Compiling Progression Server Ideas

I think the competitive model of the last progression server really is the best. Slow just isn't as fun.

you are still splitting the player base. and i dont think there is near enough of a base population interested in progression servers to begin with to go about seperating them so drastically.

So

no voting and no push. i would agree if they had hell levels, no raf and origianl exp curve then the fippy model would be great. U just have to remove the ability of the server to vote, that was a terrible idea.

Not a raider eh?

In the past yes for sure but not anymore, just wanna play with my buddies and complete for gear, mobs and camps. that was the nice thing about fippy up until the 9 months of down voting. Alot of nice friendly guilds. After the mass account cancelation alot of the atmosphere died.

Some of the top raid guilds deserved the down voting.

Purposefully locking out all other guilds from advancing so they could try to be the only "choice" when it came to raiding cutting edge content. If you rooster block, you do so at your own peril.

Were trying ,or at least some of us are, for a nice friendly but still competitive environment because I believe that is what the majority will want.

"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time" Abraham Lincoln

I was reading people's reactions the past couple days and it got me thinking. The general consensus seems to be that there are not enough players interested in this to populate multiple servers in the tier system. I agree for the most part, however I was thinking about this past launch and how we had two servers that had good populations. I honestly don't believe one server is enough. It wasn't for sleeper/combine and it wasn't for vulak/fippy. If we are going to have two servers, why make them identical like the last 2 sets? There is certainly a chance that one will be more populated than the other, but that happened anyway.

Two different rule sets could be interesting even if they are close. I've seen a lot of people mention Fippy without voting. Just time based set at some determined number. I've also seen a few people thinking of ideas to handle the crowded raid scene on the servers. People have thrown out ideas like pvp server, FV dropable loot. instanced raids and I'm sure more that I missed.

With the poll supposed to be coming soon, it should be interesting to see what the devs are thinking at this point. Are they planning on just releasing one server and having the same problems as the last two? I feel it's a waste to try and launch one only to realize that you've underestimated the interest and be forced to open a second server later in the day. That made the population uneven and we had two identical rule set servers.

Announcing two servers should lead to a more balanced population at opening.

I think at this point, after releasing these types of server twice, there should be enough data to suggest
having two different rule sets is a good idea.

The idea isn't splitting the playerbase any more than it already is. In a traditional progression server anyone who comes late has to wait until the next server, that's splitting the player base... this way everyone wanting to do the same content are on the *same* progression server rather than 2-3 of them. I think this is a *far* greater split we have seen... If you miss the launch you aren't even part of the population and if you do join one it will be the next one again.

The only way it splits are people who move on to new content, but guess what, those people are already split, they're doing different content. Typically they are just chatting together and the game already supports some cross server chatting so maybe allow cross server same guild chats, problem solved. Heck the idea would be a player on tier 2 could still have an alt on tier 1 so they can play with eachother without having to tie the entire playerbase to one era of content and economy.

Seems to be overcomplicating an issue to cater to a small crowd.

Except if they have 2 rulesets, you minimize the ability to merge them together at a later date.

And if you do merge, which ruleset takes precedence? Do you allow transfers off before the merge?

Merging two same ruleset servers can destroy economies. I imagine it could be worse with two different ruleset servers.

I highly doubt it's a small crowd. As we've seen progression servers start with a large amount of players that shrinks. This idea *might* capitalize on that experience that draws those initial people, hence potentially a very large crowd.

Potential is the key word.

Also, what might start as a large crowd, eventually shrinks.

Unless they plan on regular wipes, these servers need to think about the long term.

Exactly. Plus it keeps older zones populated for lower level chars (there is no running off to newer expansion zones). It is the ultimate vote: Voting with your feet. When the time comes, when the current zones are fun anymore, then move on. Progression now becomes a personal act (or a guild-level act) rather than a server-wide one.

I'd sure like to try a tiered system once. We've tried the other ways.

I used the word potential since nothing is guaranteed. No one can honestly say these things will work one way or the other, so I qualified it with reality.

You realize the whole point of the idea is to deal with the long term that the current servers *don't*...

I don't think it would be so devastating. If the server which is least progressed is not opening expansions on their own, perhaps its time for a merge anyway, regardless of the ruleset.

Fippy had a head start in terms of population from the jump. If raid guilds are evenly distributed between the two servers from the start, there will be slightly less congestion at the top over static targets.

The rulesets should be different but not complete opposites.

Guys, please stop making this as difficult as a trip to Mars and back. Nor is this brain science. It's like some are more interested in talking about a TLP than playing in one. If I was a Dev and forced to read all these requests, demands, suggestions, I would throw up my hands and quit.

Let's get a Fippy/Vulak clone progressed by time with no votes. 3-4 months per expac would be fine. Auto-granted AA's should also be released in the expac it was done for Live, NOT BEFORE. Other than that, let's PLAY!

Forget the other stuff that makes it difficult for Dev's to do and dragging this out. I am getting up in years and would like to actually play on a TLP before I die.

Please Daybreak, get this done asap. It's like EQ has always been slower than the US Govt in getting anything done.

Rushing into things led to a lot of unnecessary drama last time. I'd rather see Daybreak take 6-8 months and create a solution that will be viable for everyone.

A Fippy/Vulak clone would be awful, given all that we know now. Contested raid targets as a free for all, RAF. Ugh.

You can't change contested raid targets for the first few expacs. It's either FFA or rotation. 6-8 months? Just forget it, everyone would be thinking Daybreak lied about the entire thing.

It's been FOUR YEARS ALREADY! The last two expacs on Live are horrible. Please get this done before many leave the game altogether.