Beefcake said:It's funny and ironic that the same people demanding that VR enforce group camps are the same people that fight against certain raid guilds camping raid mobs.
There are two sides to every camp:
1) Those that say their camp should be honored because they were there first, they have been in that spot for five hours and everyone else should go away or wait until they are done.
2) Those that say the campers are intentionally denying other players access to content and they are entitled to experience that content.
You cannot make both sides happy.
Yep, and frankly, they shouldn't even try, beyond a point. It is this kind of potentially negative social dynamic that actually helped make EQ great. Obviously there are extremes, but this aspect of having to deal with real people and their real poor behavior adds an element to the game that other games don't have. If you want your Screaming Mace, but can't get one because Orc Hill is FUBAR, then go explore! Go find some other thing and be better for it.
Krixus said:Beefcake said:It's funny and ironic that the same people demanding that VR enforce group camps are the same people that fight against certain raid guilds camping raid mobs.
There are two sides to every camp:
1) Those that say their camp should be honored because they were there first, they have been in that spot for five hours and everyone else should go away or wait until they are done.
2) Those that say the campers are intentionally denying other players access to content and they are entitled to experience that content.
You cannot make both sides happy.
Yep, and frankly, they shouldn't even try, beyond a point. It is this kind of potentially negative social dynamic that actually helped make EQ great. Obviously there are extremes, but this aspect of having to deal with real people and their real poor behavior adds an element to the game that other games don't have. If you want your Screaming Mace, but can't get one because Orc Hill is FUBAR, then go explore! Go find some other thing and be better for it.
Reason why we were talking about random spawn locations for certain namers, to eliminate most of this from happening plus with the different shards on the server there will be 2-5 or so groups being able to camp the same locations so there is that as well. and who cares if they have been there for 5 hours maybe they are just there for exp if a possibilty of a namer or 2 but like the steady exp they were getting and didn't feel like relocating due to not knowing where else to go without taking a good chunk of time away from exping, and stay it for the next day when they knew they pretty much outleveled the are they were at. Plus like i said with the different shards with them being there for that long isn't going to effect the different shards just the one they are at. and my last point eliminates your 2nd point as well
Don't get me wrong, I am all for multiple shards and random spawns for most names. But, then those that want all content to be contested throw a fit because they cannot control them and not enough competition.
Either way, VR can't make everyone happy. They just have to do what they think is right and give us a chance to test it once it's implemented.
Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:Yes i undersand what your saying and i understand there are a few exceptions where random spawning don't work and obviously they should be static spawning, as in end dungeon bosses and such but at the same time i say random spawning as more pros than cons, unlike static spawning.
Please share with me these pros/cons. I really can't think of enough pros to outweigh the cons for random spawns.
Okay ill list a few:
1) It eliminates someone from camping an area where only that certain namer spawns, which means if your in the right area of the zone you could also get him to spawn where your at.
2) It eliminates other grps from possibily trying to Taking your spawns especially if the namer does "pop" becuase that is the only place where he spawns.
3) It eliminates them from training you, becuase you've been there to long and they want you gone. (I've had this happen to me countless times in Lockjaw)
4) It makes people for friendly towards each toher becuase they know they have as much a chance of spawning a namer as you do if they are in the right place
5) the only big problem i have with random spawning is inflation, but like i said the end game bosses in the dungeon will be static along with other that just makes sense for them to be there and these your be your good loot droppers, obviiously not all of them but some of them, some of these namers could be like quest item droppers for class specific items and such to make sure they still have value though
Riahuf22 said:Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:Yes i undersand what your saying and i understand there are a few exceptions where random spawning don't work and obviously they should be static spawning, as in end dungeon bosses and such but at the same time i say random spawning as more pros than cons, unlike static spawning.
Please share with me these pros/cons. I really can't think of enough pros to outweigh the cons for random spawns.
Okay ill list a few:
1) It eliminates someone from camping an area where only that certain namer spawns, which means if your in the right area of the zone you could also get him to spawn where your at.
2) It eliminates other grps from possibily trying to Taking your spawns especially if the namer does "pop" becuase that is the only place where he spawns.
