Compiling Progression Server Ideas

the Pop'n'Lock server could also be integrated with the Tiered Server Progression model by allowing players to start at whatever server they choose but only /servertransfer forward. If I choose to start on the server that is at "stage 2" because that's the end game I want, then there's no way I'm hurting players who got their fill of stage 1 and then moved to stage 2. I may have an uphill battle but its a battle of my chosing.

We have no idea what this new committed team are capable of. I'm not going to sell them short on thier ability unless they come out and tell us suchandsuch is not possible. We have the attention of the entire staff and they are committed to making the game good. The sky is the limit imo. Ask away and see what these talented devs are capable of.

Well that is part of the issue, there is a difference from husbands, wives and family members playing together usually when that happens there is more than on PC involved, and the extreme to this would be one person on the same computer rolling 16 characters, if you had family members playing you wouldn't need to open the client more than once on your computer... Would you?

Let me clarify a bit one character per server was a bit misleading, I think the root of the issue and not a I.P. Lock would be to only allow one client to open the game rather than windowing out and opening more than one instance of the game, truth is you wouldn't open two instances of the game to play with family members, and if people are determined to box well how about using that old laptop you have collecting dust? Keep in mind this is only a suggestion and my personal opinion, the reason is It would be kind of lame if one person running multiple instances of the game has needed world bosses on lockdown.. Or exclusively farming one particular boss. That should be there for everyone, to me it's a sticky issue. But I think only one client per computer would at least be better than any other idea to curb the heavy multi boxing. (Again this is only a personal opinion) thanks

It's a nice thought to limit boxing but since presumably you'll need to pay to be on this server, all you would be doing is limiting subs. Three boxing is three subs. I can't imagine they want to slow that down.

It would be nice to be needed by a group and not just replaced with a box

What if instead of that wacky tier system that requires a higher hardware cost on their end, they cannibalize the old system to prevent people from accessing expansions on an account basis, albeit this time instead of purchasing an expansion to unlock it, they perform some task in the game world.

