Sabot said:I would like to respond but I can't find any facts in your post. Did you mean to respond to me or was it someone else?
It seems to me it amounts to "git gud". I assume the implication is that your statement looked like a call to even the playingfield between the hardcore and the less so, promting the reply with the solution of beating the best; be better than them. Maybe. Or maybe I'm just projecting because that's sort of how I felt.
Pretty much the argument seems to be that game content can never be hard enough that most players can't complete top content so the challenge should be shifted to other players who aren't necessarily better/more skilled in any way but have more time to play gate keeper.
Because this is so fun (P1999):
*Git Guud, Work Harder, Earn It, Croot & Contest
The current raid scene is 16 hour windows, staring at someone screen sharing a face tracker, standing at the zoneline with 40 other people, hoping to win a race up to a dragon/giant to get FTE (first to engage) to get a chance to kill said dragon/giant. The big two guilds work their asses off for that content. That's their choice, but not every guild runs 100 deep on a raid, or even 60 deep at 4am EST, in order to get that dragon dead 3 minutes from spawn. We can't field 20+ racers for 12 hours every single week, hell most weeks we can't field 5. This isn't because we're bad at P99 raiding, it's because it's not fun for us. I won't speak for the other casual raiding guilds, but in BDA we want to experience content, but we want to actually play the game. Watching a screenshare instead of actually bind sighting because the bard needs to have selos going as soon as the dragon pops to win the race is very very gross, but it's what is absolutely necessary if a guild wants to earn those Velious pixels. In fact, it's what is also required to earn Kunark pixels in the Peak. For a Phara Dar the other week BDA sunk in over 120 man hours of tracking, being prepped and ready to run up for FTE across 14+ hours. That is the most hours we ever sunk into a single raid target, and it was a turning point for our guild. We aren't going to do that anymore. It wasn't fun. It made people angry. It sucked the life out of people. This isn't even a variance issue. Variance is a good thing to keep people honest, otherwise we'd have 500 people waiting at the zoneline waiting for a dragon to spawn. Variance also allows for spawns to fall into the Euro hours, which is great for Euro players, it's only fair that their primetime gets a chance for a dragon spawn. The guilds that put in more effort should get more loot, they deserve it, but they shouldn't hold a monopoly over the content and that's essentially what it is. Assuming BDA won the lottery and somehow got FTE on Vulak after a repop, we would then have 1 hour to somehow learn how to kite every single dragon in north (because Vulak summons) while trying the fight for the very first time.
No one is asking for things handed to them, just a realistic/reasonable path to progression for anyone that works toward it and have the skill to succeed against highly challenging game content.
Spluffen said:Sabot said:I would like to respond but I can't find any facts in your post. Did you mean to respond to me or was it someone else?
It seems to me it amounts to "git gud". I assume the implication is that your statement looked like a call to even the playingfield between the hardcore and the less so, promting the reply with the solution of beating the best; be better than them. Maybe. Or maybe I'm just projecting because that's sort of how I felt.
I don't want to level the playing field when it comes to player skill. The hardest raids and best gear should be out of reach for a vast segment of the population. But it should not be because they never get the chance to try. It's the other stuff, the lower end raid and mid level raid stuff that I am concerned with. I don't want to see a mid level mob permacamped by a high end guid because it drops something amazing and is the sole source. Thus is gets the attention of the best guilds on the server. Now when a guild that is at the right level to take on this mob and have a challenging encounter is walled off from it that seems bad. I don't think they should have a right to it, just that they should have a reasonable chance to be able to try the encounter at some point.
If there is no in game mechanism for the player to fight that kind of thing(pvp would do it no one wants pvp on all servers) then something else needs to be there. Maybe not even lock out timers. Maybe something else.
Lockouts cannot be "tricked" as soon as there is a flag saying that Player X is a member of Raid Y .
If Raid Y kills the boss(es) (and gets the loot) , Player X and all players with the Raid Y flag get a lock out . This is how it works on the new EQ TLP servers - 1 week lockout for every raid member .
So it doesn't matter if a Guild has a great enough raiding player basis and enough clerics/warriors to run 2 or 3 raids of 60 different players each . What simply happens is that they only do those 2 or 3 raids and then 180 players are locked out so that another Guild can attempt the raid . It is really simple to avoid a raiding monopoly by only 1 Guild .
