Frenzic's Rule Set Proposal

So there are two camps here. The locked server and the continue to progress server.

Locked server- One specific group of players would be happy playing the content for some amount of time. My thoughts are that people will get bored and eventually will leave, be it from boredom or the release of a new server. Some people will stay, but over time the population will continue to go down as certainly more people will leave than join.

Progression server- All players can enjoy the content in which they enjoy up until the point in which content is released that they don't enjoy. The big issue is that your "sweet spot" will not last forever. The good side is that all players will get to see their "sweet spot" and new players will join with new expansion releases. The biggest downfall to progression servers of the past is that they continue to progress past the point where the majority of players have a "sweet spot". I don't know a single person that starts on a progression server that says "man I can't wait til TSS opens!"

It's a shame that they can't just break servers off. In a perfect world they could start a new progression server every so often and when it reaches a point, they can freeze it and allow people to copy to the next server. These tier based servers would be amazing, but there are two fatal flaws. We don't have enough players to populate all the servers and the devs don't have the time/will to make them.

With all that said, I think progression servers with slow progression locks is the best option for the greatest number of people. If we only have one server, this is the one I think the most players would be happy with.

Ps- Sweet spot

This is basically what I have been asking for in the TLP forum.

I would come back to EQ in a heartbeat for this.

Again I could care less if they want to charge more for this server if that's what it takes. If they think they will only have half the subs...then double the price. I would happily pay 25-30$ for a TLP like this.

I especially loved the seasonal idea someone mentioned about voting and starting over. That would be the icing on the cake.

BTW if they increased the cost maybe they could get a dedicated GM for the server to keep an eye on things and listen for issues.

There will never be 'sweet spot' consensus. Everyone has their own idea of what 'classic' is.

That's why you see three threads like this a week. You know what they say about opinions and a certain body part: everyone has one.

The only 'sweet spot' solution is to allow players to progress at their own pace; hence a set of classic servers.

Technically Dre, the best way to implement the "tiered' approach would be to start off with a standard progression - then when the server hits a stop point create a transfer for those that want to "lock" at that expansion (lets say once a year or something) - or vice versa, where it's like a subway - everyone starts going the same direction - but some people will jump off at the stops along the way rather than running with it to the end.

3-4 tiered servers on day one just bodes for population issues - if you do one to start and one spin off every year it should stagger any loss (and maybe even create a reason for a new influx. (especially if one resets every year - so the inevitable "When's the next Progression?" people have somewhere to hop onto)

Aszuth, how you been?

There are a whole group of players already waiting in the wings that plan on griefing this new server by locking down all the content. If you played on Fippy you will know what I'm talking about. If you don't plan on being in one of the top two guilds, I would advise you to look into the options I posted and others have posted. Instancing might not be the best solution, but something needs to change or we're going to have another cesspool and this time zero GM interaction. Training, hacking, bad manners will be rampant and this server will hemorrhage subs.

I hope people will be 'better than that' this time around, but I doubt it.

I think it is a given that we're going to need at least two or three different rule sets eventually - the question is what should DB launch first? We're going to end up with a single compromise server of some kind. They can barely handle their CSR ticket queue and the 16th anniversary right now, so multiple new servers seems unlikely.

Personally, I'd like to see them avoid instancing old content.
I can't think of a solution better than Kunark at launch with so few CS and development resources available. Between that and fixing the same out-of-era drop issues and general bugginess that have plagued all the previous TLPS, they've got their work cut out for them. I'd love to see old Freeport back and a red server and all kinds of other improvements and options, but I just don't see it happening right now.

EQ players are gonna be EQ players and misbehave, no matter what comes out first. A server with some discontent that is raking in gold subs is better than no server at all though. If they take three more months and release it in June, that'll be pushing it. If we're not playing by summertime, DB risks derailing the hype train like they did with EQN's premature reveal.

How about instancing with some kind of raid group system? One person could invite people to a raid group...with a max of 12-24 people or something...and they would have their own instance? This way you still get a certain amount of players in the instance able to converse or help each other with camp spots...but it would stop known griefers from taking over camps or deliberately casuing problems.

People talk about certain big guilds that will grief as soon as the server starts...this would allow people who truly just wan tto have fun to have an instance without anyone from those guilds...or without people that you know cause issues.

A single person could have their own instance if they don't want to worry about trains...or a who group of people could all be invited to the same instance. You could still do a /who lguk and send a tell to someone in the dungeon and see if an instance raid group is up and see if you could join. Yes it would be limited to the 1 person as the leader of the instance but again if they don't invite you can always form your own.

I will not return to an EQ where I will have to compete for every camp spot and I have to be put on a list that could be 6 hours long. Yay that's fun. Instancing would solve everything. I am a HUGE advocate for old style EQ but the public camping was NOT fun once people started either stealing pulls or simply camped the same spot for 12 hours straight. Again DB has a chance to really bring a lot of older EQ vets back but those same vets now have jobs and families so they need to keep that in mind.

Again...a slow progression server with instancing would be perfect as it would allow people that might only have 3-4 hours to try to farm a FBSS without worrying that once they get there...there is a camp already and a list 12 hours long.

P.S. People learn who everyone is on the server. Griefers will quickly get left out of instanced groups more and more as we all learn who they are.

What I'm trying to say is that there is already a group of people that are doing the happy dance because they believe (rightfully so) that no GM interaction will take place on this new server. This group is already preparing their programs and training tactics, they are openly discussing it on their forums. The goal seems to be that they will grief any competition into the ground and attempt to completely run the server. It will be even worse than Fippy imo.

