Raid Petitions / GM CS

[Reptak]

Lots of the mechanics in EQ are used "not as intended." Look at FD pulling for example.

Edit: Not saying I completely disagree with you. But using the mechanics of the server to your advantage has always been a part of EQ and lots of times there are unintended methods available. This does not automatically scream exploit and in many ways is classic. Now if you have evidence of something not working the way it did on live, then petition it. I would like a classic experience even if it means losing some technique that is currently used. I think in many cases, we just have a lot more information than we did at the time on live. I for one don't remember farming invis rings, midnight mallets, root nets and getting stalking probes back then. Maybe we just didn't know better?

[Joroz]

p99 uses the patch time lines to make changes... what this doesn't account for is the time gm/guides had to enforce issues the developers didn't have fixes for. not being live code p99 is going to develop its own problems that will need to be addressed. general rule is if the trick you are doing turns the pull or encounter into something trivial or eliminates the risk its probably not as intended.

[Lazortag]

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

Go ahead and argue pulling a god/boss through his zone with no adds to the zone in using any of these methods is as intended.

Evidence?

[Alkorin]

Not to derail, but mallets weren't easily farmable on Live. That's why you didn't do it.

Either way, who cares? Top guilds will always collect these sorts of things to give themselves an advantage in any game. It's why they're the top guilds.

[Joroz]

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

Evidence?

play any live server. what needs to be proved is when it was ever changed from the state it is on p99 or its just a p99 bug.

[Alkorin]

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

play any live server. what needs to be proved is when it was ever changed from the state it is on p99 or its just a p99 bug.

Are you trying to say that nothing was ever pulled through a zone on Live by people who FD'd off adds and had people tag?

Sorry, what?

[Joroz]

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

Are you trying to say that nothing was ever pulled through a zone on Live by people who FD'd off adds and had people tag?

Sorry, what?

no, not what's being said. a feign puller is taking risk on pull... pulling a mob through a populated zone is risk to raid with all the adds... a feign split is skill. using game dynamics to avoid that risk is what we are talking about.

[john_savage1982]

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

This is the opposite of Classic. I see no reason for this of any kind.



Only a real P99 noob could possibly disagree with you here. Even so... once a week seems like it could be too much with natural mob spawn times; we could be getting 2 or 3 of something every 7 days that statistically you'd normally only have one drop on the server otherwise. So more like every 2 weeks might be the best time period.



Get out of this forum, it is for P99 players only. :P



^^^^^ tl;dr ^^^^^

I don't quite understand what you mean by "getting 2 or 3 of something every 7 days that statistically you'd normally only have one drop on the server otherwise". Please be more clear.

However, I think I understand what you're hinting at. Because not every raid mob is on the same timer length (3day, 7day, 10day, etc) then it's unlikely we could pick a simulated reset timer that wouldn't increase the frequency of spawns. (seeing a 10 day spawn every 7 days, for instance)

Since spawn variance is already not classic, there are several tweaks/ideas we could think about to remedy this problem.

1) Introduce spawn probability into the simulated reset. In this case, there is a single time that all raid targets could or could not spawn. This will make it so guilds that bank on single targets may walk away empty handed, effectively encouraging strategies of mobilization rather than poop-socking for optimization of loot acquisition. If a mob does not spawn at the simulated reset, then it will spawn on it's normal timer. In this case, making the reset a non-raid-target interval makes sense to create the most randomness (also to constantly rotate the day of the week which the event occurs to include the most people - 6 days is nice).

2) Make multiple resets for each raid-target family which share the same spawn timer. This will make it so every 3-day raid target will spawn at the same time, every 7-day raid target will spawn at the same time, and so forth. This way we don't increase the frequency of spawns for any one mob while also accomplishing the goal of having multiple targets up at once for guilds to compete over which one(s) to go for.

[Alkorin]

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

no, not what's being said. a feign puller is taking risk on pull... pulling a mob through a populated zone is risk to raid with all the adds... a feign split is skill. using game dynamics to avoid that risk is what we are talking about.

So, instead, you're saying that CoH pulling didn't work on Live the way it does on P99? I'm still a bit confused here, because I remember it being exactly the same. It's been a long time.

[Flunklesnarkin]

his statement makes sense to me.. i think he's trying to say you can change the feel of a game by changing the rarity of certain items.


If everybody was running around with fungi tunics game would be a lot different for example.


how much making stuff spawn more frequently would change the game is up for discussion i'd assume..


but either way.. i dont see how making stuff spawn more often would fix FTE... making stuff more difficult.. i could see that


and for sure need the monster /shout name of FTE added to game would be helpful.