3) It eliminates them from training you, becuase you've been there to long and they want you gone. (I've had this happen to me countless times in Lockjaw)
4) It makes people for friendly towards each toher becuase they know they have as much a chance of spawning a namer as you do if they are in the right place
5) the only big problem i have with random spawning is inflation, but like i said the end game bosses in the dungeon will be static along with other that just makes sense for them to be there and these your be your good loot droppers, obviiously not all of them but some of them, some of these namers could be like quest item droppers for class specific items and such to make sure they still have value though
That spawn is devauled, including its loot, which leads directly to inflation. That is a HUGE HUGE issue.
Beefcake said:Don't get me wrong, I am all for multiple shards and random spawns for most names. But, then those that want all content to be contested throw a fit because they cannot control them and not enough competition.
Either way, VR can't make everyone happy. They just have to do what they think is right and give us a chance to test it once it's implemented.
Right and i absolutel agree with you, I'm a hardcore player so one way or another im getting what i want even if i have to wait a week to get it i will get it regardless there isn't a way to stop me one way or another, i brought this up for the players that don't play as hardcore as i do, also with this said im not a jerk and steal people peoples spawns and such either or that im a better player than anyone else i just know i put in a ton of hours into games
Krixus said:Riahuf22 said:Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:Yes i undersand what your saying and i understand there are a few exceptions where random spawning don't work and obviously they should be static spawning, as in end dungeon bosses and such but at the same time i say random spawning as more pros than cons, unlike static spawning.
Please share with me these pros/cons. I really can't think of enough pros to outweigh the cons for random spawns.
Okay ill list a few:
1) It eliminates someone from camping an area where only that certain namer spawns, which means if your in the right area of the zone you could also get him to spawn where your at.
2) It eliminates other grps from possibily trying to Taking your spawns especially if the namer does "pop" becuase that is the only place where he spawns.
3) It eliminates them from training you, becuase you've been there to long and they want you gone. (I've had this happen to me countless times in Lockjaw)
4) It makes people for friendly towards each toher becuase they know they have as much a chance of spawning a namer as you do if they are in the right place
5) the only big problem i have with random spawning is inflation, but like i said the end game bosses in the dungeon will be static along with other that just makes sense for them to be there and these your be your good loot droppers, obviiously not all of them but some of them, some of these namers could be like quest item droppers for class specific items and such to make sure they still have value though
That spawn is devauled, including its loot, which leads directly to inflation. That is a HUGE HUGE issue.
You can limit inflation by lowering drop rate, plus having multiple shards even with static spawns is going to cause as much inflation as random spawns and shards if he can only be up in one spot and not multiple so that would take care of that.
As some have stated the obvious, you can't please everyone. I honestly don't have a problem with camps/spawns being static or random really, I'll adjust to it either way I think. That being said, I think camps (however you determine and/or claim them) should be enforced for the most part.
The one camp that I can think of that always had me questioning whether camps should be identifed/respected/enforced though was the Efreeti camp in Sol B.
For anyone who doesn't know, the Efreeti camp was a camp where the rare/named mob's common drop was the best set of casters boot in the game at the time and the rare drop was a very nice melee ring.
Back in the original days of EQ and on a couple of progression servers I have played since then, that camp in particular has always drove me crazy. Because many times I (or my group if I was in one) would zone in and do a camp check and no one would claim Efreeti. So I would put together a group (if I didnt' already have one) and we'd fight our way there, only to get there and find a group (usually a guild group) already there.
I or my group would ask why they didn't call the camp when we checked and sometimes I/we would get a response and sometimes we wouldn't. For those that didn't respond, I don't know if it was because they were afk waiting on respawn, botting (cheating) or just didn't think they needed to call out /claim the camp.
I don't mind taking the time to "break" into a camp if I have to, but it can be a bit annoying to spend a good bit of time working to a camp you think is open and fairly deep in a dungeon, only to find out it isn't.
Another thing that drove me crazy about the Efreeti camp (also jboots in Najena and a few ones in LGUK in classic) was that sometimes you would have, as I kind of hinted at earlier, guilds keeping rare/named spawns on lockdown where they would cycle guild members in and out for hours, days and in rare cases, even weeks.
