Holly quote.

I have to agree with Frenzic on this one. The reason that they got that was because they worked to get there first. I may call out the leadership of TL for being toxic, but I never said the players themselves aren't willing to work hard.

Some of my monster post still relates to the key issue at hand - Frenzic decided to take thing in 9 directions so I opted to not neglect an angle, its a personality trait of mine - but doesn't change the course of the thread. Perhaps it would've been better suited to a PM for the majority however.

I stated it so many times, but I'll try to sum it all up once more. In a perfect world the server types are:

• Green - The current state of the TLP. The Wild Wild West.
• Red - True PVP. Players can police themselves.
• Blue - Like Green, but with EQ2's encounter locking mechanics and expedition-based raids. The server polices for the players.

To expand on the "Blue" server:

1. EQ2's encounter locking - Charm/blur tactics are a thing of the past! This mostly prevents kill stealing, as the mobs lock to their initial hate list until they either die, or kill their agro target(s). If they kill their target, they path quickly back to their original agro point before being able to re-agro. This also prevents training people. The only way to "KS" is to spam AE on a mob spawn point as the mob spawns. This could be written as against PnP and suspend-able, if deemed necessary.
2. Expedition-based raid targets. How do you prevent abuse? These are on a one week lockout, per character. Minimum number of raiders should be high, maybe an 80% full raid to request. This encourages grouping and inviting people. Raid members must be max level for the content (currently 50). No freebie to newbies! The raid targets should have increased difficulty so that the skill is not poop-socking, but rather being able to actually overcome the encounter. **We're on the road to having this piece!** Raid drops should be no-drop, so as to not be able to gear your main via alts. Having something guaranteed to do each week keeps people subbing and keeps people logging in, or even multi-running to gearing alts for the sake of actually gearing alts!
3. No-boxing is open to discussion, but the above 2 points negates most of the problems with box-griefing now.

It's a different play style from the current grief-fest, and I would never ask them to remove the game that you guys do enjoy. We just need an alternative as suggested here for the rest of us that have a different definition of fun. Neither camp is wrong, we just need to be separated so that good decisions for one side don't negatively impact the other.

No it isnt that 2 guys arguing. who cares ignore it.this topic is too important to lock.

Personally I am not up in arms over no instancing of old content in a 16 year old title, I can see it could yes solve the majority of issues that previously required the PnP to begin with but also know the content(ie loot and challenge) is not nearly as big a deal as the gameplay environment, but am willing to consider lack of developer resources and time in my requests. Most of my suggestions have been to adjust the amount of loot scarcity up to original server levels for the time we are spending in era and population(something they have done with the most recent changes along with upping the difficulty which I am sure all but a player farming via a box crew of mages is happy with), because I believe when you take the need for loot out of the equation only a minority of a minority of players are truly asshats to one another for no other reason than being asshats. The problem is it doesn't take too many asshats to ruin the experience for alot of other players playing respectfully, and absent enforcement, which even back in 1999 enforcement was spotty at best, it does have a negative impact on the majority of players playing the game by the rules. DBG has yet to live up to providing an enjoyable endgame experience for anyone other than those willing to break rules in a contested enviroment. If DBG said they would be monitoring the endgame enviroment and providing action against toxic behavior and the playerbase saw it happening, then contested raids would be just fine. They have not done so, they have demonstrated a history of not doing so. That is why Holly and the development team is wrong to discount the majority of the playerbase demanding change to eliminate the effects of a small amount of toxic players(and I am not saying you or your guild are part of that, as I have no first hand experience dealing with you or yours, though others posting here seem to) on the majority of the playerbase, by claiming its a request from casual players then couching it in a comment you would expect from an elitist gamer.

