Your options are...

[loramin]

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

Getting rid of assistance where the assister doesn't drop to the bottom of the rotation.***

Guilds should be encouraged to kill mobs on their own. If they cannot that is fine they are welcome to ally up and occupy a single rotation slot as a pair of guilds.

Can someone please explain the fixation on allied guilds? As Pint so eloquently stated:

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

if two guilds field 20 people each and split loot in half then they wait another 2 months or w/e and split loot in half again then are they really getting more than the 40 members of the guild that killed it solo for all of the loot?

In other words, the two scenarios of "Guild A and B ally together" and "Guild A and B raid separately" work out exactly the same. If a dragon has 10 pieces of loot (for easy math):

Scenario 1: Allies
Month 1: Guild A gets 5 items; Guild B gets 5 items
Month 2: Guild A gets 5 items; Guild B gets 5 items
End: Both guilds have 10 items


Scenario 2: Allies
Month 1: Guild A gets 10 pieces of loot
Month 2: Guild B gets 10 pieces of loot
End: Both guilds have 10 items

Serious question (not trolling): what am I missing?

[Tann]

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

The rotation isn't dead yet. If it ever was there's a few alternatives...

1. Take it like a chump and accept less.
2. Consider red (always a good option)
3. Compete, or merge guilds til you just have 3 huge zerg guilds in a highly toxic/competitive raid scene.
4. Play something else or somewhere else.

1. doing less work for less loot doesn't a chump make.
2. the current iteration of EQLive is more classic then R99.
3. is what live was, though obviously not this many years of kunark and all the other "this aint live" balder dash.
4. WoW/GW2/etc are indeed options if you don't want to put the effort Class C puts in for the pixels.

[Man0warr]

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

Can someone please explain the fixation on allied guilds? As Pint so eloquently stated:



In other words, the two scenarios of "Guild A and B ally together" and "Guild A and B raid separately" work out exactly the same. If a dragon has 10 pieces of loot (for easy math):

Scenario 1: Allies
Month 1: Guild A gets 5 items; Guild B gets 5 items
Month 2: Guild A gets 5 items; Guild B gets 5 items
End: Both guilds have 10 items


Scenario 2: Allies
Month 1: Guild A gets 10 pieces of loot
Month 2: Guild B gets 10 pieces of loot
End: Both guilds have 10 items

Serious question (not trolling): what am I missing?

It doesn't work like that.

Each guild in the alliance gets a slot in the rotation, so the alliance thus has TWO kills per rotation (they team up for each individual guilds slot). That's 20 pieces of loot per cycle.

Meanwhile, large guild not in an alliance only has 1 slot per rotation, thus they only get 10 pieces of loot that entire cycle.

In the proposal being hammered out now, your scenario would be true - the alliance would only take up 1 slot per rotation cycle, and would have to remain part of that alliance for all kills.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It doesn't work like that.

Each guild in the alliance gets a slot in the rotation, so the alliance thus has TWO kills per rotation (they team up for each individual guilds slot). That's 20 pieces of loot per cycle.

Right, the alliance does have TWO kills per rotation (ie. 20 pieces of loot), but unlike the un-allied guilds they have to split the loot from those kills TWO ways (ie. 10 pieces of loot per guild per cycle), right?

This isn't complex math: 1 = 2 * 1/2. So again, what am I missing?

[Man0warr]

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

Right, the alliance does have TWO kills per rotation (ie. 20 pieces of loot), but unlike the un-allied guilds they have to split the loot from those kills TWO ways (ie. 10 pieces of loot per guild per cycle), right?

This isn't complex math: 1 = 2 * 1/2. So again, what am I missing?

Couple things:

• Unless perfect circumstances, they couldn't kill the mob without said alliance.
• They are making the rotation take longer. (this is the biggest one)
• They get double the chance at good loot dropping per cycle.
• They are awarding double the loot to less players. (For instance, let's say the 2 small allied guilds have 50 players combined who raid, and BDA/Taken/Div have 100. 20 pieces of loot to 50 players compared to 10 pieces of loot for 100 per rotation cycle).

All these things are unfair to any guild who doesn't ally - it's taking advantage of the way the current system works. It also leaves loopholes to take it even further. What if Taken split up into 4 25-person raid guilds - now they get 40 loot per cycle to 100 players. It makes the rotation longer, but fuck who cares?

[iruinedyourday]

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

2. Consider red (always a good option)

/transfer cus why not

[Errakus]

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

• Small allied guilds have 50 players combined who raid, and BDA/Taken/Div have 100. 20 pieces of loot to 50 players compared to 10 pieces of loot for 100 per rotation cycle).

AKA Zerging, I wouldn't even call that raiding... When you can just yank it in one hand and slap 1 2 3 in the other while raiding and still down the mobs, you're either a warrior, rogue, or in BDA.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[*]Unless perfect circumstances, they couldn't kill the mob without said alliance.