As with breaking into a camp, I also didn't mind waiting my turn to join a group or get my shot at a camp, but with the Efreeti camp (and a few others I mentioned) I never really liked the fact you might have a guild keeping a rare/named with very nice drops monopolized.
So yeah, I'm generally ok with static spawns for named/rares and camps being respected/enforced, but I don't know if a camp should be respected/enforced if the group camping it doesn't claim it when a camp check is called or if a guild is constantly cyclying guild members in and out of the group to keep it solely to themselves and denying other players/groups access to it.
raelsmar said:As some have stated the obvious, you can't please everyone. I honestly don't have a problem with camps/spawns being static or random really, I'll adjust to it either way I think. That being said, I think camps (however you determine and/or claim them) should be enforced for the most part.
The one camp that I can think of that always had me questioning whether camps should be identifed/respected/enforced though was the Efreeti camp in Sol B.
For anyone who doesn't know, the Efreeti camp was a camp where the rare/named mob's common drop was the best set of casters boot in the game at the time and the rare drop was a very nice melee ring.
Back in the original days of EQ and on a couple of progression servers I have played since then, that camp in particular has always drove me crazy. Because many times I (or my group if I was in one) would zone in and do a camp check and no one would claim Efreeti. So I would put together a group (if I didnt' already have one) and we'd fight our way there, only to get there and find a group (usually a guild group) already there.
I or my group would ask why they didn't call the camp when we checked and sometimes I/we would get a response and sometimes we wouldn't. For those that didn't respond, I don't know if it was because they were afk waiting on respawn, botting (cheating) or just didn't think they needed to call out /claim the camp.
I don't mind taking the time to "break" into a camp if I have to, but it can be a bit annoying to spend a good bit of time working to a camp you think is open and fairly deep in a dungeon, only to find out it isn't.
Another thing that drove me crazy about the Efreeti camp (also jboots in Najena and a few ones in LGUK in classic) was that sometimes you would have, as I kind of hinted at earlier, guilds keeping rare/named spawns on lockdown where they would cycle guild members in and out for hours, days and in rare cases, even weeks.
As with breaking into a camp, I also didn't mind waiting my turn to join a group or get my shot at a camp, but with the Efreeti camp (and a few others I mentioned) I never really liked the fact you might have a guild keeping a rare/named with very nice drops monopolized.
So yeah, I'm generally ok with static spawns for named/rares and camps being respected/enforced, but I don't know if a camp should be respected/enforced if the group camping it doesn't claim it when a camp check is called or if a guild is constantly cyclying guild members in and out of the group to keep it solely to themselves and denying other players/groups access to it.
Right which is why the random spawn is so nice to helps prevent monopolizing an item, or items which is another pro to it which i didnt mention before
Riahuf22 said:Krixus said:Riahuf22 said:Iksar said:Riahuf22 said:Yes i undersand what your saying and i understand there are a few exceptions where random spawning don't work and obviously they should be static spawning, as in end dungeon bosses and such but at the same time i say random spawning as more pros than cons, unlike static spawning.
Please share with me these pros/cons. I really can't think of enough pros to outweigh the cons for random spawns.
Okay ill list a few:
1) It eliminates someone from camping an area where only that certain namer spawns, which means if your in the right area of the zone you could also get him to spawn where your at.
2) It eliminates other grps from possibily trying to Taking your spawns especially if the namer does "pop" becuase that is the only place where he spawns.
3) It eliminates them from training you, becuase you've been there to long and they want you gone. (I've had this happen to me countless times in Lockjaw)
4) It makes people for friendly towards each toher becuase they know they have as much a chance of spawning a namer as you do if they are in the right place
5) the only big problem i have with random spawning is inflation, but like i said the end game bosses in the dungeon will be static along with other that just makes sense for them to be there and these your be your good loot droppers, obviiously not all of them but some of them, some of these namers could be like quest item droppers for class specific items and such to make sure they still have value though
That spawn is devauled, including its loot, which leads directly to inflation. That is a HUGE HUGE issue.
