Project 1999

Go Back   Project 1999 > Blue Community > Blue Server Chat

View Poll Results: Which raid changes would you like to see?
Simultaneous Repops 137 64.93%
No trains in Veeshan's Peak 108 51.18%
Antipoopsocking code 100 47.39%
Server reset chance proportional to population 82 38.86%
Reset all named as well 49 23.22%
Change Nagafen/Vox banishment to L56+ 35 16.59%
Anti-leapfrogging policy in Fear 70 33.18%
Loraen knocked down the two towers 38 18.01%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 211. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-07-2013, 12:37 PM
Splorf22 Splorf22 is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,237
Default Some Fun Raid Changes

After posting my rage thread about the difference between the raid scene being fair and fun, Sirken suggested I do just a bit more, so here I am, to the dismay of the trolls. I just wrote up a few of the ideas I had and put them into a poll: the options are separate so you can vote for each one if you like it or not if you dislike it.

Simultaneous Repops: Previous polls have shown that pretty much everyone likes these. Simultaneous repops are great and all, but they last about 45 minutes on Project 1999. So the next set of changes are designed to slow the players down a little, hopefully in more or less classic ways.

Forbidding training in Veeshan's Peak, if only during the reset, is one of the easy ones. The whole point of a reset is to spread out the players, but currently you can just send a few trainers to lock down VP until everything else is dead. Veeshan's Peak is something like 1/3 of all raid mobs, and if the top guilds were forced to go there immediately, even if only for Phara Dar, it would really open up the rest of the world.

Antipoopsocking code: Very few people on live would have had a spare 'raid toon' to camp out at targets fully buffed, and the fact that raid guilds demand this of their members is one of the biggest drawbacks for people with only one high-level toon. Solution: Any toon camped in one of the raid zones will log in at a different spot during the 2 hours immediately following a reset. So for example anyone camped in Sebilis would respawn at the portal outside; anyone camped in the Plane of Hate would appear at the WC spires, and so on. The goal would be to force players to actually mobilize with one toon rather than just shuffle between camped alts.

Reset All Named: I like this as a way of giving all players a little bit of access to the raid scene. When the server resets; respawn every mob but increase the chance of rare spawns and the chance of rare drops (say 50% rather than 25%). This gives everyone a little something to do. In addition, all camp rights would poof on a server reset.

The chance of a reset occurring is proportional to the number of players logged in: I like about 1 reset per 500 population per week (I'm guessing we're probably at about 750 average population right now, so we'd get 3 resets every two weeks on average). So every tick the server flips a coin with chance #players-online / (500*10*60*24*7). This not only will bias resets towards the times when the most people are on, it will naturally account for shifts in population given the summer/winter cycle or Velious or whatever. edit: At least when I proposed SR, I proposed them as a replacement for variance spawns, not an addition

Antileapfrogging policy in Fear: The classic method of clearing Fear one mob at a time is completely impossible with FTE rules on P1999; instead it turns into nasty pseudopvp with train wars and death touch cycles. I'm thinking something like: killing one mob in fear gives you the right to the whole zone for one minute; a window which would be extended an additional minute with the next mob, and so on (but capped at 15 minutes). edit: this really should not be much harder to implement than the FTE code

Change Nagafen and Vox to banish L56+: This is specifically not classic, but a L56 cap would encompass a lot more new players who are actually leveling up instead of alt armies designed specifically for this purpose.

Move TMO to the red server: I'm just kidding guys [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
__________________
Raev | Loraen | Sakuragi <The A-Team> | Solo Artist Challenge | Farmer's Market
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arteker
in words of anal fingers, just a filthy spaniard
Last edited by Splorf22; 08-07-2013 at 02:07 PM..
  #2  
Old 08-07-2013, 12:57 PM
Nogdar Nogdar is offline
Kobold


Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 185
Default

Can't like em all but quality suggestions for sure! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
__________________
Dagorn - 60 Ogre SK
<Europa>
  #3  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:05 PM
August August is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 703
Default

The chance of a reset occurring is proportional to the number of players logged in

I'm a sucker for elegant solutions. When you pair this with:

Antipoopsocking code

I think you get a much healthier environment. Enforces mobilization, destroys raid windows, only requires you to have 1 high level toon that can be wherever he needs to be, and spreads out loot distribution assuming we're talking simultaneous reset of all targets.

