Raid Changes

[Cars]

- Lower Variance significantly
- Simulate patch day
- Have buff timers count down even well logged out or cancel entirely upon logging out.
- FTE shouts

Raid scene saved...

[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

[Slave]

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

I actually had to re-read Lostprophets's post to see if you and him were talking about the same thing. Not trying to sound rude, but you do realize that server repops currently happen every time there's a patch, and that smaller guilds historically have much more success than with varianced spawns? I refer you to the example of last night where there was a full repop and we got Inny and Maestro, which is probably 2 more mobs than we would have gotten if we were resorting to poopsocking and pressing the track button for 96 hours. Sure we still get less mobs than TMO, but we also have about 1/4 of the raid force, so I'll take 2 mobs over none any day. I can't think of any full repop on this server (out of at least a dozen that have happened) where we didn't either get mobs, or get attempts at mobs - one time we even got VS which is pretty much impossible for a casual guild to do when he's on variance. You can try to argue that variance benefits smaller guilds, but there's this thing called "empirical evidence" that would like to have a word with you.

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

Confirmed sirken didn't read the post.

Current system is like 95% TMO. Repopping the whole server during primetime would be like 80% TMO maybe, and probably less depending on what targets people went after.

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

Giegue beat me to it. The top guild can poopsock their primary target every respawn, at least one other guild is going to get at least one other mob, which is above the average for most "normal" weeks.

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

In regards to Lazortag's latest post...

He did a great job highlighting this fact but let us reinforce...

There is a STAGGERING amount of historical evidence on P99 to support his latest post.

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

Variance is in the favour of guilds who are willing to track mobs for long periods of time and have the numbers willing to be on call to field a strong attempt.

I strongly agree with everything Lazortag said.

/beats the dead horse further

Asher

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

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.

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).

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

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.

When this many normally argumentative personalities agree on something here, extreme note should be taken.

Can you hear us Sirken? Can you hear us, Rogean? Nilbog, where are the changes? Nobody has wanted this system for a year. Enough is enough with the variance now. I don't understand how this isn't first on the list of changes.

This cycle has happened so many times... eager new group starts play, grows up, starts raiding. Most soon quit in disgust except those who join TMO, perpetuating the problem. Variance is strangling the life out of the raid scene on this server.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

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.

I suppose I should elaborate. I am (ass)uming a few things. First, I seem to recall the server staff saying that WEEKLY repops will not happen because it would introduce far too many spawns.

Yes, if repops happened so often as to prevent "spawn timer drift" then clearly smaller guilds would benefit because we would be backlogged and inundated with too many spawns. However, once drift begins to occur, we have enough members to effectively kill three (maybe more) targets simultaneously. Keep in mind, if we know when mobs will pop we can plan around that VERY effectively.

I am further assuming that it is better to open a larger variety of mobs to smaller guilds than the same mobs over and over. (Vox/Gore would never be touched if we ONLY had simultaneous repops/no variance). Granted, under either case VS and Trak will be on lockdown.

However, I freely concede that some mobs are better than no mobs flat out. And, with NO spawn drift and NO variance, some mobs will invariably be killed by smaller guilds. However, I don't think that is likely to occur, thus my hesitation to eliminate the variance.

I simply think that with the repop methodology I proposed, under my above assumptions, a variance would be better than no variance.

[falkun]

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

- FTE shouts

Please explain how recording an event for all to see is more easily abusable than the mechanic being recorded?

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

Not to discount that FTE shout is a good idea in itself, but the responses to this are correct. LvL 1 gnome enchanter, sitting down, first in zone, sitting there for days. Should that really be the deciding factor of a claim?

If you're L1 can live long enough for the rest of your raid force to engage, it's the same as it is now. Monk/necro/SK lays FD under mob, raid force gets prepped, FDer stands up, raid force engages. If another raid force attempts to compete, the FDer stands up earlier. How is that any different than a L1 enchanter sitting on spawn? O wait, the FDer will survive the spawn and (assuming they pop up at the right time) will guarantee FTE over the competing raid force while the L1 enchanter is squashed like a bug and the raid mob goes back into seek mode.

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

This is taken into consideration in the raid changes I have proposed. When Rogean and I are in agreement, it will be discussed with the staff, then I will outline it to players to discuss.

Coming soon.

This is 3 months old now...any news?

[Writ3r]

Implement some of these fixes and then go back to Ambrotos'/Nilbog's rule set of there being NO trains allowed in zones such as Hate/Fear and the raid seen will be vastly improved by far. It will improve the state of those zones while increasing the competition within them rather than the petition. Should also force communication between guilds going for those targets simultaneously as it will require more time to down the targets in those zones allowing for other targets to remain up (if a simultaneous repop).

[Frieza_Prexus]

Also, as a follow up:

I think the biggest thing that could be done, BY FAR, is simultaneous repops that are announced at least 24 hours in advance.

