of ~1hr).

[Ferok]

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

Giegue is 100% correct.

• Variance caters to massive guild sizes to allow you to log on a sufficient size at any hour.
• Variance allows one guild to control every mob because it is statistically improbable that multiple targets will spawn at the same time, therefore forcing multiple forces that wish to compete into the same zone to fight for the same mob, instead of spreading them out amongst multiple targets.
• Variance increases the effort required to obtain kills/pixels beyond the point that most guilds are willing to work, and beyond a classic amount of effort.
• Variance caters to guilds large enough to track everything in window at the same time to know when they all spawn.
• The amount of boss kills guilds smaller than the #1 guild obtain is empirically higher on simultaneous repops than during "normal" weeks, and the sample size is large enough to invalidate any theoretical advantages variance provides to smaller guilds.
• Simultaneous repops historically reduce GM intervention because guilds simply move on to the next target instead of getting embroiled in a dispute.
• Simultaneous repops reduce GM intervention because all the content is killed within 2 hours instead of spread out over the week and at all hours of the day.
• Simultaneous repops are more classic than variance, especially to the extreme level P99 has taken variance (+/-48hrs instead of ~1hr).

This is spot on. I'm not sure why the GM's are so insistent on Variance being helpful. Maybe in theory, but clearly that theory is wrong.

[Frieza_Prexus]

An ELIMINATED (as opposed to shortened) variance will be terrible in my opinion.

TMO has a spread sheet with every mob's death down to the second and sufficient force to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Cut the variance down, sure. Just don't kill it.

[Itap]

I agree with everything Giegue has said in his previous post

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

An ELIMINATED (as opposed to shortened) variance will be terrible in my opinion.

TMO has a spread sheet with every mob's death down to the second and sufficient force to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Cut the variance down, sure. Just don't kill it.

And this is why you guys dominate, TMO's organizational skills and ability to accumulate a raid force in minutes makes it hard to beat. Planned server resets will give the smaller/casual guilds a chance at raid targets less desired by TMO

[Kraftwerk]

Why can't more people in TMO act like you Xasten, putting together clear discussion and being respectful and presenting a somewhat objective view. Not just flaming as hard as possible like their lives depend on it.

[Sweetbaby Jesus]

I still vote kill it. You guys can't spread yourselves too thin otherwise you run the risk of a wipe and allow BDA or someone else to slip in a trak kill or something. If we get simulated server resets then ur spawn time calculators are somewhat eliminated (Still good for 3 day spawn, etc.) and the game opens up for alot more of us to get at least 1 shot a week at a dragon, god, or mini boss. Hell, if another guild wa sup to the challenge they could even log at trak to attempt fte upon server coming back up.

[Asher]

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

I still vote kill it. You guys can't spread yourselves too thin otherwise you run the risk of a wipe and allow BDA or someone else to slip in a trak kill or something. If we get simulated server resets then ur spawn time calculators are somewhat eliminated (Still good for 3 day spawn, etc.) and the game opens up for alot more of us to get at least 1 shot a week at a dragon, god, or mini boss. Hell, if another guild wa sup to the challenge they could even log at trak to attempt fte upon server coming back up.

I agree. The biggest factor in other guilds not making an attempt is because of the requirement for tracking respawns that has been created by this crazy long variance.

You remove the need for trackers and all of a sudden everyone knows when things are popping within a short window and others have a chance to compete the regular way with TMO, instead of their version of compete, which IMO is non classic, where we get trackers to deal with crazy huge variances, grow the guild to zerg numbers to always have been available to log in when bat phoned.

I look forward to regular classic competition as opposed to TMOs competition.

Asher

[falkun]

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.