Actually Realistic Proposal for the Server

[Nefarum]

In all the arguing and proposals put forth, people are forgetting the facts of the matter.

1. The devs have stated that they will not change how the server is functioning. This means no things like repops or reduction of variance will be implemented.

2. Players want to have some competition on the server, it's part of what makes EQ what it is.

3. Everyone is sick of the current monopoly and the majority of players being blocked from experiencing end game content.

4. The system should treat all guilds equally. No one on the server is more entitled than anyone else. TMO/FE players have put in more effort playing the game, but that doesn't give them more of a right to game content than a more casual player. The fact that the more hardcore guilds are "ahead" and that there will still be an element of competition means that you guys will still "do better" anyways. The new implemented system doesn't need to add to this advantage by treating certain guilds in a special way.

5. The GMs have stated that they will not enforce a rotation, meaning it is up to the player base to handle whatever agreement we come up with. This means that only a simple, easily-understood and easily-implemented system will work long-term. Dividing the guilds into tiers, with councils, arbitrary rules of where you can have characters or not, and all the other nonsense proposed by FE/TMO will not be understood by players and will be fraught with endless arguing and confusion. Deciding which guilds are which tier etc etc will only add to the fighting.

So to repeat, no changes to server code, must be simple and easily implemented, must still encourage competition, and has to eliminate monopoly and blocking the majority of the server from content, must treat all players/guilds in the exact same way.

I think everyone should agree/remember these premises when tackling this issue.

So what do I propose? Well I don't have a perfect solution designed, but i can offer a starting point. Your input is encouraged. I say the agreement should be something close to the following:

1. If a guild kills a raid target, they are not allowed to kill it again the next 2 times it pops.
2. If a target is up for 12 hours, it's open for anyone to take, even if a guild normally couldn't take it because of rule 1.
3. Any training/interference tactics should be heavily punished.

- Simple.
- Easy to remember/understand.
- Doesn't require code changes.
- All players/guilds are treated equally.
- There will still be competition for mobs, it's just that the competition each time will only involve the guilds that are able to kill the mob that spawn cycle.
- Eliminates monopoly as more guilds get a chance at mobs
- The table of what mobs popped when and who killed them could be easily tracked on a simple webpage

This isn't the lesser guilds asking for handouts, as the top guilds will most likely get the kills on cycles where they are allowed to, but it will get rid of the current monopoly/bottleneck. Sure, this will "cost" the top guilds some loot, but the currently monopoly is the reason we are in this mess. No viable agreement won't end up costing the top guilds something.

I think this is a more reasonable starting point than anything else I have seen.

[HujuVanikil]

It's a decent start. The problem with any ruleset is that there will always be loopholes. The biggest one I see with this is big guilds starting alt guild s so they get more shots.

Realistically the best solution is probably to just remove raid content. As I doubt anyone will agree to anything.

[Sinestria]

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

In all the arguing and proposals put forth, people are forgetting the facts of the matter.

1. The devs have stated that they will not change how the server is functioning. This means no things like repops or reduction of variance will be implemented.

2. Players want to have some competition on the server, it's part of what makes EQ what it is.

3. Everyone is sick of the current monopoly and the majority of players being blocked from experiencing end game content.

4. The system should treat all guilds equally. No one on the server is more entitled than anyone else. TMO/FE players have put in more effort playing the game, but that doesn't give them more of a right to game content than a more casual player. The fact that the more hardcore guilds are "ahead" and that there will still be an element of competition means that you guys will still "do better" anyways. The new implemented system doesn't need to add to this advantage by treating certain guilds in a special way.

5. The GMs have stated that they will not enforce a rotation, meaning it is up to the player base to handle whatever agreement we come up with. This means that only a simple, easily-understood and easily-implemented system will work long-term. Dividing the guilds into tiers, with councils, arbitrary rules of where you can have characters or not, and all the other nonsense proposed by FE/TMO will not be understood by players and will be fraught with endless arguing and confusion. Deciding which guilds are which tier etc etc will only add to the fighting.

So to repeat, no changes to server code, must be simple and easily implemented, must still encourage competition, and has to eliminate monopoly and blocking the majority of the server from content, must treat all players/guilds in the exact same way.

I think everyone should agree/remember these premises when tackling this issue.

So what do I propose? Well I don't have a perfect solution designed, but i can offer a starting point. Your input is encouraged. I say the agreement should be something close to the following:

1. If a guild kills a raid target, they are not allowed to kill it again the next 2 times it pops.
2. If a target is up for 12 hours, it's open for anyone to take, even if a guild normally couldn't take it because of rule 1.
3. Any training/interference tactics should be heavily punished.