In this system engagement rules don't matter (who engaged first, who did more damage or whatever) . The only thing that matters is which Raid got the kill and then every member of this raid gets a lockout . No instances are necessary and no monopolization is possible .
What's considered fun and "the experience" is subjective. I don't think they should specifically cater to any one group - not high-end hardcore guilds that get their "fun and the experience" at later/max level, and not the lowest common denominator.
It is true but irrelevant that experience and fun are subjective . But "they" run a business . So be very sure that "they" will cater to the majority group and that "they" will also know who is this majority group and why . So should a serious conflict arise between a 5% -10 % group on one side and a 50%-60% group on the other side about what is fun and what is not , then if "they" have no other choice, "they" will take sides and avoid loosing customers from the 50%-60% group . There are several solutions like changing rules or creating a server with different rules to avoid that the conflicting groups stay in contact .
The only thing that is sure is that "they" will act because conflict and a majority of unhappy customers are never good for the business .
To be fair, comparing anything to the P1999 raid scene isn't a very great argument. It's inflated and top-heavy to a ridiculous degree after being stuck in the first two expansions for years. Of course there are issues with raids there
Sabot said:If there is no in game mechanism for the player to fight that kind of thing(pvp would do it no one wants pvp on all servers) then something else needs to be there. Maybe not even lock out timers. Maybe something else.
Hopefully. Surely VR have at least thought about this issue, regardless of whatever their stance is. I do hope there would be a way to disincentivize this sort of thing without placing an 'artificial' barrier to doing it. Some things which aren't necessarily fool-proof that I can think of would be lower server pop cap, just... more and harder raid bosses etc.
In the end, though, this is a shared persistent world. People's feathers WILL be ruffled.
FlushingToiletScreamingShower said: It seems to me that with enough raid content, each guild, no matter how fancy they consider themselves, can find a challenge at any given time at a different place without tripping over one another. We spend more time at max level than all others levels combined, why not build more content to satisfy everyone? Why make the same mistakes other games have made in the past, then rely on immersion-breaking instances and timers instead of creating more content?
Actually that's interesting. I imagine they do that because creating more content costs lots of money and takes a lot of time. Sadly the content usually doesn't increase over time, though, because game companies keep increasing level caps with expansions. If they just added content to the existing levels without increasing level caps all the time, I'm sure eventually there'd be more than enough content to go around.
I just dont understand why people are for lockouts. But against instancing. If someone could explain their point of view I would love to hear it.
If you want to have a ffa at endgame. You should have no instances and let guilds figure it out themselves. You will end up with a raiding scene like eq1 where some guilds might be c-blocked from certain content and only the most elite guilds will see the raids...
If you want fairness at endgame... just have instances. This allows any guild at any time to rally up and take their shot. It seems this is the easiest solution. This is what the Phinny TLP had. And we had something like 20 guilds kill Vulak Aerr IN ERA. If there was no instancing that number would most likely be 2 or 3.
Sabot said:I am all for anything (except instancing) that prevents a group or groups of people from monopolizing content anywhere. Lockout timers are one way of helping with the situation. Having some competition is great but setting it up so one group of people can control something is not.
I don't think everyone should have the ability to get access to anything they want anytime, but I think there should be a reasonable chance for a guild that has a good plan, leadership, and works hard can realistically expect to be able to see most of the games content. Whatever they come up with for raiding I hope thats their goal and I hope the hard core, high end guys are completley ignored. No matter what you do you can't make them happy so I would not spend time and money trying. I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
This is what I'm confused about. It seems from your post that you do not want everyone to have access to raid bosses. But you also want there to be some way of preventing the top 1 or 2 guilds from keeping bosses on lockdown.. so at what point is the cutoff? Once 4 guilds get a shot? 5 guilds? Isnt this just a watered down version of no lockouts? Wouldnt the first guild out (say the 6th place guild) feel just as bad as the 2nd place guild that cant kill the mob. Cause #1 is too good?
Deadshade said:Lockouts cannot be "tricked" as soon as there is a flag saying that Player X is a member of Raid Y .
