Ignoring the Average Joe: Why most raid plans do nothing for those who need it most

[Arteker]

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

That's not the basic problem. It's true, but it's not the basic problem. The basic problem is that this server has installed non-classic end-game mechanics that necessarily segregate the server population. That's not a natural or classic segregation, and it's not one that should be institutionalized.

Creating such enormous incentives for guilds to track for an obscene amount of hours and be able to log in capable raid forces at a moment's notice at any time of day is NOT classic EQ, and that is why there is such unrest. As it stands on this server, the risk/reward of tracking a raid mob decidedly favors massive zerg guilds. Any guild outside of TMO/IB/FE that even bothers to track mobs in the prime-time hours is taking a terrible gamble, statistically speaking. You're wagering 5-6 hours and your entire raid force of mains (which you must camp out at the scene to have any chance) for a -- what -- 5% chance at the mob? If that? The odds of your even having sufficient numbers to take the mob down is limited to about 6 hours out of the day, which gives you a 25% chance. And when a desirable named pops during prime time, you're probably one of ~5-ish guilds that's going to contest. So let's say 5%.

That's horrendous and has basically precluded the vast majority of the server from the raid scene. Again, that's NOT classic. You've bastardized the notion of "competition" to create a debate over whether or not we should continue to incentivize the so-called hardcore group that wants to continue devoting life-ruining hours to winning CSR-Quest, which is decidedly different from classic EverQuest.

What you should want is a mechanics system that is classic and makes it a) easier for other guilds to compete and b) essentially impossible for one guild to monopolize content. Tiny variances, server repops every 2 weeks or so, and extremely harsh rules against poop-socking/camping out raid forces. That's classic-esque.

thats called what happens when there isnt progresion and isnt a raiders fault like isnt a farmer fault when someone go to xxx dungueon camp and find you there soloing .

[kotton05]

Smh im lost for words. Xasten you're making great posts and trying to shed light but even with staff proposal guilds are still declining them-_- I say just despawn all raid mobs till velious at this point.

[Clark]

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

I am tired of the lot of you being dum.

lol

[Valoril]

And many of us casual raiders have come to P99 as a refuge against the terrible communities that exist in games without even the slightest bit of player interdependence which brings about a drastic decline in the quality of community. We come here for a refuge from bad community, looking for actual cooperation and an enjoyable experience.

That's why Rogean's plan is likely the best. It lets each of us raid in exactly the way we want, independent of one another.

Signed and fully agreed.
If the staff did a statistic about hours played per week, it would appear that the "competitive" guilds (now called Tier 1) represent probably 5% (or less) of the played hours. They would appear in large numbers only for 10 minutes it takes to kill some raid target. The way they play EQ with their mains (and 60 alts) is basically off-line. If you want to estimate these statistics, just do a /who and add an estimate of anon.

What makes the server a living place are the 95% of hours played by everybody else out of which probably 90% don't even post on these boards.
It seems to me an incredibly toxic idea that those 5% have the right or are even encouraged to block access to the high level content or at the very least dictate the conditions under which they generously allow the 95% to get some scraps.

If the the 5% magically disappeared, nobody would notice, P99 would still prosper and be a good place to play the game.
Without the 95% it would be a ghost town for all but a few minutes during the week.

[Draagun]

You will never get everyone to agree it's just not going to happen. The P99 staff will have to make a choice that will result in one group that will just leave the game. So comes down to whom do they want to leave more? The hardcore raiders that are here playing every day or the casuals that are just tourists here.

[Fael]

Anecdotal accounts of your /who all are not persuasive evidence of player counts val [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For Example, i know a lot of people think that TMO purchased their alts from ib and vd, but the vast majority leveled them up. I have 4 60s and 1 52, and I've only been here for year and half. I typically don't guild tag my alts until I'm 51+.


Dolic

[Babayaaga]

There are participating raid guilds that address the situation outlined by the OP. I am in one of them.

I have a demanding career, I take courses and I have a young family. As such my time committment to any game does not equal that of someone who has no family obligations, is unemployed and has several hours daily available to play one or more games.

Yet, I see and experience raid content quite regularly. It is due to the organization of many, and my commitment to help when I am online in every and any way that I can. No, I won't gear up as quickly as someone with more time at their disposal, but I am fine with this because I have responsibilities, and my guild acknowledges and embraces this in their philosophy.

