Thought Experiment: How Could Rotations Be Competitive?

[JDAm0nk]

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

I think it's the single boxing, not a slavish adherence to R&N's beliefs.

95% of this server (in my completely unscientific estimation) doesn't share the beliefs of its founders. The majority of the player base wants Luclin (and PoP!), wants instancing, wants DoT damage displayed, etc.

But no other EQ Emu server offers single boxing, and every non-single-boxed server is ... a bunch of nerds automating their playing of multiple boxes (which isn't really EQ).

I would agree that the single boxing is a huge draw here. And most people running servers (understandably) don't want the headache of trying to enforce that policy.

FWIW, Secrets has been streaming a new single box PoP-locked server that they're testing:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1489604182

It looks like there are a number of changes that will put 'EQ purists' off (myself included [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) but I appreciate all his work on EQ(emu), think all the innovation is cool, and I hope it sticks around for awhile.

[Jibartik]

most people want faster horses too.

[loramin]

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

that's tall order for a game that wasn't even suppose to be competitive in the first place by the original creators. racing not even classic. in 99' multiple live servers with over 1k population and racing for "first-time-ever kills" was the so-called 'competition'. end game on p99 is jus an evolution of neckbeards setting the rules on the game board

not saying it ain't impossible, but its 2022 and since the server came out there hasn't been a great solution besides FTE it or a full-time GM babysitting a bunch of 30-50 yr olds. without gm intervention to code in some non-classic stuff you'll just end up right back to fte's or some troublesome intricate rules that would put off any new raiders from wanting to play. (too many rules to follow)

my stance is.. If you wanna really truly desire to raid endgame either join the top 2(3?) guilds, accept the unfavorable fate of tracking,batphones,dkp hoarders,neckbeards etc. stop trying to make an unfair game-"fair" you'll just break the thing is the sad truth after playing on this server for 7 yrs lol

No one said anything about "fair": I just asked about competitive rotations.

Such rotations are simply a different way of handling the fact that we have more players than raid mobs ... not necessarily a more "fair" way.

[Homesteaded]

I think two servers is the only viable solution.

[sessual]

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

I'm tired of "competition vs. rotations" conversations. Fact: some classic EQ raid mobs were competed for, and some weren't. More relevant fact: our benevolent dictators for life want competition ... and it's their server.

But, what if we took a different angle, and asked: how could rotations be competitive?

As a simple example (just to get the ball rolling), what if guilds had "bag limits" on certain targets (eg. only 3 ST key mobs per week). However, to encourage competition the guild that kills their three targets the fastest gets to increase their "bag size" by two for the next week ... while any guild that gets caught violating a server rule loses their entire "bag" for the next cycle.

What other ways could you imagine "competitive rotations"? Perhaps, if we can imagine something awesome, the staff might even try it in the future.

I think your method definitely adds a competitive aspect to rotations. I'm not sure its enticing enough to make current raid guilds see it as viable. But rotations themselves are by nature designed to remove competition.

Also, and I think this is an important detail, the top two guilds will likely never allow / agree to any form of rotation, because it directly conflicts with one of the secondary goals of killing raid mobs, denying the other guild the opportunity to collect loot.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

No one said anything about "fair": I just asked about competitive rotations.

Such rotations are simply a different way of handling the fact that we have more players than raid mobs ... not necessarily a more "fair" way.

Again, you can't have "competitive rotations". Competitions and rotations are antithetical. You're example you gave at the beginning of the thread was bag limits, which is switching between competitions and rotations, rather than blending the two into "competitive rotations".

The biggest issue with your example (besides what I mentioned above), is that kill speed is heavily determined by how many people you can bring on average to the raid. So basically the biggest guild would always win the "competition" and get their higher bag limit. It would also further incentivize creating one giant guild who always wins, lowering competition. If the bag limit increase is unlimited, then you end up back where we were before bag limits, and if the bag limit is simply increased once, then that is the new bag limit.

As I stated before, the only way you could blend the two is something like a consolation prize. You keep up the competition because the killer of the raid mob gets first picks at the loot. That is the incentive to place first. But the second place guild gets a "consolation prize". You are effectively rotating the loot between the two top guilds, but sometimes an underdog could claim the "consolation prize" too. However, I don't like the idea, as it would be a headache to figure out who was in second place.

