Raid Changes

[Ravager]

As it is right now, everyone can get into VP without trying, they just have to join TMO. If no training were enforced, it means that everyone would have to try in VP, TMO included, because they couldn't just sit back and leave a couple of trainers camped there to train the ever-living shit out of anyone who sets foot in the zone, whether they're there to raid, or just port to sky.

[Frieza_Prexus]

We've all seen it discussed a thousand times: FTE shouts, variance elimination, simulated patch days, etc. While those are all quality suggestions, this thread's purpose is the discussion of a single specific solution, so I'd appreciate it if we could maintain a narrow focus.

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 following proposal is to help increase the efficacy of the variance in performing its stated purpose: discouraging sock-parties.

NOTE: Technically, all the calculations would be made upon the mob's death, however, that is a mere technical note as the playerbase will still be faced with uncertainty. All of the % figures are suggestions, and they could obviously use tweaking.

SOLUTION: When a mob's window reaches between 75% and 85% completion, the server has a 50% chance to extend the mobs window an additional 24 hours. The system then randomly places the mob's spawning at a new point somewhere within the duration of the final 25% to 15% of the window+24 additional hours. Should this new window reach between 75% and 85% completion, the check is repeated with a 25% chance at a 12 to 14 hour extension to the current window randomly placing the mob's spawning within the new window of 25% to 15% of current time left +12 hours. This 2nd 12 hour check may repeat indefinitely.

This might seem a bit confusing, but I've tried to make it as simple as possible. The reason the "extension check" is done when the window is between 75% and 85% completion is to keep the players guessing. For example, if the players know when the extension check occurs, they will just log on and sock until the window hits the point where the check is conducted. The players would still have a strong chance of the mob spawning right then and there. If it doesn't they just log out until the window nears closing again and sock until the neck check is made. To have the check made at an undefined point prevents this staggered socking style.

I've done some quick back-of-a-napkin probability calculations, and this scheme, in the long run if my math is correct, will not appreciably affect the number of pops per month of any given mob. Even if it did, I suggest that the one less Trak spawn a year might be worth it for fewer FTE bonanzas.

It is my hope that a productive dialogue occurs vis a vis this suggestion and that if we fine-tune it enough, we may draw the support of the server staff.

[Splorf22]

I prefer my solution: whenever you poopsock a raid mob, you forfeit the normal GM protection from trains. This means that a) we can all have fun training the sockers b) you guys can have fun fighting off the trains. Everyone wins.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I prefer my solution: whenever you poopsock a raid mob, you forfeit the normal GM protection from trains. This means that a) we can all have fun training the sockers b) you guys can have fun fighting off the trains. Everyone wins.

[Slave]

The problem with variance is not only that it is not Classic, it is that it has led to a completely untenable situation in high end raiding whereby the largest guilds have a disproportionate amount of power to find and kill bosses.

It's just not Classic, and it's been shown to be very obviously flawed in almost every respect. Your solution speaks nothing to the real issues that variance creates, and I find the whole situation quite insulting to the player base.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

The problem with variance is not only that it is not Classic, it is that it has led to a completely untenable situation in high end raiding whereby the largest guilds have a disproportionate amount of power to find and kill bosses.

It's just not Classic, and it's been shown to be very obviously flawed in almost every respect. Your solution speaks nothing to the real issues that variance creates, and I find the whole situation quite insulting to the player base.

I disagree, however, that is an issue for threads concerning removal of the variance.

As it stands, the discussion is a simple question of "Which of the following two choices: (A) Variance as it is or (B) Variance with window extensions, is more efficacious and productive for the server?"

[Ele]

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

The problem with variance is not only that it is not Classic, it is that it has led to a completely untenable situation in high end raiding whereby the largest guilds have a disproportionate amount of power to find and kill bosses.

It's just not Classic, and it's been shown to be very obviously flawed in almost every respect. Your solution speaks nothing to the real issues that variance creates, and I find the whole situation quite insulting to the player base.

It is obvious that variance is not classic. However the server staff have already made clear their position about variance, so at this point we have to work within that paradigm. Xasten isn't trying to promote this above a classic spawn pattern, but working within the sandbox that the server staff have chosen to let us play in.

This is a rather simple check within the variance code that would discourage socking at the end of windows by throwing in the uncertainty of being there beyond a set time limit.

[SupaflyIRL]

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

This is a rather simple check within the variance code that would discourage socking at the end of windows by throwing in the uncertainty of being there beyond a set time limit.

What I'm saying, however, is that there is no uncertainty, it just extends the sock and offers multiple late window opportunities for each mob.

The only way using variance would stop socking is to have spawns triggered in such a way that variance has an undetermined endpoint using statistics to try to achieve the same number of kills per week/month/year instead of a window. I'm not going to bother doing the math but on a one week spawn it would look more like:

Day 1-5: 0% chance per 30 minutes to spawn
day 5: 1% chance to spawn every 30 mins
day 6: 2% chance every 30 mins

etc. and have no cap, but after a certain number of days have a fixed percentage to spawn. This would more faithfully randomize the spawn than having a set window then increasing the set window by a set amount at a set percentage.

[Slave]

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

However the server staff have already made clear their position about variance, so at this point we have to work within that paradigm

It is only Rogean. And alarmingly, his illogical insistence on this only starts to make sense if you consider certain strange and shady scenarios. Occam is cutting himself somewhere.

[SupaflyIRL]

Wouldn't this just cause more socking with less pops? Once the initial window is expired everyone just comes back the next day and does the same thing, unless I'm missing something.