Right, and you can't kill a dragon by yourself either [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]. The entire point of raiding in EverQuest is to get a group of people to kill something they couldn't kill on their own.

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[*]They get double the chance at good loot dropping per cycle.

Let me just repeat: 2 * 1/2 = 1. This is something a second grader understands, it isn't rocket science. Yes the two allied guilds get two chances at the loot, but any individual guild member has only half the chance in each case, so it amounts to the same thing as an un-allied guild.

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[*]They are awarding double the loot to less players. (For instance, let's say the 2 small allied guilds have 50 players combined who raid, and BDA/Taken/Div have 100. 20 pieces of loot to 50 players compared to 10 pieces of loot for 100 per rotation cycle).

So you're saying it's unfair that when 50 people kill a dragon they have twice the chance at its loot as when 100 people kill the dragon? Of course defeating content with fewer players should be rewarded.

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[*]They are making the rotation take longer. (this is the biggest one)

Originally Posted by Man0warr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What if Taken split up into 4 25-person raid guilds - now they get 40 loot per cycle to 100 players. It makes the rotation longer, but fuck who cares?

Ah, now you've gotten to the crux of the matter: rotation slots/loot piles are allocated by guild (irrespective of size), but any individual player's chance of getting some loot depends on their guild's size. I think this is a legitimately unfair aspect of the current system: taken to it's logical extreme every guild would want to be as small as possible, and tons of tiny guilds isn't in anyone's best interest.

But if guild size is really the issue (as it seems to be), couldn't it be solved by adding a minimum guild size requirement to be able to join the rotation? Or at least a minimum guild size to ally (eg. if you want to raid with 18 badass people then you get your own slot, but if you want to work with another guild you both have to have at least 40 players). Or what if raid slots were just allocated by guild size, so an 100 person guild would get the same number of slots as two 50 person guilds?

A guild-size-based solution would address the issue far more directly and with a lot less controversy. After all, most reasonable people would agree that 100 people should get twice the loot of 50 people, regardless of who belongs to what guild, so why not solve the guild size problem instead of worrying about who can kill Gorenaire?

[Man0warr]

AKA Zerging, I wouldn't even call that raiding... When you can just yank it in one hand and slap 1 2 3 in the other while raiding and still down the mobs, you're either a warrior, rogue, or in BDA.

These are just ballpark numbers. BDA rarely has more than 30 ppl per raid - the 100 was just a number of people i'd say have been semi-active in the last few months - they don't show up for every raid.

The most people we will have is 50-60 during repops, that's really the only thing that people will drop real life for to log in.

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

Ah, now you've gotten to the crux of the matter: rotation slots/loot piles are allocated by guild (irrespective of size), but any individual player's chance of getting some loot depends on their guild's size. I think this is a legitimately unfair aspect of the current system: taken to it's logical extreme every guild would want to be as small as possible, and tons of tiny guilds isn't in anyone's best interest.

But if guild size is really the issue (as it seems to be), couldn't it be solved by adding a minimum guild size requirement to be able to join the rotation? Or at least a minimum guild size to ally (eg. if you want to raid with 18 badass people then you get your own slot, but if you want to work with another guild you both have to have at least 40 players). Or what if raid slots were just allocated by guild size, so an 100 person guild would get the same number of slots as two 50 person guilds?

A guild-size-based solution would address the issue far more directly and with a lot less controversy. After all, most reasonable people would agree that 100 people should get twice the loot of 50 people, regardless of who belongs to what guild, so why not solve the guild size problem instead of worrying about who can kill Gorenaire?

Yes, this is what it all boils down to. I'm not part of the negotiations but it seems like Gorenaire part should be changed.

[Daldaen]

Assuming 2 BP, 4 Teeth, 4 Spells

BDA brings 50 to Trak, gets 2 BP, 4 Teeth, 4 Spells -- Drops to bottom of Rotation

Guild A brings 25 to Trak gets 1 BP, 2 Teeth, 2 Spells -- Drops to bottom of Rotation
Guild B brings 25 to Trak gets 1 BP, 2 Teeth, 2 Spells

Guild A brings 25 to Trak gets 1 BP, 2 Teeth, 2 Spells
Guild B brings 25 to Trak gets 1 BP, 2 Teeth, 2 Spells -- Drops to bottom of Rotation
--Rotation starts over--

So Guild A and Guild B get the same # of loot as BDA, but they are splitting it with fewer players. Not because BDA is a zerg and Guild A is an elite-strike team of ballers. Because Guild A cannot solo kill Trakanon unless they have solid attendance during a good spawn time.

Reward players for accomplishing things with fewer players, definitely agree. But here players get awarded for simply having different guild tags and coming to a simple agreement.