You can limit inflation by lowering drop rate, plus having multiple shards even with static spawns is going to cause as much inflation as random spawns and shards if he can only be up in one spot and not multiple so that would take care of that.
IMO, that's a kick the can solution. Now you just have 2 groups who take twice as long to get what they want. That doesn't solve the underlying problem that people have with camps.
Riahuf22 said:How is kick the can solution? i mean honestly the lower drop rate doesn't even have to happen it was just a theory but random spawns isnt going to cuase inflation if only one name spawn can be up at a time that would be the same as static even with or without shards
Punctuation is cool.
It's a kick the can solution because it doesn't address the underlying issue of people holding down a camp for a long time. If you double the amount of time it takes and double the spawn locations, you haven't moved the needle one way or the other. And what are you referring to as shards? This game isn't going to have instanced content.
I honestly kind of like the random spawn locations of named on a low percentage chance. It leads to more interactive play and prevents monopolization to some degree. If anyone remembers gates of discord, they started that theory there I believe. Almost every named had like 2-5% chance to spawn in a number of locations throughout an area of a zone. This is a good thing in my opinion because you need to keep working to get what you want, you can't just abuse the single spawn over and over while going afk 15 minutes between every kill.
AFK'ing on a camp for 10 hours where you spend maybe 20 minutes at your keyboard is something that should be avoided in my opinion.
i liked distinctive camps like in vanilla EQ alot better than random drops/spawns. i remember many camps from that era, but none from "random drops" zones.
i hope we all agree, that increasing the drop rate (probably to a point where getting items is easy), in a vain attempt to make everyone happy, is not a solution. that leaves the options of fixed drops per camp (like vanilla EQ) or shared drops in multiple camps (example item A, B and C can drop in camps 1, 2 and 3, but each only with a 1/3 chance). i personally don't mind having fixed drops. no, i never got an fbss cause it was really hard to get a frenzy group, i ended up with a cone of mystics though, at least i could sell it. but i remember all the camps in lguk. it's something to look back. whereas when you tried to get a SoS in chardok it all didn't really matter. getting a certain item should be an achievement and you should be able to increase your chances by planning for it, not just hope for a random drop.
one compromise could be that each camp has it's main drops, but a small chance (much smaller!) to get a drop from a similar camp. this way they would still be distinctive and you knew where you'd want to be for a certain item, but you also had a chance if you were in the "wrong" camp.
Riahuf22 said:Okay ill list a few:
1) It eliminates someone from camping an area where only that certain namer spawns, which means if your in the right area of the zone you could also get him to spawn where your at.
2) It eliminates other grps from possibily trying to Taking your spawns especially if the namer does "pop" becuase that is the only place where he spawns.
3) It eliminates them from training you, becuase you've been there to long and they want you gone. (I've had this happen to me countless times in Lockjaw)
4) It makes people for friendly towards each toher becuase they know they have as much a chance of spawning a namer as you do if they are in the right place
5) the only big problem i have with random spawning is inflation, but like i said the end game bosses in the dungeon will be static along with other that just makes sense for them to be there and these your be your good loot droppers, obviiously not all of them but some of them, some of these namers could be like quest item droppers for class specific items and such to make sure they still have value though
A more effective means for achieving #1 is with shards, which they plan on having, also in having various locations in the world with similar drops which they have also mentioned having. It does NOT eliminate other groups from taking your spawns save for maybe those in the room or immediate are that your group is camped in. Should a name spawn outside that area you can bet there will be many times that another group/player happens upon it first and takes the mob that was otherwise a part of your groups pull rotation/in your groups "sphere of influence." I can't say I ever had the luck you have on Lockjaw in my years of classic EQ, I imagine it has to do with people not giving a damned about the server or their reputation and a feeling of having done it all before. I also don't know about making people more friendly either, especially if roaming named mobs become contested as I previously mentioned. At least not more friendly than your average camp setup.
As for cons, I will go over a few particularly weighty ones myself:
1) Dungeon design and "feel" suffers. It's much harder to set up cool thematic rooms intended for specific named mobs when they spawn anywhere anyway. It also takes away from the need to dive deeper while taking on all the risks involved with doing so in order to get to the better loot.