- Simple.
- Easy to remember/understand.
- Doesn't require code changes.
- All players/guilds are treated equally.
- There will still be competition for mobs, it's just that the competition each time will only involve the guilds that are able to kill the mob that spawn cycle.
- Eliminates monopoly as more guilds get a chance at mobs
- The table of what mobs popped when and who killed them could be easily tracked on a simple webpage

This isn't the lesser guilds asking for handouts, as the top guilds will most likely get the kills on cycles where they are allowed to, but it will get rid of the current monopoly/bottleneck. Sure, this will "cost" the top guilds some loot, but the currently monopoly is the reason we are in this mess. No viable agreement won't end up costing the top guilds something.

I think this is a more reasonable starting point than anything else I have seen.

Sounds like a three guild rotation.

[Alarti0001]

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

In all the arguing and proposals put forth, people are forgetting the facts of the matter.

1. The devs have stated that they will not change how the server is functioning. This means no things like repops or reduction of variance will be implemented.

2. Players want to have some competition on the server, it's part of what makes EQ what it is.

3. Everyone is sick of the current monopoly and the majority of players being blocked from experiencing end game content.

4. The system should treat all guilds equally. No one on the server is more entitled than anyone else. TMO/FE players have put in more effort playing the game, but that doesn't give them more of a right to game content than a more casual player. The fact that the more hardcore guilds are "ahead" and that there will still be an element of competition means that you guys will still "do better" anyways. The new implemented system doesn't need to add to this advantage by treating certain guilds in a special way.

5. The GMs have stated that they will not enforce a rotation, meaning it is up to the player base to handle whatever agreement we come up with. This means that only a simple, easily-understood and easily-implemented system will work long-term. Dividing the guilds into tiers, with councils, arbitrary rules of where you can have characters or not, and all the other nonsense proposed by FE/TMO will not be understood by players and will be fraught with endless arguing and confusion. Deciding which guilds are which tier etc etc will only add to the fighting.

So to repeat, no changes to server code, must be simple and easily implemented, must still encourage competition, and has to eliminate monopoly and blocking the majority of the server from content, must treat all players/guilds in the exact same way.

I think everyone should agree/remember these premises when tackling this issue.

So what do I propose? Well I don't have a perfect solution designed, but i can offer a starting point. Your input is encouraged. I say the agreement should be something close to the following:

1. If a guild kills a raid target, they are not allowed to kill it again the next 2 times it pops.
2. If a target is up for 12 hours, it's open for anyone to take, even if a guild normally couldn't take it because of rule 1.
3. Any training/interference tactics should be heavily punished.

- Simple.
- Easy to remember/understand.
- Doesn't require code changes.
- All players/guilds are treated equally.
- There will still be competition for mobs, it's just that the competition each time will only involve the guilds that are able to kill the mob that spawn cycle.
- Eliminates monopoly as more guilds get a chance at mobs
- The table of what mobs popped when and who killed them could be easily tracked on a simple webpage

This isn't the lesser guilds asking for handouts, as the top guilds will most likely get the kills on cycles where they are allowed to, but it will get rid of the current monopoly/bottleneck. Sure, this will "cost" the top guilds some loot, but the currently monopoly is the reason we are in this mess. No viable agreement won't end up costing the top guilds something.

I think this is a more reasonable starting point than anything else I have seen.

This is a 3 guild rotation and absolutely in no way viable.

[Mezzmur]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a 3 guild rotation and absolutely in no way viable.

Sounds good, lets do it.

TMO, IB/FE, Afkite Masters.

[Nefarum]

The more important part of my post is the points I make early on: the premises that people are forgetting and need to remember when tackling this issue. A lot of the arguing going on is useless because people are forgetting these points.

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

Sounds like a three guild rotation.

As for my proposed system I knew it wouldn't be perfect, but let's try to build on it. A "three guild rotation" isn't the best but would still give lesser guilds more of a chance to try and compete than they have now (2 of the top 3 guilds out of competition each pop). Any ideas how to make this better though?

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is a 3 guild rotation and absolutely in no way viable.

Why is it not viable?

[Autotune]

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

Why is it not viable?

Because it only adds another guild to the problem that rogean posted.

1 or 2 guilds monopolizing the raid content.

3 guilds monopolizing the raid content.


We have to have, at least, 5 guilds monopolizing the raid content.

[Mezzmur]

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

Why is it not viable?

I think what he meant to say is that none of the smaller guilds would likely agree to this.

It's like Divinity's hybrid rotation without the 14 day rotation and just the FFA portion. The top 3 guilds would likely just rotate through.

[Mezzmur]

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

Because it only adds another guild to the problem that rogean posted.

1 or 2 guilds monopolizing the raid content.

3 guilds monopolizing the raid content.


We have to have, at least, 5 guilds monopolizing the raid content.

I lol'd.