Idea to stop all the fighting

[quido]

Hay guys, this is MY camp - I don't care that it's right in the way of everyone and everything. It's mine because I was here first. If you pull anything through or around me (despite being left with no other choice), especially a raid mob, you're clearly just trying to train me and deserve a suspension according to article 1.57.IAmADipshit - STOP IT

[Metallikus]

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

you're an idiot, i'm not surprised you know little of how EQ works on p99.

Getting AE'd by Inny will not put you on his aggro list. Getting AE'd by inny and your pet attacks him will put you on his aggro list.

Casting buffs on yourself will not give you social aggro to mobs running by. Casting buffs on someone with aggro will give you aggro to the mobs and social aggro on all the mobs after the person who was originally on the aggro list dies/fds/gates/whatever.

You don't get social aggro immediately if someone gathers more mobs after you buff him either. You won't get it until he dies and the others assist when they go to seek mode.

If you want to know more about how some of this stuff works, just ask.

jesus christ, you said BDA was killing mobs at the bottom of ramp. In what world would 20 mobs from up top not assist those mobs you are training them past if their tank goes low hp?

[stormlord]

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

Instances are an absolutely freaking horrible idea.

I don't agree, but in p1999's case, I do.

Instances do not fit in the open world scheme that was classic eq.

More end game encounters is probably what's needed. It just requires more work than instances. But new content is never a bad thing! Instances can be a bad thing if they're over-used because it's not new.

A lockout timer for individual characters and a quicker spawn rate might work. If you've killed a particular endgame dragon, for example, and your lockout timer is still active, you cannot get credit for its kill or loot it. So you can't do a ninja steal, nor can you loot in someone else's place. An additional measure might be to prevent any attacks on the target for which you have a locket timer active. Further measures can be looked at as the situation becomes clearer. This would virtually eliminate guilds camping a target just for a few members who don't have the locket timer active. This also makes it easier to schedule raids because players don't have to fight their own natural impulse to kill a endgame target (in order to satisfy a server schedule). For example, if we just killed Inny and he quickly spawns again and we're able to get him, a server schedule that prohibits us from doing so feels weak. A lockout timer, on the other hand, doesn't have any give, so it won't feel weak. The quicker spawn rate is necessary to keep the population satisfied.

I think that server schedules are themselves a weak solution to a big problem. First, they're a potential sign that content is not meeting the needs of players. I say potential because a game might intend raids to only be a small part of the full game. But if players feel such a need to create server schedules, this hints that they're not content with raiding being a small part of the game, but it could also mean that the rest of the game does not meet its design goals. Second, they force players to work together in a way that's not welcome. Lockout timers can restrict the traffic and remove the need for the player community to do it themselves. This is critical. Players should not have to measure their game, that's the responsibility of the game itself. For example, if warriors are short on the server and players are supposed to know this in order to make more warriors to compensate, this is just bad management of the game. If warriors are short then this can be solved entirely on the development side. Forcing players to pick up the slack is making them do the developer's job.

I made a post about raiding on p1999 a little while back:
http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...&postcount=162

[Autotune]

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

jesus christ, you said BDA was killing mobs at the bottom of ramp. In what world would 20 mobs from up top not assist those mobs you are training them past if their tank goes low hp?

they won't assist, i can show you this too if you want.

[Lazortag]

If Inny g-fluxes you and your pet attacks him, if he was pulled in a very low-aggro way (such as with an eye of zomm) then he will likely attack you. If they were already fighting mobs at the ramp, then the social aggro would also likely be greater than the aggro produced by the eye. I'm not saying any of the above actually happened (I wasn't there), just saying how eye of zomm works. Twice I (accidentally) trained somebody in howling stones who was fighting a mob at the zone in, when I pulled the first 4 north mobs to the west wing with an eye of zomm, since when they walked over him the social aggro was enough to get the mobs more pissed at him than they were at me. Unless this has been changed since then, you should expect eyes to produce very little aggro and you should be careful pulling over other guilds. If TMO legitimately didn't know this, now they do.

[Autotune]

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

If Inny g-fluxes you and your pet attacks him, if he was pulled in a very low-aggro way (such as with an eye of zomm) then he will likely attack you. If they were already fighting mobs at the ramp, then the social aggro would also likely be greater than the aggro produced by the eye. I'm not saying any of the above actually happened (I wasn't there), just saying how eye of zomm works. Twice I (accidentally) trained somebody in howling stones who was fighting a mob at the zone in, when I pulled the first 4 north mobs to the west wing with an eye of zomm, since when they walked over him the social aggro was enough to get the mobs more pissed at him than they were at me. Unless this has been changed since then, you should expect eyes to produce very little aggro and you should be careful pulling over other guilds. If TMO legitimately didn't know this, now they do.

We already know, Zeelot had enough aggro on Inny/train to keep it while we tagged it at the top and bottom of the ramp. (I'm not going into detail on how he built up aggro).

The other people had more than enough aggro to keep it if they (bda) hadn't engaged as well, even if their pets had simply attacked inny.

Aggro range (body) pulling is one thing, Pulling a raid mob and building aggro and having other people build aggro by engaging is another.

Had they not engaged, the train would have stayed with our members and been CC'd in our camp.

At the most, if they had of been killing a mob at the bottom when inny pathed thru with the train (which they weren't, they had already killed the drakes they pulled) and their tank got social aggro somehow with low hp, Inny would have simply summoned him and killed him. The train would have stayed with us, been mezzed and then killed after or sent home via memblurs/calms or what have you depending on the other guilds current situations.

TMO never got the chance to CC it's own train, never got the chance to engage its mob as it planned. Reason? It was engaged by another guild.

[Lazortag]

Right, I don't know what happened and I'm not taking any sides, just saying what would have happened if only an eye was used to pull Inny. If that's not what happened then disregard my post.

[stormlord]

Updated the raiding link in my signature.

I still think all of this fighting about "server schedules" is a sign of a throughput problem.

[tekniq]

this thread has 2 much QQ, not enough pew pew. RnF material at this point honestly.

[Flunklesnarkin]

Need more ban hammer



threads like this make me doubt the policing of the server