2) Tying into the above, it leads to a path of least resistance. Find the easiest and lowest risk camp and sit there, usually the earlier parts of a dungeon. Unless the whole zone is pretty much +-a level or two then it means every subsequent group that arrives is forced deeper and deeper into higher risk for no greater reward.
3) It makes everything take longer for everyone. Let's say there is a dungeon where a group (group A) would find a random spawn named every 2.4 hours and a dungeon where a static spawn group (group B) finds a particular named in the same time. Let's say there are 10 possible named mobs that can randomly spawn in the zone for group A. Over the course of one day both groups see 10 named mob spawns, so group A sees 6 unique named and 4 repeats and group B see's the same mob 10 times. Now let's assume the rare drop has a 30% drop chance which would mean an average of 3 rare drops per day for either group, but group B gets the specifc rare that they want 3 times where as the other group may not even see that particular named at all. What this means is that if you were to go to this zone looking only for "Robe of Power" then you would have to spend FAR more time in the zone trying to get the item than if you could actually go to where you know it will drop. With static spawns 3 wizards got their robe and are off looking for another item elsewhere which means 3 less people to take spots in the group/zone and 3 less people overall in the server to compete with. With random spawns those 3 wizards are likely still in there the next day hope that day is their day, along with 5 new wizards who leveled up the previous day and heard about some cool robe.
4) It leads to cheaper named mob fights, or boss battles. If they spawn in a particular room, then the fight can be designed around the room and cover available. If they spawn just anywhere randomly then players will find ways to abuse any potential mechanics with various corners, walls, drops, pathing, etc.
There are better ways to handle camps being locked down by one particular group than making named mobs spawn anywhere. Shards are a start and having similarly/equally desireable/powerful items for the same slot in other dungeons across the world.
Krixus said:It's a kick the can solution because it doesn't address the underlying issue of people holding down a camp for a long time. If you double the amount of time it takes and double the spawn locations, you haven't moved the needle one way or the other. And what are you referring to as shards? This game isn't going to have instanced content.
Shards, they are almost like seperate instances of the zone but they aren't instances in the sense that they are personal versions for a group but rather a new "open world" verision of a zone to handle overcrowding and potentially single guilds/groups monopolizing certain spawns.
Relevant information from the FAQ:
By creating plenty of content, a large world, not allowing shards to become overpopulated (for example, by quickly launching new shards), possible systems and rules within specific shards, and if things get out of hand to involve Customer Service (GMs). Above all, we want to use positive reinforcement by making sure that there is enough content and an epic enough world to minimize these issues.
We also want to make sure there will be plenty of great items and choices for adventuring all over the world – for example, we want to avoid there being just a single sought-after item for a specific class at a specific level. Similarly powerful and valued items will be available elsewhere in the world.
Overcrowding and too much competition are indeed problems that have plagued both MMOs with and without instancing. If there are not enough players around, it can be hard to group and socialize. But if there are too many people around, the world feels crowded and people have to wait for encounters or spawns, or even compete for them. Our answer to this issue is twofold: first, primarily during the later phases of beta, we will determine how many people online at one time in our game world feels right -- neither under-crowded nor overcrowded. Second, if and when a server’s/shard’s population grows too large, we will launch a new shard with incentives for players to spread out. And with our harnessing of cloud hosted servers/shards, this is actually something we can do dynamically, easily, and quickly.
Mod Edit: To unbreak HTML in the thread
At the risk of breaking the forum UI (this thread seems slightly borked on my computer at least!)
This 'lockout' issue is almost identical to the 'comtention in Raids' thread, in that both deal with a bottleneck for content. While some suggest timers for Raid level content (I prefer a more 'Lore' oriented lcokout where, say, players get splashed with a slowly decaying blood-borne debuff) these will not work for Group content.
1. Break the 'Best in Slot' cycle.
Ensure that there are (perhaps) 3-4 'variants' for any given 'best'. You could even go further and have many multiple (roughly) equivalent stat specs for the 18 possible slots. Throw in the possible 'varying' of stats via crafting, potential boosting of 'weaker' stats via crafting to 'no drop' status etc and you will increase the number of paths players can take to get to (roughly) equivalent stat-filled collections of gear.