The server itself would progress at a slower pace through the expansions, but hardcore raiders could full steam ahead to their hearts content without forcing other people into the newer content.

~~~~~ Bottom to half to be considered a new post in terms of content.

Forcing slower progression through the expansions is fine and dandy if you want them to stop at PoP, but what about those that want to see the whole progression line? Even if you unlock an expansion every 3 months, to see the full progression line you're looking at 7 years with the CURRENT content. I would expect another 7 expansions should EQ not collapse and go into vanguard mode, so add on another 2-ish years, and you've got a specialty server that has been around for almost a decade.

So when you ask for a slower moving server, please specify if you want the server to reach the end of the content line or stop midway through.

But the flip side to this is how many people will quit because they can't get the item they need when the boss is on lockdown from a boxer?

The flip side to that, is you are overstating the problem boxers cause, and peoples response to it.

The boss could just as easily get locked down by an entire guild. Or a council of guilds even that enforce a rotation.

My point is tho this Bosses are a group effort, a lot of those guilds on Fippy when it started had multiple boxed characters, or am I totally wrong were they more than one person raiding those bosses? I am not badgering I am just asking? I realize of corse about how boxing is a way to privately fill a group, but other than using more than one person on a PC, why has this particular game allowed people to multiboxing on one client? Couldn't they limit the client to open max three instances of the game? That way people who box can, but could still use more people to group with?

Didn't think you were badgering, just trying to color an argument as black and white.

And a majority of the raids in classic days on Fippy were filled with full rosters of people playing 1 character, 2 at most.

Those people fielding an entire group were the exception, rather than the norm.

That said, I feel it's not an issue that needs to limit boxers, but has to somehow change the way older bosses are handled once the server progresses past the point of them being an in-era target.

I was especially fond of how they handled Naggy and Vox.

Well that is awesome that the major guilds had limited people boxing kudos to them!

At any rate with the handling of bosses that would be a great idea to allow dynamics that kept it to as you said the level of in-era as well a dynamic that keeps it from being trivialized to high level farming, Naggy and Vox banishment could be applied to a few other key bosses, concerning epics that is. Not saying it needs to be across all servers but amongst the new progression servers, at least those at there guilds rate of progression, could Infact be enjoyed by everyone at those particular stages. :-D

boxing is severely overblown as a perceived problem.

also, the content of the early expansions is trivial in era on progression servers, thanks to updated skill tables, spells, and player character. thats the main problem, not out of era farming.

on most servers during kunark there was 1 or 2 or 3 guilds capable of killing trakanon, queen, king, VS etc. on progression servers it is far, far easier. which means more people wanting to kill contested content than was ever perceived to be the case. which leads to all kinds of not nice play~

Ahh I see, that is awesome to know where the problem is! I can now be at ease about over boxing characters with the idea of perma lockdown, my basic fear was over the dastardly farming of epic mobs, but I think the new progression will have most of those worked out like you said. Thank goodness! I am so looking forward to these new servers, very excited

From my experience on Fippy, there will be a segment of the population who will be perfectly fine with playing behind the curve. When lvl cap went to 60, there were a few guilds who stayed at 50 and completed the lvl 50 targets while the rest moved on to Kunark. To make the next prog servers the best experience possible its as much up to the players as the devs to keep the atmosphere fun and fair so the server stays full longer (setting up rotations for targets etc)

2 servers moving at different speeds is probably the fairest way to do this. One based on Combine/sleep rules so the fastest players can bust out of the gate and open up content quickly creating more places to kill. The other with set unlocks (3 or 4 months?) so everyone can scratch their itch on classic stuff and also keep the server moving forward when the harder content and natural attrition lowers the population. This will also help keep the servers closer together for when the inevitable "its time to merge server X and Y so we can have a new Prog server" conversation begins.

For myself as personal preference 3 things come to mind about expansion progression, probably the most concerning issues why people end up not staying, keep in mind this is just my opinion from observation, with the voting option these need to be put into the criteria. 1. When PoP launches to exclude pok books, yes there will be a plane of knowledge however to make Druids and wizards transportation viable, keep the books out of the game and the only access would be from ports or gate. 2. To keep grouping thriving, the exclusion of Mercinarys. 3. The exclusion of Defiant drops, to make Questing a viable option in attaining gear for those who like to solo or for casual players the chance to gear without needing a guild or raid, there are so many amazing quests its a shame they aren't utilized more! Those three things IMO would make the new servers quite dynamic. But of corse depending on what people want it should be included in the voting proces! Thanks!

No one likes my idea of account based expansion unlocks and overall timed server unlocks?

Example:
PlayerA wants to complete content as fast as he can. Unlocks next expansion
PlayerB wants to take their time. Expansion unlocks for them at the set server interval.

PlayerA's actions do not directly effect the server for unlocking for the population in general.

This allows PlayerB to play to their hearts content and wait for the server to unlock the expansion, or become PlayerA.

Player retention on progression servers is much more general than what you've given here. What you have listed might be the personal reasons some people don't want to play, but you're focusing on a minority. Whereas the majority of retention issues focus on:

1. Server is not progressing fast enough for some people, and they burnout while waiting for the next expansion to unlock.

2.Server is progressing too fast, and they feel they either can't keep up with the server, or their style of play is undermined by new mechanics or features.

3. Server, due to issues 1 and 2 has a much decreased player base leading to those left being unable to interact with others on the level they wish (grouping, raiding, socializing, etc.)

Don't be fooled by the prophets shouting the end of times from the mountain on high.

Account based unlocks is an interesting idea, but I think implementing it would be taking on more than we can realistically expect from the devs. I'm not crazy about the timed unlocks idea, because to me the server progressing based on the players' actions is more fun than an accelerated imitation of the expansion release cycle.

Agreed, but is it more realistic for them to foot the cost for increased hardware and maintenance, or one time software tweaking?

And account based unlocks might not be so crazy if they can use the old system for determining if you had bought and activated an expansion on your account.

Character based expansions could work, Account based wouldn't, With the Account unlock I could speed through content with Character A and enable functionality on the account which would apply to Character B that shouldn't have it at that level.

Whatever was the "unlock" mechanism would be tricky. If you do "Beat Raid Mob X" you will alienate the casual group players who are less likely to see that raid and as such become stuck behind a wall. If you do it based on "achieve max level" you may end up with a group that become stranded because groups are insufficient to get exp at the level and there isn't a mercenary to make soloing a possibility. You also have to then deal with the ramifications of the droppable loot from expansions and whether or not it can be equipped by those without the expansion.