I will acknowledge that with only ONE uber-guild no variance might yield better results. Assuming spawn timers do NOT drift (for whatever reason), no variance might be superior.

However, with two (or more) uber guilds a variance will yield better results. The variance was initially implemented because of the socking issues and it did solve them fairly well. It is obviously not without problems, but the question is where do we emphasize efficiency?

Do we promote a stable environment should two big guilds exist? (Variance)

Or do we promote a stable environment where many smaller guilds can flourish despite the presence of an uber guild? (no variance AND controlling for spawn timer drift)

P.S. Non-authoritative FTE shouts for informational purposes only would be extremely convenient.

[Lazortag]

I'm glad so many people agree with what I said, it makes me feel all warm inside.

As for this:

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

Historically, small guilds get targets when they get a head start. Shortening the variance might help alleviate the headache of tracking, but a variance of a few hours will be catastrophic for smaller guilds. Larger guilds can easily prep around a very short variance, and there will be even more camping out at spawns. As it stands, we generally have to mobilize across the world from a central location.

However, repops and variance are two separate discussions.

I submit that (semi)regular repops are the best chance smaller guilds have to obtain high priority targets. Random unannounced repops will simply result in a batphone by all guilds, and the top guilds are clearly better at spontaneous mobilization. Pre-announce at least some (say, 2/3rds) of these repops at least 24 hours in advance. This will give smaller guilds a chance to camp out, choose targets, communicate/coordinate with other guilds and possibly form alliances.

Pre-notice gives people an entire day to move their character into position and an entire day to discuss exactly HOW the mob will be killed (the pull, strats, etc.) The biggest asset, however, is the triage and choosing of targets before hand. Imagine the following:

TMO will attempt to maximize its coverage starting, invariably, with VS and Trak (and Sev if it's convenient). This gives at least 20 minutes to other guilds to drop a target. We will periodically check with trackers the other targets and choose which to pursue.

Our general order of priority (NOT kill order,this is a DESIRE rank) is as follows:

VS
Trak
Draco
CT
Innoruuk
Faydedar
Efreeti Cycle
Severilious
Talendor
Nagafen
Gorenaire
Vox

If we see 40 people prepping for Talendor while we're pursuing Trak and VS, you can bet we'll instead head to another mob. Use the above information to inform your choices. Go for the Freeti cycle. Remember, if you kill Noble you are entitled to first engage on OoA for at least 20 minutes or first wipe.

The point is that with prior notice smaller guilds can prepare in a way that they ordinarily would not be able to. They can organize well in advance.

Lack of organization is the single biggest hurdle for small guilds getting targets.

I object to this idea that we're just not organized. I posted almost that exact kill order months ago on the divinity forums. We prepare in advance of every patch and try to discuss which mob to go after, taking into account what TMO/BDA's priorities are, which we inferred from other posts you guys have made. Sure we only got 2 mobs, but good organization will only help a raid force of 18 people so much (I don't say this resentfully, you guys worked hard to have the raid force you have, but essentializing small guilds as being disorganized and unskilled is just silly when there are other explanations for why they don't do as well).

[Sweetbaby Jesus]

There can still be 2 bigs guilds with no variance. Many servers on live were like that. Of course one will always be bigger and better but with no variance if TMO gets too greedy and BDA or another guild choses to rise up and poopsock trak in full force while TMO cuts themselves into chunks to snag more targets they would then risk losing one of their highest priority targets. Furthermore, if poopsocking became a huge issue again and the GMs just left it to the players to resolve, it might finally make guilds work together to smooth the endgame out for all.

[Splorf22]

Just to beat a dead horse I also think Sirken is dead wrong, for two huge reasons:

#1. Casual guilds do not want to track shit for 96 hours. I know all the TMO guys like to brag about their great family/social lives, but the reality is in total that guild probably put in 500 hours of mindnumblingly boring 'wait-for-raid-mob-to-pop-while-watching-dvd' per week. I don't want to do that, and the majority of P1999 does not want to do that, because it is a huge waste of time.

#2. Because of #1, Casual guilds have very little experience at mobilization. Sure, TMO has a huge advantage there because they have practice and tons of spare accounts that they have purchased with all the pp they get from farming the raid mobs. I guarantee that if linked respawns are limited, the casual guilds will start putting a lot more time into resist gear, WC caps, OT hammers, and all around getting faster and mobilizing. Plus, TMO can't camp out everywhere.

Overall I find it hilarious that you are talking about how variance is there for the smaller guilds when under normal circumstances TMO gets 90% of raid targets, BDA gets 10%, and everyone else gets 0. In other words, linked respawns can hardly be worse than the current system.

TL;DR: How about instead of worrying about the freaking compass you guys fix the non-classic raid scene that literally no one on the server likes?