2. Increase the overall number of camps/mobs worldwide
Ensures more mobs to kill if camps taken, including access to alternative stat gear.
3. Add random interval spawning wanderers (patrols etc)
Reduces AFK/Botters chance of holding spawn/camp.
I am sure there are more ... but just these would alleviate the perceived problem without need for CS interference.
Evoras, gets enough interference from his pets ...
Iksar said:Shards, they are almost like seperate instances of the zone but they aren't instances in the sense that they are personal versions for a group but rather a new "open world" verision of a zone to handle overcrowding and potentially single guilds/groups monopolizing certain spawns.
i don't think that's correct. in other threads - as well as the FAQ - it sounds like shards are servers. otherwise there couldn't be different rulesets. what you describe is what i know as "dynamic layers" in lotro, and they are alot like instances (as you say). i think that would be against the no-instances promise.
Everyone knows shard 4 was more likely to drop the core ring :D
Can anyone explain the difference between a shard and an instance? My experience with them on vanguard made them feel really similar. It seemed as if they were seperate instances of the same dungeon, but you could be inside them with other people from outside your guild or raid. So in a sense a permanant instance.
torveld said:Can anyone explain the difference between a shard and an instance? My experience with them on vanguard made them feel really similar. It seemed as if they were seperate instances of the same dungeon, but you could be inside them with other people from outside your guild or raid. So in a sense a permanant instance.
See the comment just above yours. It has different meanings depending on the game.
Durp said:On the other hand, if a guild does indeed hog a spawn for days/weeks, it should be done after that and the camp will be open. I'm not in favor of artificially restricting access to content due to some perceived temporary bottleneck
I see where you are coming from. I am someone who tries to lookout for my guildmates and really don't want artificial restrictions on content put in either, but let me give a scenario to illustrate where I am coming from. I’m just making up numbers/times/names here to illustrate my point:
Say I log in at noon and go to a dungeon and want to camp the “dungeon lord”. Well I do a camp check over the zone and no one calls the “dungeon lord”, so my group and I fight our way down to the “dungeon lord’s” room (his room is really deep in and takes some time/effort to get to) to find out it’s already camped by a group comprised of a single guild.
I tell the guild group that is there we did a camp check and no one called it and that we went through the trouble of fighting all the way down to his room. I tell them we are going to try and find a nearby area/camp to setup at for exp (and maybe loot as well) and ask politely if they will let us know when they are done, so that we can possibly move in because we’d like to camp the “dungeon lord”.
So say my group does in fact setup camp somewhere nearby and 6pm rolls around (6 hours have passed since we first started). The guild group that was camping the “dungeon lord” has finally gotten all the phat lewt they want/need and are about to leave the camp. Instead of letting my group or everyone in the dungeon know they are done with the camp and leaving, they sit there quietly and hold it long enough so that an entirely different group of their guild members that just logged into the game can come down and “claim” it.
Again this is a hypothetical scenario, but what gives a guild a right to claim or “own” a specific camp and pass ownership off to their guildmates?
I’m totally fine if the healer, tank, etc. in the group has to leave and they find a replacement for that role from within their guild to replace them. But why should a guild be able to pass ownership over to a whole other group from than their guild that just logged into the game, when you have a group like mine or others that are already in the dungeon and have been patiently waiting (in this hypothetical case 6 hours) to camp the “dungeon lord”?
So that is where I am coming from. I don’t mind waiting for a camp to open up and realize I might have to wait days or weeks to even get a shot at it, but why should someone or some group that just logged in a few minutes ago be able to “jump the line” and slide right into the camp just because their guildmates laid claim to it and passed some non-existent ownership to them when there are many non-guild groups already in that dungeon patiently waiting to take their place?
I don't think any PLAYER created situation, such as camps, should be enforced by VR, unless you can show intentional and repeated griefing.
By having most content being open world/contested, VR obviously wants us to compete for content.
VR is not going to lay out rules about how long a camp can be maintained, registered rotations, etc.