I think you would find that most raiding guilds are comprised of people like me and yourself. That said, the problem isn't about "when" things spawn, because you might be surprised to know that things will spawn when you can play.

The problem every player is faced with on P99 is more about what is required to do to engage these targets, and many people don't want to deal with the hassle that this currently entails. When a contested mob spawns and is literally engaged and killed within 4 minutes, how does one realistically compete using traditional means? This is why rules of engagement are being discussed.

Guild tags can and will change over time, but the fact will remain that there are enough players with enough characters at their disposal who can and will organize to do things like this. They do it (and in zerglike masses) because there are too many of them with too few targets to engage. Rulesets may stall this behaviour... for a while. New "problems" will appear as players find ways "around the rules". To not acknowledge this simple fact of human intelligence is folly.

[Uteunayr]

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

You will never get everyone to agree it's just not going to happen. The P99 staff will have to make a choice that will result in one group that will just leave the game. So comes down to whom do they want to leave more? The hardcore raiders that are here playing every day or the casuals that are just tourists here.

I'd hardly say guilds like Divinity, Taken, Bregan D'Aerth, A-Team, Europa, and every other guild that isn't TMO/IB/FE are "just tourists here". No, this isn't an indivisible issue. We have views that cannot be merged together, because we each seek something completely different.

It doesn't have to be being hardcore ruins being casual, and being casual ruins hardcore. If you let hardcores hardcore how they want in VP, and with their half of all the mobs on the server, and let the casual casual how they want on their half of all mobs except VP, each can do what they want, and each can achieve *most* of their goals. The hardcores can't get themselves off at other people's failures (hardly the main goal of all hardcores, of course), and casuals can't get into VP and turn that into a casual zone (also, hardly the main goal of all casuals).

The hardcores don't have to leave, the casuals don't have to leave. We can all raid our fair share of the server, with the hardcores having more than a fair share, giving them far more so competition remains useful. Hardcores get 4-6x more mobs to compete over in a month than the casuals do, but the casuals get enough amongst themselves that they can rotate, or they can institute friendly competitive policies that still allow their members to *EARN* their epics, rather than have to pay the top guild for it. There's more than enough mobs a month to compete over (something around 2-3 pops a day for the hardcores), and there's more than enough for the casuals (about 5 per month for each guild) to share or to compete over in a more friendly fashion.

This is not that hard of a thing. It isn't that catastrophic.

[Valoril]

Anecdotal accounts when carefully repeated and registered stop being anecdotal and begin to be a statistical sampling [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Of course I am sure the CSR have the right numbers and draw conclusions from them. I am reasonably sure that my estimate of 5% for the Tier 1 Guilds is not so far off.

As for alts, I have obviously thought about it too.
A reasonable assumption is that if you have 5 60, then the vast majority you mentionned has already 8 (most PL) what makes starting a 9th largely irrelevant both for the player, for the guild and for the contribution to total hours played what is the main parameter I consider here.

[Uteunayr]

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

Anecdotal accounts when carefully repeated and registered stop being anecdotal and begin to be a statistical sampling [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] Of course I am sure the CSR have the right numbers and draw conclusions from them. I am reasonably sure that my estimate of 5% for the Tier 1 Guilds is not so far off.

As for alts, I have obviously thought about it too.
A reasonable assumption is that if you have 5 60, then the vast majority you mentionned has already 8 (most PL) what makes starting a 9th largely irrelevant both for the player, for the guild and for the contribution to total hours played what is the main parameter I consider here.

Well, the plural of anecdote is not data, and that would not be accepted as any form of social science. Qualitative methodology has some very strict rules of organization to how you collect and quantify your data.

However, that said, I don't think you're anywhere close to being off. You proposed a theory, and you offered the best possible way for us (as people outside of the inner system) to measure it. It may not be the best, but it is the only way we can get a snippet.

The best would be to have the inside information on which to rigorously test your theory here.

So, I don't find an issue with you bringing up your idea, just with the idea that anecdotal evidence, when carefully repeated and registered, becomes sampled data. It really doesn't come close to being considered data until you apply a framework of thought to how to interpret the empirical observations, and translate that into working data, rather than saying "This is what it looked like, so data!" Getting your framework out of your observations is sort of counter-intuitive to that, and reeks of bias.

Plus, the /who system and assumptions introduce a ton of bias.