If Raid Y kills the boss(es) (and gets the loot) , Player X and all players with the Raid Y flag get a lock out . This is how it works on the new EQ TLP servers - 1 week lockout for every raid member .
Let's say an average guild has 60 raiders. I want to exploit the lockout mechanic you are describing. Since it's open world and anyone has access to it. I make 5 different raids of 12 people each. All of my tanks and healers focus on keeping the raid alive while my dps lead a coordinated attack on the mob resulting in raid 1 winning. Next spawn we rinse and repeat allowing raid 2 the win. And so on and so forth until all of the spawns are monopolized by my guild.
The only way we could be beaten is by a guild mobilizing and beating us in a dps race. But what if we are the fastest players to get to the boss. We put forth the most resources watching spawns and use bat phones to mobilize...
Just food for thought.
Anyone thing that a guild cannot field multiple raid forces, hasn't played in a raiding guild.
Anyone thinking that an efficient raid force cannot be do multiple subsequent targets, has not raided in a raiding guild.
If you think you were in a raiding guild and it took you multiple days/weeks/months to kill a target or learn a target, you were not in a raiding guild.
Sorry, but yeah.
Lockouts aren't bad. A long respawn time is technically also a lockout. Or for that matter, any respawn time longer than an instant spawn.
The only problem with instancing is that it's tantamount to "Everyone gets a prize" and increases mudflation.
But allowing a respawn slightly shorter than a lockout, would certain help mudflation and allow competition if it's FTE. Of course, not each event might or needs to be FTE... there could and possible should be MDD opportunities too. But if it's preventing progression, FTE would be the way to go
Porygon said:I just dont understand why people are for lockouts. But against instancing. If someone could explain their point of view I would love to hear it.
If you want to have a ffa at endgame. You should have no instances and let guilds figure it out themselves. You will end up with a raiding scene like eq1 where some guilds might be c-blocked from certain content and only the most elite guilds will see the raids...
If you want fairness at endgame... just have instances. This allows any guild at any time to rally up and take their shot. It seems this is the easiest solution. This is what the Phinny TLP had. And we had something like 20 guilds kill Vulak Aerr IN ERA. If there was no instancing that number would most likely be 2 or 3.
For me its kind of simple. Instancing prevents all competition. You get your own peice of the world cut off from everyone you don't want in it. Takes the first M out of MMO.
Lockouts allow competition but can prevent the truely dominant guild from comtrolling anything. When a raid mob is killed and a lockout it initiated only the guys that killed it are now excluded from the next kill. The rest of the server not on lockout status can still compete for it. As long as the lockout it not for a crazy long time like a month that first group will be able to get back into the mix soon. Just not before a few other groups get a wack at it. If those groups are not skilled enough they will fail and the original guys will still own it.
The only fairness aspect of it is making sure no one group can dominate everyone else. Thats it.
Porygon said:Sabot said:I am all for anything (except instancing) that prevents a group or groups of people from monopolizing content anywhere. Lockout timers are one way of helping with the situation. Having some competition is great but setting it up so one group of people can control something is not.
I don't think everyone should have the ability to get access to anything they want anytime, but I think there should be a reasonable chance for a guild that has a good plan, leadership, and works hard can realistically expect to be able to see most of the games content. Whatever they come up with for raiding I hope thats their goal and I hope the hard core, high end guys are completley ignored. No matter what you do you can't make them happy so I would not spend time and money trying. I think people playing the game for fun and for the experience should always come before players that think the end game starts at level cap and raiding.
This is what I'm confused about. It seems from your post that you do not want everyone to have access to raid bosses. But you also want there to be some way of preventing the top 1 or 2 guilds from keeping bosses on lockdown.. so at what point is the cutoff? Once 4 guilds get a shot? 5 guilds? Isnt this just a watered down version of no lockouts? Wouldnt the first guild out (say the 6th place guild) feel just as bad as the 2nd place guild that cant kill the mob. Cause #1 is too good?
Having a lockout makes it possible to have 2 or 3 or 10 guilds that can do the content. Of course everyone that wants to do it won't always be able too but by making it so one group can't own it that means more will have the chance. Maybe group 3 is better able to compete with group 2 for the spawn once 1 is locked out. Before neither one could compete with the dominant guild. It just makes it possible for more to particiapte. You should not have to be in the absolute best top end guild to play when you are still capable of defeating the encounter. Maybe you don't get as many chances to do it as the bigger guild, and maybe you don't win as fast or as often, but you shouldnt be pushed out completely just because you arent the best.