I think this is a bit too involved for them to get done - but the heart of the concept is sound. Thus why I had my "PoP/LoY/LDoN" opening pitch, accomplishes much of the same (besides for the weird combination of "must experience early content day 1 style" and "need to be able to get away from drama when I want" running headlong into each other) but lets people spread out so much that even without any changes people will naturally form strata. [And if things do get weirdly over congested where even plentiful content isn't a reprieve - there's some instancing for people to use for leveling and generally non-preferred raids]
All that would be needed to do such is forcing the first handful of unlocks open and setting a long timer before GoD+ expansions start rolling out.

Three servers was discussed prior to the rules being announced. As was instancing and linked encounters ect. Dbg shot most of it down and went with what they ultimately wanted. Seems like a trend. I personal suggested two servers because I knew we'd need them. One with instancing one without. One with faster unlocks one with slower. Dbg said nope! One server! No wait two, but identical!! No wait different time unlocks, but ...

And people on these forums need to understand that not all of TL is bad peeps!

Casuals should not be allowed to attempt any relevant end game content.

This diminishes the relevance of me and my friends, somehow.

I believe this will foster a healthy server for years to come. Thank you.

Strategery.

Please tell me more about how I'm asking for anything to be handed to me. I want the same opportunity you had, except without exploiting the system, that's all.

Ok, I'll give you a terse response to get back on topic then rather than answering the rest of your garbage post.

"We want to believe that you can work it out on your own. We have plans for what to do if you can't work out something equitable, though, and we might have to contract Alan Rickman to read them."

1) That was something that was promised and that was the promise of why RAID instancing wasn't going to be done, nor would it be necessary. Has that come true? True/False?

2) Has there been a clear shift in development attitude from that statement? True/False?

3) Does Holly's statement reinforce the former or the latter? True/False?

Is that clear and concise enough for you? There's something we were promised, and there's a pattern of behavior that is trending the opposite capped off with a statement reinforcing such behavior.

There is only one way a rational mind takes such.

I know, but I just can't help myself. The blatant jackassery has left me flustered.

You had the same shot. It happened for everyone equally.

Hmmm

Sorry Vaclav, I really tried to wade through that, there is some good stuff within it, but with that amount of text, it is a cure for insomnia...

You had(Have) the exact same opportunity we do. I don't see how that is so hard to fathom. TL busted to make sure we were the first to 50, and capable of doing raid encounters when the server opened, you had that same opportunity. We were fielding raids of 40+ level 50's while alot of guilds couldn't field a full group, that was the decision we made as a guild.

Even now, you have the same opportunity. I believe Rosen waited on CT(Uninterrupted by TL) and Apok was waiting on Inny(Uninterrupted) for a good portion of yesterday. RoI got first dibs at Naggy. Thats opportunity, thats 4 guilds having chances at 5 Raid targets. Don't cry that the system isn't fair, because it is.

If Holly's definition of "casual" means not putting much effort and time into the game...

Then Daybreak's recent actions to EQ pretty much label it as "casual", right? So it shouldn't be earning as much money.

I would say,

1. True(they still believe instancing is not required and feel players can come to equitable solutions for themselves)

2. True(they have shifted their stance on making the majority of content more available, including loot from raid zones and raid targets via increased spawn times that are reported to be signifigantly faster)

3. True and False don't really apply here since Holly's statement pretty much sums up the developer position that they don't want to instance raids, while outright ignoring the actual reasons it is being requested. (i.e. it was out of touch) Then tossed in the casuals want this and don't deserve it as a backhanded after the fact.

Much better! I can actually read this one.

1) they didn't promise anything. You quoted it yourself and I don't see them promising guilds fair shots at raid bosses. I think more accurately is they were trying to appease people upset over no instancing. False

2) no I don't think so at all. False

3) I don't think it reinforces either. Holly has her opinions and they differ from some people's. False

Of note, none of those questions were true or false questions. More yes or no questions. I put in false just in case it confused you though.

More baseless accusations. The third party program I use is legal and has no effect on my raiding ability. It's a boxing tool nothing more.

I'm pretty sure I've done more positive things for the ragefire community than you have.

Speaking of, still waiting on the Kedge Robe bro. No rush or anything