This is a player issue. It needs to be resolved by players.
Evoras said:At the risk of breaking the forum UI (this thread seems slightly borked on my computer at least!)
This 'lockout' issue is almost identical to the 'comtention in Raids' thread, in that both deal with a bottleneck for content. While some suggest timers for Raid level content (I prefer a more 'Lore' oriented lcokout where, say, players get splashed with a slowly decaying blood-borne debuff) these will not work for Group content.
1. Break the 'Best in Slot' cycle.
Ensure that there are (perhaps) 3-4 'variants' for any given 'best'. You could even go further and have many multiple (roughly) equivalent stat specs for the 18 possible slots. Throw in the possible 'varying' of stats via crafting, potential boosting of 'weaker' stats via crafting to 'no drop' status etc and you will increase the number of paths players can take to get to (roughly) equivalent stat-filled collections of gear.
2. Increase the overall number of camps/mobs worldwide
Ensures more mobs to kill if camps taken, including access to alternative stat gear.
3. Add random interval spawning wanderers (patrols etc)
Reduces AFK/Botters chance of holding spawn/camp.
I am sure there are more ... but just these would alleviate the perceived problem without need for CS interference.
Evoras, gets enough interference from his pets ...
I like a lot of what you are suggesting Evoras. Like you said lockouts (or something similar) will obviously not work on group content.
Break the “Best in Slot” cycle.
I’m pretty sure this idea came from VR or someone suggested it to them and I like this idea. As I referenced earlier the Efreeti/GEBs camp in classic was a huge problem. They were by far the best casters boots in the game obtainable by a single group and there wasn’t even a close second. Everyone and their mother wanted to camp them and you had people monopolizing/controlling the camp for greed/profit rather than actual need. Even if Pantheon had their own version of GEBs, I think as long as there were at least a couple of comparable alternatives with almost as good or better situational stats, then stuff like the Efreeti camp would not be an issue.
Increase the overall number of camps/mobs worldwide
I’m ok with this as well. I’d rather have too many than not enough. I remember when I first started on Fennin Ro when EQ came out it was the most popular server and a couple of months into the game, at prime time there was literally almost nothing to kill for exp. I remember going to Sol B with a full group sometimes and having to camp a single kobold spawn or two and sometimes fight other groups for those couple of mobs
3. Add random interval spawning wanderers (patrols, etc.)
I’m also a fan of this idea. I’d love to see some random interval wanderers (particularly if they were noticeably stronger than your average mob) put in. Nothing use to drive me more crazy than seeing a person or a group camping a spot (rare/named usually) that knew the spawn timer on a camp was say 20 minutes and showing up to the keyboard for 2 minutes to kill the spawn cycle and then afk for the next 18, knowing that short of a train nothing was going to attack them. The Noxxious Spider in Sol B is a good example that comes to mind.
I like ideas like this and as you said anything that reduces the amount of work CS has to put in to address matters like this is a good thing IMO.
X
A more effective means for achieving #1 is with shards, which they plan on having, also in having various locations in the world with similar drops which they have also mentioned having. It does NOT eliminate other groups from taking your spawns save for maybe those in the room or immediate are that your group is camped in. Should a name spawn outside that area you can bet there will be many times that another group/player happens upon it first and takes the mob that was otherwise a part of your groups pull rotation/in your groups "sphere of influence." I can't say I ever had the luck you have on Lockjaw in my years of classic EQ, I imagine it has to do with people not giving a damned about the server or their reputation and a feeling of having done it all before. I also don't know about making people more friendly either, especially if roaming named mobs become contested as I previously mentioned. At least not more friendly than your average camp setup.
As for cons, I will go over a few particularly weighty ones myself:
1) Dungeon design and "feel" suffers. It's much harder to set up cool thematic rooms intended for specific named mobs when they spawn anywhere anyway. It also takes away from the need to dive deeper while taking on all the risks involved with doing so in order to get to the better loot.
2) Tying into the above, it leads to a path of least resistance. Find the easiest and lowest risk camp and sit there, usually the earlier parts of a dungeon. Unless the whole zone is pretty much +-a level or two then it means every subsequent group that arrives is forced deeper and deeper into higher risk for no greater reward.