Sabot said:For me its kind of simple. Instancing prevents all competition. You get your own peice of the world cut off from everyone you don't want in it. Takes the first M out of MMO.
Lockouts allow competition but can prevent the truely dominant guild from comtrolling anything. When a raid mob is killed and a lockout it initiated only the guys that killed it are now excluded from the next kill. The rest of the server not on lockout status can still compete for it. As long as the lockout it not for a crazy long time like a month that first group will be able to get back into the mix soon. Just not before a few other groups get a wack at it. If those groups are not skilled enough they will fail and the original guys will still own it.
The only fairness aspect of it is making sure no one group can dominate everyone else. Thats it.
All this would do. Is create a "rotation" of the top x number of guilds where x is how many times the mob can be killed during the lockout period.
If the lockout period is 5 days. And the mob spawns once a day. You will end up with 5 guilds essentially cycling through when they kill the boss. The only competition you will get is from guild #6 and in most cases will be a futile attempt. This is the same issue that no lockouts causes... except instead of guild 6 getting screwed... its guild 2.
Durp said:The only problem with instancing is that it's tantamount to "Everyone gets a prize" and increases mudflation.
Not everyone gets a prize. Everyone gets a shot. If you make the raid content hard enough only the best players will be able to plow through in the shortest time. As a guild grows and increases its gear levels. Skill levels and ability levels... they might kill the mob eventually. But they certainly arent participating in a loot pinata.
WoW had instanced raiding and back in TBC only a few guilds per server were able to kill anything in Sunwell (in most cases).
Edit: I dont understand this broken quoting system lol.
Edit2: nvm fixed it.
Porygon said:Deadshade said:Lockouts cannot be "tricked" as soon as there is a flag saying that Player X is a member of Raid Y .
If Raid Y kills the boss(es) (and gets the loot) , Player X and all players with the Raid Y flag get a lock out . This is how it works on the new EQ TLP servers - 1 week lockout for every raid member .
Let's say an average guild has 60 raiders. I want to exploit the lockout mechanic you are describing. Since it's open world and anyone has access to it. I make 5 different raids of 12 people each. All of my tanks and healers focus on keeping the raid alive while my dps lead a coordinated attack on the mob resulting in raid 1 winning. Next spawn we rinse and repeat allowing raid 2 the win. And so on and so forth until all of the spawns are monopolized by my guild.
It is not and so on and so forth . What you describe are exactly 5 raid attempts and not a single one more . After 5 won raids the 60 people are locked out and it is over for 1 week for everybody .
As I said the lock out cannot be tricked, cannot be exploited and doesn't allow to anybody to win more than 1 raid per week . Numbers and organisation are irrelevant , it is still just one won raid per week for everybody .
Porygon said:Sabot said:For me its kind of simple. Instancing prevents all competition. You get your own peice of the world cut off from everyone you don't want in it. Takes the first M out of MMO.
Lockouts allow competition but can prevent the truely dominant guild from comtrolling anything. When a raid mob is killed and a lockout it initiated only the guys that killed it are now excluded from the next kill. The rest of the server not on lockout status can still compete for it. As long as the lockout it not for a crazy long time like a month that first group will be able to get back into the mix soon. Just not before a few other groups get a wack at it. If those groups are not skilled enough they will fail and the original guys will still own it.
The only fairness aspect of it is making sure no one group can dominate everyone else. Thats it.
All this would do. Is create a "rotation" of the top x number of guilds where x is how many times the mob can be killed during the lockout period.
If the lockout period is 5 days. And the mob spawns once a day. You will end up with 5 guilds essentially cycling through when they kill the boss. The only competition you will get is from guild #6 and in most cases will be a futile attempt. This is the same issue that no lockouts causes... except instead of guild 6 getting screwed... its guild 2.
Durp said:The only problem with instancing is that it's tantamount to "Everyone gets a prize" and increases mudflation.
