Thought Experiment: How Could Rotations Be Competitive?

[loramin]

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

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.

Now we're theorycrafting! And actually this sounds kinda vaguely like the old Class C and Class R system we had for a bit here.

[Jibartik]

Yeah Im not sure if it is (the old system) i cant remember how it worked but it seems like it was like that at one point? why did it change?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

I am not being pedantic. In P99 "rotations" does have a very specific definition, which is: "There is a list of qualified guilds, and they take turns killing the raid content." There is no competition in "rotations", because "rotations" are a primitive form of instancing, designed to remove the need to compete for a non-instanced raid boss.

There really isn't much wiggle room for this definition without custom changes to P99, because any form of the GM's telling Guild A they can kill a mob, but Guild B cannot is a form of rotations, just with a different ruleset. I do understand that you are asking for a "competitive" ruleset within "rotations", but it is just not really possible, due to their antithetical nature. "Rotations" in the context of P99 are designed specifically to remove competition.

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

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.

I think the issue here is you are making a request that is too constrained. You want there to be some form of "rotations" that have "competition" without the heavy use of custom content. There just isn't any wiggle room there.

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

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.

I am indeed, because we did have a better system before that worked within P99's framework. I don't see why that is an invalid thing to suggest, as it basically worked better than our current system, and is approaching what you are actually asking for, which is a way in which smaller guilds can get content. That is your real end goal when asking for "competitive rotations", you are looking for a way to avoid one top guild dominating all the content.

[Gustoo]

Deleted comment because not constructive.

[Ooloo]

Silky still spitting truth. Get good, and yes I failed to get good so I don't gots warder loot. That's hardly why I play the game though, and I think it's hardly why most people play, even the neckbeards.

[loramin]

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

I am not being pedantic.

Yes, you are. "Rotations" in this forum can literally mean "content rotated on a schedule" (eg. Thursday is Foo Guild's Plane of Sky night) ... or it can mean "any system where GMs constrain raiders instead of just letting them 'race' to the content" (aka "FTE"). In context, I meant the latter.

It's like if I said "how can we make carriages less shitty?" ... and you respond with "you can't, because carriages have horses in front of them and horses shit". Yes, I understand the word "carriage" can mean the kind with a horse in front, but it can also mean a "horseless carriage" (ie. car).

You have a choice: you can write essays about how I'm "using the word wrong", because you like your particular definition of carriage and can't imagine anyone else using the word any other way (like a robot) ... or you can try (like a human being) to understand what I'm trying to say, interpret the word in context, and write an essay about a competitive GM-enforced system.

[Ooloo]

Account sharing is still the one thing that throws a wrench in the whole analysis of old EQ, but there's literally no way to prevent that here. Everyone will have a preference as to which original live server they played on and how the meta developed on that server. Which is fine, but we only have one server here (green, which has blown blue out of the water like every day since forever sorry; crappy UI notwithstanding cause that's kinda part of the game).

[Ooloo]

If I wasn't jealous of people who have cool looking stuff, it wouldn't be EQ. And I wouldn't really feel jealous if I just got it for free.

Thanks but no thanks for the lvl 80 winged mount fairy or whatever that I started with in EQ2 when I randomly signed up, kinda felt like a used car salesman selling me a piece of shit.

[Fammaden]

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

I am not sure why people think competition is bad. We have plenty of games that revolve around competition, Basketball, Chess, Etc. If you don't like those games, don't play them. Everquest has competition built into it, which isn't a bad thing.

Yes, and other competitive events like that have rules and enforcement in real time by a third party arbiter. Referees, umpires, judges, etc.

The biggest issues plaguing the raid scene are that we have rules that aren't enforced and the players aren't monitored or penalized. And when they are enforced its months later, which is not helpful in behavioral shaping when punishments aren't dealt in a timely manner.

With all due respect to our overworked and underappreciated volunteer staff (who believe it or not have a lot of other shit to do that's unrelated to raiding), the raid game is totally lacking in this enforcement that's necessary for head-to-head competition.

This is not a controversial take. Basically every raider agrees with this issue, doesn't matter if you're Vanq or Riot, Seal/Force or Kingdom/Safe, everyone agrees this is a problem. They only disagree on who should be getting the most penalty flags thrown at them.

Because the raid scene is lacking the needed officiating, its not valid to hold up competitive raiding as some sort of virtue on P99. Competitions need straightforward and consistent rulebooks with someone ensuring that both teams are playing by the rules at all times, or it devolves into a chaotic race to the bottom.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yes, you are. "Rotations" in this forum can literally mean "content rotated on a schedule" (eg. Thursday is Foo Guild's Plane of Sky night) ... or it can mean "any system where GMs constrain raiders instead of just letting them 'race' to the content" (aka "FTE"). In context, I meant the latter.

You have a choice: you can write essays about how I'm "using the word wrong", because you like your particular definition of carriage and can't imagine anyone else using the word any other way (like a robot) ... or you can try (like a human being) to understand what I'm trying to say, interpret the word in context, and write an essay about a competitive GM-enforced system.

No, I am not. The problem is you are making new definitions of the word "rotation", and just assuming everybody agrees with them, without prior consent. You do this a lot on these forums. You have ideas in your head about what something means, and then you attack anybody who doesn't hold those same ideas. If you want to be understood properly, you need to write more than a few sentences, and stop making assumptions that people always know what you are talking about.

The problem isn't me being a robot, the problem is you are making wild assumptions about what you think people know, both in terms of your definitions, and what's going on in your head. You should really try writing a few more sentences. While you think a few sentences are an "essay", I guarantee you they are not[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

It's like if I said "how can we make carriages less shitty?" ... and you respond with "you can't, because carriages have horses in front of them and horses shit". Yes, I understand the word "carriage" can mean the kind with a horse in front, but it can also mean a "horseless carriage" (ie. car).

This is incorrect. If you ask "how can we make carriages less shitty?, most people these days would assume you mean horse drawn carriages, not cars. You are correct that cars were referred to as "horseless carriages" in the past, but that is not normal terminology these days, and you shouldn't assume most people are going to make that connection. This is exactly the problem I am talking about above. You have this strange assumption that the vast majority of people in 2022 would refer to a car as a "horseless carriage" lol.

Finally, your choice of words does matter if you write short, succinct sentences, because that changes the entire context of your question. The normal definition of a "rotation" is what I already mentioned. Do not blame me for not knowing about your customized definition of what rotations are.