The Current Raid Environment

[Pint]

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

because its not that simple.

two coth mages are infinitely easier to police that a mass of people at a specific spot running to a target, you'd need fraps to confirm the person that got FTE was at the predesignated spot before running and getting FTE

seems like all you would need is a log of the zone at the time of the spawn and a rule saying no fte'er can be camped inside the zone for ffa spawns.

[arsenalpow]

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

seems like all you would need is a log of the zone at the time of the spawn and a rule saying no fte'er can be camped inside the zone for ffa spawns.

So then people are outside the zone and fastest ssd wins? Like I've said different isn't better, just different.

[Anichek]

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

Not speaking on behalf of BDA as a whole here, but offering a hybrid solution that includes parts of 3 and 4 above.


C/R class rotation (1:1) for all non-VP mobs. Regular spawns of VP remain Class C assigned at all times.

FFA portion of class assignment gets removed.

Simulated repops:

1. All mobs on simulated repop are FFA
2. VP is included as FFA on sim-repops
3. Bag Limits on repops vary by Class and Mob Type
4. Class C = 4 mob limit, 2 VP and 2 non-VP
5. Class R = 2 mob limit, 1 VP and 1 non-VP, or 2 non-VP

In my head, what this does is it:
a) addresses the point of contention, FFA thus far has been a failure
b) adds incentive to Class C, through retention of all VP mobs on regular spawns (which they have now), but also
c) adds the missing component of being able to test VP as a Class R guild, with a reward of potentially having more VP mobs via transition from R to C, because
d) Class C has a higher bag limit, full time access to VP


The only way to fix FFA is to treat it like cocaine. Give some samples (bag limits), let people hit a line, or two, or three, etc so that eventually they will become a long-term customer (move from R to C).

This would also potentially reduce the poopsocking - simulated repops could remain random and triggered (assuming that's how they happen now, or randomized coding has been really really tight in the shot group). Guilds that opt to race for a specific mob are making an active choice - and knowing that if you run to VP and race for PD loot, the time you spend there may cause you to miss out on getting something else (and thereby leave it open for other guilds who are getting shut out routinely - or in the instance of Class C, potentially "losing" because of the current bag limit and structure).


Just brainstorming - like I said this isn't sanctioned by BDA or Chest, it's my own thoughts.

Add to this to address the FFA shenanigans:

Trackers can track all they want, but any characters IN ZONE when a FFA raid mob spawns are DQ'd from engaging said raid mob. There's no limit on trackers for your guild - put 20 people in zone to track Sev! Those 20 people aren't allowed to engage the raid mob upon spawn, at all.

Engagement defined: Any tactic used to pull a mob - a javelin, a spell, a debuff, a pet, taking damage, etc counts as engagement. If the guild fails to withdraw, and downs the mob, the loot is deleted. Simply put - anyone tracking is barred from engagement, pulling, stalling, dealing damage, healing the reinforcements when they get there. They are simply eyes and ears.

Only code change is to ensure that when the mob spawns, the server has a "stamp" of the characters in zone. Logs will show damage dealt or received by all in zone, before an FTE shout.

At that point, it boils my proposal all down to picking target(s) you want to go for, setting the right eyes and ears in place, and deploying to get the FTE tag with little to no advantage over another guild other than your responsiveness and calculated positioning outside of zones. The bag limits ensure that this will be spread out, simultaneous repops ensure that decisions and priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time.

[Artaenc]

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

Add to this to address the FFA shenanigans:

Trackers can track all they want, but any characters IN ZONE when a FFA raid mob spawns are DQ'd from engaging said raid mob. There's no limit on trackers for your guild - put 20 people in zone to track Sev! Those 20 people aren't allowed to engage the raid mob upon spawn, at all.

Engagement defined: Any tactic used to pull a mob - a javelin, a spell, a debuff, a pet, taking damage, etc counts as engagement. If the guild fails to withdraw, and downs the mob, the loot is deleted. Simply put - anyone tracking is barred from engagement, pulling, stalling, dealing damage, healing the reinforcements when they get there. They are simply eyes and ears.

Only code change is to ensure that when the mob spawns, the server has a "stamp" of the characters in zone. Logs will show damage dealt or received by all in zone, before an FTE shout.

At that point, it boils my proposal all down to picking target(s) you want to go for, setting the right eyes and ears in place, and deploying to get the FTE tag with little to no advantage over another guild other than your responsiveness and calculated positioning outside of zones. The bag limits ensure that this will be spread out, simultaneous repops ensure that decisions and priorities will have to be adjusted from time to time.

Can we at least test this idea out? It's a hell of a write up. This gives class R two guaranteed VP dragon on sim repop. It's better than class C getting all VP dragons and a total of 4 FFA targets outside of VP.