Even if you're not a fan of instancing, I believe something needs to be addressed about contested content on a server that will have zero GM presence. The play nice policy is basically going to be null and void and it's going to be a FFA. If that is the case, fine, but add in some build in ways to handle this. I believe instancing, as described, is a good way. Opening Kunark with classic will do absolutely nothing about the problem.

I would be against instancing the entire game... I want open world ones to remain open world, just raid zones have the option of being instanced with a minimum player count and lockouts.

Yes it would, but it would also remove many social interactions and the world would feel much different. Instancing is a tool that when used properly can achieve great things. When used poorly, it can completely ruin a game single handedly.

Daybreak's instance servers would be overrun as more players would opt for this. Not to mention you'd never seen anyone in the open world. It would be like playing your own EQ and occasionally running into another player. Hub type games have never appealed to me.

I don't think you will enjoy this new server

Griefers make up entire guilds of people and will not want to group with you or your friends.

Sad truth is, if this ultimately happens, all the instancing in the world won't save the server or the game. If these guys are using third party programs and being as disruptive as possible and there isn't any CSR in place at all, the whole thing is doomed anyway. Hopefully they change their tune about the CSR tickets when things get sorted out over there.

I don't know why people assume this when it's been shown to be not the case, in multiple variations. (the place we don't talk about, and Al'Kabor) I'm not trying to be rude, I just genuinely don't know what this assumption is based off of other than opinion without fact checking.

Agreed entirely here, but it is unfortunately a short term solution and a bad business decision. If they were absolutely forced to only make one server a slow progression TLP is the broad appeal, short term solution. Grab money now, lose it later.

A locked server is the best long term solution as it won't bleed out like Fippy/Vulak/Combine/etc, but doesn't sound quite as popular (I could be wrong).

I hope they are seriously considering two servers, because that makes the most sense from a money-making standpoint. A TLP + locked server is guaranteed to be more profitable than two TLP's (ala Fippy/Vulak).

Al'Kabor had a very low population and it was not only locked, but was locked with mechanics of that time, something they can't do now. Even with a superior server (for classic fans) it still didn't manage to pull in a significant player base. There are no other examples of a legit server of this kind. I'm not saying that it won't have players, I'm saying it will be much less than a progression server.

Al'Kabor was crippled by it's platform, not by it's content. That is a widely agreed upon thought.

And yes there are no examples of a legit server, but we all know how big of a market there is for that across all kinds of games. Yes a share of it is because it's free, but the larger share is there for the content provided.

I agree that it may not have as much as a progression server to start with, but I guarantee it'd have a larger population 1-2 years out (given the relative timeline of ~2 months per expansion).

I'd stake anything on that. Look at Fippy/Vulak. Yes they're 4 years out, but they've had an abysmal population for much longer than that.

Open world would never be instanced. I am talking about dungeons only and maybe considering planes as dungeons.

Hence the smart investment is two servers (of which there is already precedent... considering they still exist even though their population combined is a joke). We're in agreement that there is a need for both, and gun-to-head if it had to be one server, TLP would win only on precedent alone. Doesn't change the fact that it is weakest decision from a business standpoint. Nobody is out to make money temporarily.

DBG can help them selves by making sure the avoidable mistake is avoided.

The last two servers were snake bitten in several accounts.
SOE hack after launch
The alchy exploit
One server started with a gigantic edge in population over the other.
People tanking rathe council in tutorial gear.

Things like these magnify the already inevitable attrition that will take it's toll on whatever kind they decide to make.

I like the idea that was brought up to beta test it.

Regarding the notion this server is going to be the wild wild west with no sheriff, yeah that is probably dead on. That alone is probably the number one reason they need a server that moves upon completion (combine/sleeper rules) because it'll give those guys who like to cause a ruckus something to do. And the guilds who are stuck behind them won't get bored waiting for targets to open because the guilds ahead of them will be moving on to new stuff.

They need to foster two different environments for two different kinds of players, who all have green money...

I disagree. The only example any of us can point to, had very low population. The 2 examples of progression server launches both were highly successful. You're theory crafting while I'm trying to plan with facts in mind. I understand the desire to have a locked server and I would even support it, but only if it was an addon and not the main product. If Daybreak have the time and resources to put up 3 servers, one with slow progression and instanced raiding, one ffa fast unlocking server and one locked server, I'd be happier than a pig in mud. I'd even play on the locked one.

I agree that more than one server is definitely a good idea. I also think the raid scene needs to be addressed if there is not going to be a significant GM presence. Even with a fast and slow server, these griefers will play on the slow server just to dominate it. It happened already with Combine/sleeper. Everyone knew on launch that sleeper was going to be slow and yet a major raid guild rolled there to dominate it. Same with Fippy/vulak. The slow server in this scenario needs to have some mechanics to protect against this wild west mentality. The fast server can lobby for themselves as I have no interest in playing on such a server.

Hmmm

I believe 2 servers would be the better option :

1. A Server that is FFA, no GM intervention, no voting, expansion unlocks x days after all raid targets are defeated.
2. A slower progression server where GM's will intervene and accounts and guilds will be permanently banned for violating the ToS, voting to unlock the next expansion after all raid targets defeated.

There will be enough demand for 2 servers, if they are different rule-sets then the majority of the more hardcore players will naturally gravitate to the ffa server.