Not everyone gets a prize. Everyone gets a shot. If you make the raid content hard enough only the best players will be able to plow through in the shortest time. As a guild grows and increases its gear levels. Skill levels and ability levels... they might kill the mob eventually. But they certainly arent participating in a loot pinata.
WoW had instanced raiding and back in TBC only a few guilds per server were able to kill anything in Sunwell (in most cases).
Edit: I dont understand this broken quoting system lol.
Edit2: nvm fixed it.
I will take 5 guilds over 1. There is room for other guilds to move in and over take the existing ones and claim one of the slots in the rotation. There is real competition there. If there is one dominant guild on the server once they get it on lockdown the could be out of luck.
I understand what you are saying, but I am not trying to come up with a way that lets everyone who wants a shot to get one. I am saying everyone that has worked there way up and is playing at a level where they can do the content should get a shot. I don't want to see every casual guild in the game doing the best stuff. The content should be so hard there might only be 3 or 5 guilds that can even attempt it. To be honest I hope its so difficult that even the top guild on the server only goes home with a trophy a couple of times a month on the hardest encounter in the current version. Every raid night should not equal victory for anyone in my book.
Deadshade said:It is not and so on and so forth . What you describe are exactly 5 raid attempts and not a single one more . After 5 won raids the 60 people are locked out and it is over for 1 week for everybody .
As I said the lock out cannot be tricked, cannot be exploited and doesn't allow to anybody to win more than 1 raid per week . Numbers and organisation are irrelevant , it is still just one won raid per week for everybody .
So are you saying that once guild A kills the boss it instantly respawns?
If theres a respawns timer a guild can just divide into smaller raids and with the assistance of one another kill the boss... this is a way to garner more loot and prevent other guilds from potentially surpassing them
And just saying a lock out cannot be tricked doesnt mean it can't.
Sabot said:I will take 5 guilds over 1. There is room for other guilds to move in and over take the existing ones and claim one of the slots in the rotation. There is real competition there. If there is one dominant guild on the server once they get it on lockdown the could be out of luck.
I understand what you are saying, but I am not trying to come up with a way that lets everyone who wants a shot to get One
So. I want to try and understand. Why do you feel that guild 6, who comes up after a few months and tries to beat out on guild 5 who maybe has been killing the mob for a couple weeks now... has a better chance than guild 2... trying to beat out guild 1??
You're asking for competition... but lockouts are directly taking away competition from the top guilds and pushing it off onto the 2nd teir guilds. Guilds that probably dont operate under pressure as well or has the ability to recover from a fast pull like the better players do.
You're essentially making the game harder for the players that are probably not able to adapt as well.
Durp said:Anyone thing that a guild cannot field multiple raid forces, hasn't played in a raiding guild.
Anyone thinking that an efficient raid force cannot be do multiple subsequent targets, has not raided in a raiding guild.
If you think you were in a raiding guild and it took you multiple days/weeks/months to kill a target or learn a target, you were not in a raiding guild.
Sorry, but yeah.
Lockouts aren't bad. A long respawn time is technically also a lockout. Or for that matter, any respawn time longer than an instant spawn.
The only problem with instancing is that it's tantamount to "Everyone gets a prize" and increases mudflation.
But allowing a respawn slightly shorter than a lockout, would certain help mudflation and allow competition if it's FTE. Of course, not each event might or needs to be FTE... there could and possible should be MDD opportunities too. But if it's preventing progression, FTE would be the way to go
No. I was in a raiding guild. (Yes, role players can raid. I mean, it's where half the lore is hidden.) Just not one that valued game pixels over real life. Casual raiding guilds and alliances are just as viable as the ZOMGROFLCOPTER!!! HAHAHA YOU GUYZ SUX BECAUSE YOU CANT GET WORLD FIRSTS LIKE US guilds. I'm all for challanges, but I want a fair shot at content, even if we come to it a couple of months after all the "big" raid guilds have it memorized and on farming rotation. I love to play almost all aspects of the PVE game the developers make for us. I'm interested to see what Pantheon will have planned for all their open world encounters.
Porygon said:Sabot said:I will take 5 guilds over 1. There is room for other guilds to move in and over take the existing ones and claim one of the slots in the rotation. There is real competition there. If there is one dominant guild on the server once they get it on lockdown the could be out of luck.