The other ones seem specific to raid encounters and I hate whitelisting/blacklisting content that should really reflect a change to an entire policy not a special case situation. Don't believe that training should ever be allowed. Don't believe 'leapfrogging' should be tolerated - although in my time guilds who did this were shunned, and that's how we enforced it.
  #4  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:21 PM
zanderklocke zanderklocke is offline
Planar Protector

zanderklocke's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 2,243
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Antileapfrogging policy in Fear: The classic method of clearing Fear one mob at a time is completely impossible with FTE rules on P1999; instead it turns into nasty pseudopvp with train wars and death touch cycles. I'm thinking something like: killing one mob in fear gives you the right to the whole zone for one minute; a window which would be extended an additional minute with the next mob, and so on (but capped at 15 minutes).
I didn't vote for this because I thought it sounded messy as hell to code and a little too complex for my taste.
__________________
Previous Guilds: The A-Team <- Rapture <- Flawless Victory
Zanderr Locke - 60 Punk Rock Bard | Minnesota Nice - Monk | Squaresoft Chocobo - Shaman | Bowbafett | Supermetroid | Weaponx
Power Leveling Service | OT Hammers | Quillmane Quide
  #5  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:26 PM
Frieza_Prexus Frieza_Prexus is offline
Fire Giant

Frieza_Prexus's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Houston, TX.
Posts: 749
Default

Excellent suggestions.

I disagree with the Vox/Nag changes, and the fear changes sound messy.

Perhaps the only change I would suggest for fear is that any guild actively clearing when Cazic pops can have an uncontested 1.5 hours (or something similar) before any other guild may raid the zone. The burden of proving "when" he popped would be on the clearing guild, and if they cannot substantiate (via fraps or /time stamped SS's) they lose the protection of the rule.
__________________
Xasten <The Mystical Order>
Frieza <Stasis> 1999-2003 Prexus
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." JOHN 14:6
  #6  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:26 PM
Estu Estu is offline
Planar Protector

Estu's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,994
Default

Some of these changes seem rather too complicated to be realistic or viable, but I like the first two (especially if the simultaneous repops were weekly at least).

Personally, one complicated change I think would be fun would be to replace variance as it currently is set up with an exponential probability distribution. This would basically mean that a given raid mob would have the same chance of spawning at any given span of time (so for example, it would spawn an expected amount of twice in any given seven-day span, an expected amount of 2/7 in any given 24-hour span, and so on), but there are no restrictions on how short or how long the times between spawns are. So there's no such thing as being near the beginning or end of the window; it's just as likely to spawn at a given time right after having just been killed as it is to spawn a week after it was killed. This is a very natural probability distribution and occurs in real life a lot (at least, approximately; it's kind of like flipping a coin every millisecond to see if the monster spawns. Realistically for P99, you'd be flipping a coin every server tick), and I think it would make more sense than having windows as we currently do. Plus, it would be fun to know that there's a small chance that right after you kill a boss, it respawns while you're still looting it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The implication of using this distribution for raid mobs would be that people wouldn't be sitting around poopsocking at the end of the window because they know it's bound to spawn soon (as they would with the old variance set-up), but also, you don't have the extended variance mechanic which comes with its own set of flaws (as it's currently set up, it reduces the number of spawns, and also, monsters are more likely to spawn if you're in a period of extended variance (I think; haven't read the exact description in a while)).

Actually, applying these distributions to every monster in P99 would make the game a lot more chaotic and interesting, in my opinion, though, granted, not classic.
__________________
Member of <Divinity>
Estuk Flamebringer - 60 Gnomish Wizard | Kaam Armnibbler - 55 Ogre Shaman | Aftadae Roaminfingers - 54 Halfling Rogue
Aftadai Beardhammer - 50 Dwarven Cleric | Aftae Greenbottom - 49 Halfling Druid
Need a port or a rez? Hit me up on IRC!
Last edited by Estu; 08-07-2013 at 01:51 PM..
  #7  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:44 PM
Splorf22 Splorf22 is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,237
Default