3) It makes everything take longer for everyone. Let's say there is a dungeon where a group (group A) would find a random spawn named every 2.4 hours and a dungeon where a static spawn group (group B) finds a particular named in the same time. Let's say there are 10 possible named mobs that can randomly spawn in the zone for group A. Over the course of one day both groups see 10 named mob spawns, so group A sees 6 unique named and 4 repeats and group B see's the same mob 10 times. Now let's assume the rare drop has a 30% drop chance which would mean an average of 3 rare drops per day for either group, but group B gets the specifc rare that they want 3 times where as the other group may not even see that particular named at all. What this means is that if you were to go to this zone looking only for "Robe of Power" then you would have to spend FAR more time in the zone trying to get the item than if you could actually go to where you know it will drop. With static spawns 3 wizards got their robe and are off looking for another item elsewhere which means 3 less people to take spots in the group/zone and 3 less people overall in the server to compete with. With random spawns those 3 wizards are likely still in there the next day hope that day is their day, along with 5 new wizards who leveled up the previous day and heard about some cool robe.
4) It leads to cheaper named mob fights, or boss battles. If they spawn in a particular room, then the fight can be designed around the room and cover available. If they spawn just anywhere randomly then players will find ways to abuse any potential mechanics with various corners, walls, drops, pathing, etc.
There are better ways to handle camps being locked down by one particular group than making named mobs spawn anywhere. Shards are a start and having similarly/equally desireable/powerful items for the same slot in other dungeons across the world.
Relevant information from the FAQ:
By creating plenty of content, a large world, not allowing shards to become overpopulated (for example, by quickly launching new shards), possible systems and rules within specific shards, and if things get out of hand to involve Customer Service (GMs). Above all, we want to use positive reinforcement by making sure that there is enough content and an epic enough world to minimize these issues.
We also want to make sure there will be plenty of great items and choices for adventuring all over the world – for example, we want to avoid there being just a single sought-after item for a specific class at a specific level. Similarly powerful and valued items will be available elsewhere in the world.
:
Mod Edit: To unbreak HTML in the thread
I agreed if some of specific room spawn and such like that so your only repeating yourself when i heard you the first time, and i agreed some should stay static but that doesn't mean all of them need to be static, plus a roamer is a roamer they generally travel through different camps all the time so if you didn't get him you simply didn't get him who cares. You can easily eliminate point 2 by me saying they are in the same genrally locatins which could make the it have the same amount of spawns in these rooms or camps and such to make them all just about as hard as another, honestly a pretty easy fix and usually they do this without thinking, remember trying to get the green metal in SSRA?
Honestly if you only on average get 10 "pops" a day in camp A and 10 in group B than that would be how VR made it and they did it for a reason becuase if you had it on static you would more than likely get less pops throughout the day when you add the 2 up. And to prove you wrong on the scenario of the "Robe of Power" if it is like the "GEBS" or "SMR" these tiems were camped by the same grps for liek a month straight literally just switching out toons that needed the robe til every caster in their guild had one, granted will this happen to pantheon in an alarming rate, of course not becuase we have no idea where such items exsist but once they need something like it will be camped and probably stay camped til they feel like they have enough of them if they are a hardcore raiding guild to satisify their casters. which means if you found out the sme time they did you will have to wait an entire month or so before you even get a chance to see him spawn if it was static as for if it was random at least you had a chance to see the namer for yourself in a differetn area but around the same area.
Point 4 is the same as point 1 and like i said before some can still be static never said all of them to be randomed to begin with. you can prevent namers from being pulled into areas that would ruin their mechanic by making them perma rooted with summoning capabilties or if your looking about LoS issues make it to where if he cant hit you with his aoe capabilities than you cant hit him with your spells due to line of sight.
Never said making the random spawn spawn anywhere in the zone i said they were randomly spawning around the same area of the zone and also said that quite a bit of times as well. Plus the monopolizing is the biggest issue with static spawns and it will happen if they find this "Robe of Power" of yours. it happened once it will happen again, like the saying goes if you did it once the second time is only easier.