Raid Changes

[Frieza_Prexus]

@ Loraen, I agree that this is not the ultimate solution. However, as Elethia stated, the Devs seem to be hell bent on maintaining some form of variance. I believe that this scheme may alleviate some of the current problems posed by the variance. This is not a panacea, however, it might provide some relief.

It seems to me that we must, for the time being, embrace the reality of the variance. Thus, we are left with two choices in the interim: Variance as is or Variance somehow modified.

[Ele]

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

My post was not in any way ambiguous and this isn't an academic paper.

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

Not my problem, yours.

e: post is still there, read it as many times as you need to

You seem to have a thought in mind, but you are not presenting it correctly.

[SupaflyIRL]

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

Under the proposed scheme, if the current window has 5 hours left, you are NOT guaranteed to see him within 5 hours. This forces a calculated gamble as to whether or not a guild should commit resources to socking

I submit, that such uncertainty will lead to fewer spawn camps. Even if it only reduces spawn camping by a small amount, it is still a reduction and thus my statements hold true. The question then becomes is the reduction in camping enough so as to make ~3% less Trak spawns a year worth it?

Do you alternatively submit that this scheme increases socking? Also, as time continues, the "end of the window" becomes increasingly smaller in regards to the overall window size.

If a mob had a 6 hour variance, it would always be an "end of window" scenario. If it had a 500 hour variance the "end of the window" scenario would be an extremely small proportion of the total window. Therefore, window extensions contribute to making the "end of the window" a smaller proportion of the total window. Ergo, a decrease in the impetus to sock.

In your example, the guild that will get the most mobs will be the guild with the most people ready and willing to do whatever it takes to get the mob. It will also increase the fatigue of smaller guilds in keeping up with the raid scene. The only way your plan will contribute to "less socking" is by reducing the amount of INVOLVED PARTIES, not the amount of overall socking. The top guild or guilds will still do it because it will nearly guarantee the mob will be theirs since no smaller guilds will be willing to do it.

You are still ignoring the fact that the spawn uncertainty is the same as it is now in your plan, but endpoints are still known. Known endpoints are the problem variance is trying to solve, so either remove it entirely or overhaul the system to exclude endpoints.

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

You seem to have a thought in mind, but you are not presenting it correctly.

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

He has to write something that is understandable to a majority there will always be people who dont understand. However, I understood what supafly or what not was saying. It was pretty clear he was stating that people would just poopsock longer.

[Frieza_Prexus]

As a member of TMO that participates in the sock fests, I assure you that the proposition of staggered socking is extremely dissuading. I still submit that this scheme leads to a reduction in socking and a partial alleviation of the current issues.

[SupaflyIRL]

This is what you posted as your thesis:

As the situation currently stands, I feel that the variance does a reasonable job at preventing FTE camp-fests, however, numerous late-window examples prove that the variance is not completely efficient at discouraging the FTE camp-fests.

The only thing your solution does differently from current variance is to provide more opportunity for late window examples to arise. Your solution fails to address the causes you yourself defined. Either your thesis is inaccurate or your solution is ineffective.

[Alarti0001]

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

You speculated and assumed what he was saying.

It was presented clearly. No speculation needed. Just a dose of common sense and the related quote he linked.

[Alarti0001]

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

As a member of TMO that participates in the sock fests, I assure you that the proposition of staggered socking is extremely dissuading. I still submit that this scheme leads to a reduction in socking and a partial alleviation of the current issues.

As a member of TMO that participates in the sock fests. I assure you I will be really annoyed when I am socking for 4 days because FE,FC,BDA etc decides its worth it to them.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

This is what you posted as your thesis:



The only thing your solution does differently from current variance is to provide more opportunity for late window examples to arise. Your solution fails to address the causes you yourself defined. Either your thesis is inaccurate or your solution is ineffective.

But my solution changes the mechanics of a late window from a guaranteed mob appearance to a % chance of a mob's appearance. Apples and oranges. Let's tweak the numbers a bit.

When a mob's window reaches 75% completion, the system has a 95% chance to extend the window another 500 hours. If the 500 hour window begins to close, the system has a 90% chance at another 300 hour extension.

Clearly, the above numbers would all but eliminate socking.

Now, follow me here, this discussion is about bringing the above numbers down to a reasonable amount so as to discourage socking at least .00001% more than it is discouraged now. The discussion then becomes what the right balance of numbers versus reduced spawns becomes should the goal of reducing the sock become worth it.

I understand you've invested yourself in your idea, but...well, I think you know the rest.

[SupaflyIRL]

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

But my solution changes the mechanics of a late window from a guaranteed mob appearance to a % chance of a mob's appearance. Apples and oranges. Let's tweak the numbers a bit.

When a mob's window reaches 75% completion, the system has a 95% chance to extend the window another 500 hours. If the 500 hour window begins to close, the system has a 90% chance at another 300 hour extension.

Clearly, the above numbers would all but eliminate socking.

Now, follow me here, this discussion is about bringing the above numbers down to a reasonable amount so as to discourage socking at least .00001% more than it is discouraged now. The discussion then becomes what the right balance of numbers versus reduced spawns becomes should the goal of reducing the sock become worth it.

I understand you've invested yourself in your idea, but...well, I think you know the rest.

Should the check fail to extend the window, there is a 100% chance the spawn will happen by the end of the current window. This is the monkey wrench in your plan's gears.

e: It doesn't change the "what" of the spawn mechanics, just the "when"

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

Should the check fail to extend the window, there is a 100% chance the spawn will happen by the end of the current window.

But the playerbase will not know the check's results. Thus, they must gamble. Uncertainty will dissuade at least a few, and thus a reduction in the current symptoms.