Guys, I have a PhD in computer science. For example, the antipoopsocking "code" (please forgive my mixing twelve different programming languages), inserted somewhere into the login function:

Code:
when (getTime() - lastRepopTime < TwoHours) {
  case player.zone:
     Sebilis: player.location = {Trakanon's Teeth, -100, -100, -100}
     Hate: player.location = {West Commonlands, -100, -100, -100}
     t: /* do nothing */
}
Or, the fear leapfrogging code:

Code:
String engagedGuild = "";
int ticksRemaining = 0;

OnMobEngage(player p) {
  if(engagedGuild != "") {
    engagedGuild =  p.guild;
    ticksRemaining = 20;
  }

  if(engagedGuild != p.guild)
     QueueTell(to:p, from:"Rogean", text: "You have leapfrogged guild X! They may choose to petition you!"
}

OnMobKill() {
  ticksRemaining += 10;
}

OnTick() {
  ticksRemaining -= 1;
  if(ticksRemaining <= 0) {
    QueueBroadcast("GuildX has timed out!"
    EngagedGuild = "";
 }
}
Also I'm curious that not more people like my repop probability proportional to player population. At least when I suggested simultaneous repops, I meant them mostly as a replacement for the retarded variance scene we have now, not an addition.
__________________
Raev | Loraen | Sakuragi <The A-Team> | Solo Artist Challenge | Farmer's Market
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arteker
in words of anal fingers, just a filthy spaniard
  #8  
Old 08-07-2013, 01:50 PM
August August is offline
Fire Giant


Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Guys, I have a PhD in computer science. For example, the antipoopsocking "code" (please forgive my mixing twelve different programming languages), inserted somewhere into the login function:

Code:
when (getTime() - lastRepopTime < TwoHours) {
  case player.zone:
     Sebilis: player.location = {Trakanon's Teeth, -100, -100, -100}
     Hate: player.location = {West Commonlands, -100, -100, -100}
     t: /* do nothing */
}
Or, the fear leapfrogging code:

Code:
String engagedGuild = "";
int ticksRemaining = 0;

OnMobEngage(player p) {
  if(engagedGuild != "") {
    engagedGuild =  p.guild;
    ticksRemaining = 20;
  }

  if(engagedGuild != p.guild)
     QueueTell(to:p, from:"Rogean", text: "You have leapfrogged guild X! They may choose to petition you!"
}

OnMobKill() {
  ticksRemaining += 10;
}

OnTick() {
  ticksRemaining -= 1;
  if(ticksRemaining <= 0) {
    QueueBroadcast("GuildX has timed out!"
    EngagedGuild = "";
 }
}
Also I'm curious that not more people like my repop probability proportional to player population. At least when I suggested simultaneous repops, I meant them mostly as a replacement for the retarded variance scene we have now, not an addition.

The repop probability is the best suggestion.

i love people who comment about coding.
  #9  
Old 08-07-2013, 04:57 PM
Ravager Ravager is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,730
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Splorf22 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also I'm curious that not more people like my repop probability proportional to player population. At least when I suggested simultaneous repops, I meant them mostly as a replacement for the retarded variance scene we have now, not an addition.
I think this is brilliant. Would be roughly the same number of raid mob pops, but a lot more competitive than it is now. I'd think TMO would want something like this if competition is truly their thing.
  #10  
Old 08-07-2013, 05:12 PM
kaev kaev is offline
Planar Protector


Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I think this is brilliant. Would be roughly the same number of raid mob pops, but a lot more competitive than it is now. I'd think TMO would want something like this if competition is truly their thing.
That's really a strawman argument (the TMO baiting bit.) Those who compete aggressively rarely do so out of love for competition. What they love is winning, thus the incredible popularity of cheating in competitions world-wide and since forever. It's human nature, winning by the safest and most reliable means you can come up with is an obvious response to competition for survival.

It's the makers and enforcers of rules that have responsibility for creating a "fair" competition, most competitors are not going to accept that responsibility no matter how impassioned your arguments that they "should". They'll pay lip service if you demand it, but they'll never stop looking for an edge (just look at the latest MLB juicing scandal.)
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Everquest is a registered trademark of Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Project 1999 is not associated or affiliated in any way with Daybreak Game Company LLC.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.