Compiling Progression Server Ideas

Heard that. I'm for now, all the nonsense.

Dat plane of war tho

Updated the main post with more content, ideas, and questions.

Also included 12 straw-polls for everyone's entertainment.

Doesn't matter because guilds will cry when a glorious steed enters the field of battle and destroys raid targets as they spawn. Enjoy this.

+1, I don't think people realize EQ's dev team got chopped by at least 50% since the buyout. This means the dev team that said prior to the acquisition they didn't have the resources and manpower to create another progression server, is now even smaller. It is at least half as small as before. So please stop suggesting things that will never happen, or things that will take way too much time & resources.

Some of us worked overtime on the forums to finally convince them to launch a new progression server. Let's not make them regret their decision to do this. We as a community, progression server enthusiasts, have to come to some sort of compromise and agreement. With the understanding that
1) this server isn't going to be perfect,
2) this server won't cater to everybody's preferences,
3) this server (1 server, not multiple, not tiered) must not take too much dev time & resources, because they simply don't have that much to spare these days.

Let's come back down to earth with suggestions and ideas. I think the polls will come down to them asking whether we want a PvE or PvP progression server. They'll also ask if we want timelocked voting system like Fippy/Vulak, or server lock non-voting system that many seem to prefer.

They'll likely also want to know the time frame between expansion unlocks, that's worthy of discussion because let's be honest not all expansions can handle 3 months. For an example, classic isn't big enough for 3 months, but classic + kunark launching at the same time could be good for 5-6 months. These are the kind of things we should be discussing and tossing ideas about. Not things that require a lot of extra code/programming time, or things that require extra hardware & dev time. Reminder, everything they run in EQ runs off the same dataset, same databases. So don't bother asking for special things that only happen on the progression servers, such as instanced world bosses, or changes to classes that apply only to progression servers.

I agree that it's probably unrealistic to ask for too many changes with this next round of progression and I too would rather start playing sooner rather than later. It could be a year waiting for all these changes being asked for to be done. It's not that I think they're a bad ideas or can't be done, but it would take time. I'd rather get started on the next round and maybe if it's successful, daybreak can work on the changes for the next round. That said, there are some changes like a slower experience rate that could be done easily enough that i'd like to have for this server.

There are 2 points I disagree with though. I don't think that 2 servers is too much to ask for. In fact I think 2 servers with different unlock/progression speeds is the easiest way daybreak could please a lot of players with different play styles. Have one server with a 2-3 month unlock for the players that want to progress faster and another with a 4-6 month unlock for players that wish to progress slower or only to a certain expansion. I'm certain both servers would have enough players to make each profitable.

I could not agree more with the last two comments made by Marty and Argosh. Daybreak needs to 'KISS" (keep it simple stupid).

But please, let's get this done. It's certainly more 'urgent' than the next expac as this can be done quickly. The next expac? That could take months if they actually do one worthy of release.

I feel the same. Its true and to the point. Would be nice to know if 2 servers could be an option with the exact time unlock difference mentioned above.

I'd be all for one progression server and one pop'n'lock server as it's being called around here.

People complain of not enough content during the first few expansion, and how a single person with multiple boxing accounts can take control of such group-spawns.

Why not limit/removal of the number of boxes one can have, vs one person having 6 accounts (a full group and holding 1 whole camp vs being forced to group like the old days with real characters) gives more content for more people since they will all be engaged.

Because companies like to make money.

A guild or a soloing class can also lock down content.

Are you going to call for druids being removed when you find a druid quadkiting the camp you want?

Exactly , all druids lets say 100 = 100 people
6-10 boxes = 1 person

See the difference of many real people are engaged?

That person is paying $90 a mnth or using Kronos. These arent free servers. Let them have there fun playing by them self. When they wipe and die and they will, they will loose the camp. This is another good reason why Corpse recovery would be good. A dude 6 boxing isnt even close to a group of 6 reallife peeps that csn play there toons. Mostlikely that dude 6 boxing would never play the game if he couldnt box but he adds revenue to the game. Plus the 6 boxer will burnout and fade away before a guy with reallife buddies playing together does.

They already have a poll option that is likely FAR more complicated than instancing to do. (Reset with prizes - tons of flags, redundancy required, testing to make sure it doesn't accidentally keep any characters when it's intended to, making sure the reset actually resets all content, etc. vs. "We did Dragons, Dragons, Dragons in a weekend")

Cry more for your desire to box others out of content.

Um, what? The poll that came out today shows just how right I was. These are basic poll choices with minimal code time. The seasonal challenge server isn't extra code work, it's a progression server that ends after a specific date, that's all it is. It'll be a raider's paradise, it's not a special server except it'll end much sooner than any other progression servers we've ever played on.

There's no dreams of instanced world bosses, multiple tiered progression servers, or crazy wild ideas that Daybreak won't go for. But hey, by all means, post whatever ideas you have. Just don't get too disappointed if the only things changing are the time frame more than anything.

Fail. That's pretty much all I'm thinking.

Really? You don't think seasonal will include some coding hurdles?
a) Flagging to track the prizes (Note: Flags are the hardest part of C/Ping instancing)
b) Coding for the prizes themselves (difficulty can range)
c) Testing to make sure that prizes are transferred to the account (likely via /claim - but a special /claim that will be available before other /claims) properly when it's wiped besides the prizes.
d) Testing to make sure content turns off and on properly when the reset is hit.

Yep, your right, sounds like almost zero coding involved. And that's just 5 min of brainstorming the challenges involved - probably could muse more challenges given more time. So much easier than "Cut and Paste an instance, set a trigger mob, set flags" (Of which the first is script friendly now thanks to SKlug, setting up a single word trigger mob is a joke, flags can be problematic though)

Remove the Auction house and BAzaar if/when it gets to Luclin.

The auction house/bazaar ruined a lot.

Nope, character progression is already tracked ever since they introduced achievement system. /claim rewards have been a working, active system for a very long time. They still give beta claim rewards for beta testers, claim rewards for those that went to SOE Live, etc.. These are all easy peasy systems already in place.

Like I said before, servers work off the same dataset in EQ. This means what works on the progression server work on live, this includes class abilities & spells. If they are not instancing world bosses on EQ Live, don't expect the extra resources spent on making it happen on the progression servers.

The server choices should tell you how much they've committed to this. It'll be mostly a reset of Fippy/Vulak but with a different lock/unlock time frame.