[Derubael]

Love that you guys are trying to find solutions here. I've seen some really great suggestions in this thread. I hold my own opinions on how things should work, namely that I still want to see guilds working to move from class r to class c (and I know that Sirken echos this desire, Rogean/Nilbog just want their GM's to be happy/not stressed and their players to have access to content they didn't have access to before - I support this 100%). We're really trying to shift to a more player-driven raid scene, and will likely support whatever idea the majority of the community can agree on.

That being said, two things to keep in mind:

1) If all the guilds can't agree, we can't implement anything without a Senior Staff meeting and approval of the idea(s). As some of you know, this takes a significant amount of time, so it may be best to focus on things that make the raid scene better for everyone, rather than one class or the other (variance mods and poopsock rule changes are a good example of this). inb4 Chest says impossibru. Just kidding.

2) VP will never be a "Class R" thing. The "best" content is always going to be something that will go to the guilds who put the most time/effort into getting there. That being said, I know a number of guilds are worried about going after VP because they aren't sure how the transition from C to R works. As far as we've discussed at this point, a guild would need to request the move back to R once they've moved to C. This is likely something that would be evaluated based on that guilds record competing in Class C. Other factors may be looked at as well. If you guys have some ideas on what you think a guild would need to do to constitute such a move, a new thread on the topic would be encouraged and welcomed.

Edit: Other suggestions on VP are welcomed. My knee jerk reaction was to suggest downing a VP mob no longer being an "automatic" bump to Class-C, but that just exacerbates the problem we have with not enough incentive to move to Class-C. So with that off the table, other suggestions are encouraged.

I know that point 1 really sucks, but that's just the way it works. We have a lot of things to focus on at any given time, and getting us all together to discuss the raid scene takes a colossal effort. We hardly have enough time to do GM meetings on topics that Sirken and I need addressed. That's not to say it won't happen, just that we need a clear, concise, and focused topic to bring up that we know is backed by the community as a whole (or as much of it as possible).

I hope you all can agree on some ways to improve the raid scene for everyone - it's not supposed to be easy, but I promise that it is possible. Good luck, at the very least I look forward to seeing what you're all able to come up with.

[Anichek]

I think in order to be productive, we need to create a list of what guilds consider the flaws in the system to be.

Assuming no change in set up of R and C content (VP) -

Variance mods - increase/decrease/randomize?
Tracking and staging of characters for engagement
ROE (Rules of Engagement) - who can? who can't?
FFA considerations (bag limits, ineffective way to spur competition)
R to C transitioning, C to R transitioning, benchmarks for each
Post-Velious launch considerations: discuss continuance of class system? re-assignment of content if class system stays in place?

Just trying to brainstorm ideas, once again. I know that all of these topics have been points of discussion or thoughts that many of us feel we need to address. Would be more than happy to add to this - perhaps we can start a new thread (keeping the argument out of the thread) just to list discussion points?

[jpetrick]

They aren't going to make any major changes. Just ask for variance to be cut in half. This is going to break down like it always does when all these guilds come together. We should be smart for once and just ask for one thing.

[Derubael]

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

I think in order to be productive, we need to create a list of what guilds consider the flaws in the system to be.

Assuming no change in set up of R and C content (VP) -

Variance mods - increase/decrease/randomize?
Tracking and staging of characters for engagement
ROE (Rules of Engagement) - who can? who can't?
FFA considerations (bag limits, ineffective way to spur competition)
R to C transitioning, C to R transitioning, benchmarks for each
Post-Velious launch considerations: discuss continuance of class system? re-assignment of content if class system stays in place?

Just trying to brainstorm ideas, once again. I know that all of these topics have been points of discussion or thoughts that many of us feel we need to address. Would be more than happy to add to this - perhaps we can start a new thread (keeping the argument out of the thread) just to list discussion points?

This is a great idea, and I was going to suggest it in my post but thought it was too much at once. I also felt it was sort-of addressed in the OP and didn't want to re-hash the subject, but in reality a post/thread addressing these concerns would be a good step in the right direction. Identifying specific problems that all guilds feel need to be dealt with will help everyone to get a clear and concise picture of what changes should be made.

[Argh]

If a consensus was reached with regard to reducing variance, would changes be implemented?

[rafaone]

Europas stance is this;

Reduced variance would be good, no reason to be forced to track 16 hour windows in a 15 year old elf simulator
The best solution to the C/R/FFA solution would be what Catherin suggested, making mobs rotate between C & R, and make all sim respawns FFA.
We understand why this is difficult and why GMs/devs don't want to make more changes, but FFA mobs on sim respawns is the only true competition, FFA atm is just 16-hour-poopsuck-click-spam-fest and again, 15 year old elf simulator, we are adults, we have lives.
VP is not an option for us atm, but we think it would be great if R guilds could combine up for FFA VP kills without getting flagged C - worth considering.
VPs status might need to be reconsidered in Velious, especially if C guilds interest in VP drop to near zero as suggested by TMO.

Very interesting to hear that TMO has no/little interest in old world raid mobs come Velious (from RNF thread) - is that also IBs stance, and if that is so, will C remove themselves from the rotation of said mobs?