Honestly the server was much better when Dragons were unrooted, pushing mobs was a thing, and clickies were un-nerfed. We had FOUR guilds competing in ToV. Kittens, Azure Guard, Aftermath, and Riot. You had two casual guilds and two top guilds to pick from to try and get loot. It was a much better system in terms of smaller guilds being able to snag mobs without a massive response team. That ability for smaller guilds to compete with bigger guilds is what allowed for guild diversity. With rooted dragons, the push nerf, and the clickie nerfs, you are now basically required to have a large guild if you want to kill the bigger targets, which means small guilds basically cannot compete.

[Jibartik]

pretty sure having leagues creates competition, and has rotations.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

pretty sure having leagues creates competition, and has rotations.

Leagues wouldn't work in P99 because the game doesn't work quite the same way as a purely competitive game, like bowling. In bowling everybody is playing the exact same game, the same number of times, and the winner is determined by overall score. Also, it isn't a "rotation" in the same sense as P99, because there is only one grand prize winner in a league. It isn't like everybody in the league gets the grand prize rotated to them without having to do anything.

To mimic this in P99 with the existing rules, you would have to create a mini-game within P99 that can be played multiple times before the winner of the mob is determined. For example, multiple foot races to the same raid mob, and the lowest aggregated time would win the mob. I don't think that would be very fun though.

The reason why you would have to create a mini-game like this is because the respawn times on the mobs are just too long. If you wanted a weekly league that determined which guild earned the mob's loot that is more in keeping with core gameplay mechanics, you would probably need to have custom content that respawns the raid boss every day WITHOUT loot, and the guild who kills them the most times in the week gets the loot.

[Jibartik]

hmm, you just make it so

x, x x and x, mobs are league 1 and you can only engague those mobs if your guild is in league 1 and as soon as the spawn, anyone in league 1 can engage whenever they can but regular engament rules apply

y y y and y are league 2 same rules above apply

and then mobs AAAAA are epic raid loot.

make a rule that epic raid guilds can kill 1 mob from each rotation below or let GM's change the mobs in each league every month so everyone has a shot at everytning that they'd need.

This way there is still competition, but it's not 1 guild stomping on everyone.

if you want to move up a league just down a mob in that league and then you're up untnil you dont down something for 3 full rotations or something.

[loramin]

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

Again, you can't have "competitive rotations". Competitions and rotations are antithetical. You're example you gave at the beginning of the thread was bag limits, which is switching between competitions and rotations, rather than blending the two into "competitive rotations".

You're being pedantic. From context I thought it was pretty clear that "rotations" meant "GM enforcement of raid limits" ... but in case it wasn't, let me be explicit.

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

The biggest issue with your example (besides what I mentioned above), is that kill speed is heavily determined by how many people you can bring on average to the raid. So basically the biggest guild would always win the "competition" and get their higher bag limit. It would also further incentivize creating one giant guild who always wins, lowering competition. If the bag limit increase is unlimited, then you end up back where we were before bag limits, and if the bag limit is simply increased once, then that is the new bag limit.

As I stated before, the only way you could blend the two is something like a consolation prize. You keep up the competition because the killer of the raid mob gets first picks at the loot. That is the incentive to place first. But the second place guild gets a "consolation prize". You are effectively rotating the loot between the two top guilds, but sometimes an underdog could claim the "consolation prize" too. However, I don't like the idea, as it would be a headache to figure out who was in second place.

Now you're theorycrafting! Again, my example was meant to be a dead stupid one just to get the conversation started, and you've identified a legitimate weakness in the overall system it would create (it would prioritize zerg guilds over regular ones).

But I don't think it means the idea is impossible, I think it just means no one is being creative and proposing something new and interesting yet.

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

Honestly the server was much better when Dragons were unrooted, pushing mobs was a thing, and clickies were un-nerfed. We had FOUR guilds competing in ToV. Kittens, Azure Guard, Aftermath, and Riot. You had two casual guilds and two top guilds to pick from to try and get loot. It was a much better system in terms of smaller guilds being able to snag mobs without a massive response team. That ability for smaller guilds to compete with bigger guilds is what allowed for guild diversity. With rooted dragons, the push nerf, and the clickie nerfs, you are now basically required to have a large guild if you want to kill the bigger targets, which means small guilds basically cannot compete.

Now you're just rehashing the same tired arguments we've had a million times here ... but we've had them a million times already! Let's stick to theorycrafting something new instead in this thread.