Raid Changes

[Hugmukk]

Some have expressed that 1 a week is too many, I would tend to agree with that. I'm sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread but I'm not reading through all 460 comments to find out.

One solution would be if the "simulated crashes" occur too close together, that particular "simulated crash" would be skipped. But the following crash could not be skipped.

For example, if the SC (simulated crash) happened Sunday at noon, and the next SC happens Monday at or before noon. Then the SC that was suppose to happen Monday will not actually happen.

The time between could be tweaked, but it would add some variance.

Like I said I don't know if this was discussed already, if it was my appolagies.

[Thana8088]

There will be no simulated crashes until 200 people are all piled up on the VS spawn point.

Oh wait.....

[myxomatosii]

Thread summary: DER TEKIN ER MERBSSSSSS

/curtain

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Frieza_Prexus]

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

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.

Once the initial window has expired, the mob may spawn at ANY time in the new window. For example, say Trak reaches 75% completion meaning that he has 7.5 hours left of his 36 hour window. At 75% the system will roll a two sided die, if successful, the window is extended another 24 hours. This means that Trak could now spawn at ANY point within the next 31.5 hours. (7.5 + 24).

He could spawn in 6 seconds after the check, or he could spawn over 30 hours later. This would severely discourage socking as there is no definable point or bracket on his "spawn timeline" where the probability of a pop is so large as to justify a multi-hour socking.

[Splorf22]

BTW a more serious raid proposal: make all raid bosses spawn every day at 7:30PM EST (well a few spawns at different times for our aussie/euro folks). Each mob drops 1/7 of its normal loot table. Everyone has a blast.

Your idea is not terrible IMO but it reminds me of our government trying to fix our excess of debt by going into more debt. Variance is the problem, not the solution.

[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?"