I understand what you are saying, but I am not trying to come up with a way that lets everyone who wants a shot to get One
So. I want to try and understand. Why do you feel that guild 6, who comes up after a few months and tries to beat out on guild 5 who maybe has been killing the mob for a couple weeks now... has a better chance than guild 2... trying to beat out guild 1??
You're asking for competition... but lockouts are directly taking away competition from the top guilds and pushing it off onto the 2nd teir guilds. Guilds that probably dont operate under pressure as well or has the ability to recover from a fast pull like the better players do.
You're essentially making the game harder for the players that are probably not able to adapt as well.
You are right in that over a long period of time given the same access to gear the 5 top guilds would monopolize this content in the scenario we have been talking about and could/would keep guild 6 down and out. The difference is that in the scenario where there is one top end guild that gets out in front of the others in a world with no lock outs makes it so no other guild ever has a chance to compete. There is no guild 2,3,4,5,or 6. Just one to rule them all.
In my experience with MMO's when a new one is launching there tends to be one major guild that dominates a server from day one. Sometimes more than one but usually a hgh end guild claims a server and races to the end. If you are on a server with only one of those guilds then guilds 2,3,4,5,and 6 are not going at the same pace as 1. that means they all get to the end raid at different times and at different conditions. 1 has it on lockdown and has had it that way for months and is geared accordingly. The other are in flux and can shift positions as far as rankings go. It makes for a more fluid competition for quite a while. Hopefully that situation lasts until the next expansion or at least close to it.
The possiblily for there to be no competition exists in a FFA system. I want competition but I don't want anyone to be able to dominate anything they want when they want. If you have a better way that doesnt use instances I would love to hear it.
I would like to get a comment over the Vulak part of P99, not taking part in it due to playing a lowbie on that server, keep in mind that P99 is a concentrated of two populations. One beeing nostalgic of EQ and playing casually, the other beeing focused on an excess of competition.
P99 is also stuck in time and while velious only lasted ONE year on classic it's on since August 2015 which means close to three years. The game itself stood two years in Classic instead of one year, and 4 years in RoK instead of six mere month. That means that the game that when SoL started the game only had 2 years and a half and P99 is still there (and will be forever) for 9 years now.
Every regular player is at level cap, everyone is making progress toward Velious raidscene and everyone is bored as **** up to gear fresh alts throught the hardest current boss in game because they have nothing else to do. Lots of people, lot of geared people, Vulak 3min is probably 5 or 10 times shorter than how long his kills took back during EQ Velious Era, which brings to little to no wipes and content burn.
While the example is good to show how a game frozen in content evolves, it's really not relevant regarding raid sharing/locking/instancing because on a game no one knows on their fingertips, over a reasonable timeframe, this type of event wouldn't happen at all.
Sabot said:You are right in that over a long period of time given the same access to gear the 5 top guilds would monopolize this content in the scenario we have been talking about and could/would keep guild 6 down and out. The difference is that in the scenario where there is one top end guild that gets out in front of the others in a world with no lock outs makes it so no other guild ever has a chance to compete. There is no guild 2,3,4,5,or 6. Just one to rule them all.
In my experience with MMO's when a new one is launching there tends to be one major guild that dominates a server from day one. Sometimes more than one but usually a hgh end guild claims a server and races to the end. If you are on a server with only one of those guilds then guilds 2,3,4,5,and 6 are not going at the same pace as 1. that means they all get to the end raid at different times and at different conditions. 1 has it on lockdown and has had it that way for months and is geared accordingly. The other are in flux and can shift positions as far as rankings go. It makes for a more fluid competition for quite a while. Hopefully that situation lasts until the next expansion or at least close to it.
The possiblily for there to be no competition exists in a FFA system. I want competition but I don't want anyone to be able to dominate anything they want when they want. If you have a better way that doesnt use instances I would love to hear it.
I dont disagree with anything you said. I just feel taking the problem and shifting it to 2nd and 3rd tier guilds still creates the same problem, just allowing more people to avoid it. It's a temporary solution.
If you have instances. You can at least leave the difficulty of the mobs tuned in a way that its not just a cakewalk to kill. Just offering instances doesnt make it to where Casual_Guild_03 can get all the loot they want. They still have to show up and win.