/list feature first phase completed - reviews and suggestions for the future

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Izmael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A solution to this problem has been proposed - randomly award the coveted item to one of the first 6 players on the list - drawing the mechanics of a particular camp closer to what it would be without /list - an exp group camping it and /rolling on the loot.

I like this idea ... as I like any idea that returns /list to playing EverQuest (ie. luck and patience) instead of playing a non-EQ made-up game (click the box every few minutes).

That being said, I don't think the group thing is necessary at all, and it'd be simpler to just list for a random chance to kill the mob when it spawns. To solve the "people don't kill their own mob" problem, make it so winning /list only gives you a ten minute window to kill: if you fail to do so in that time, /list happens again, giving the mob to someone else.

Again, I'm happy with any "more-EverQuesty" solution (and also, to be clear, /list 1.0 is still far more "EverQuesty" than not having a list at all) ... it's just that among all possible solutions I favor simpler ones over complex ones.

[Jibien]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's just that among all possible solutions I favor simpler ones over complex ones.

don't think it gets more simplistic than permanently locking out a toon once they get an item.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jibien [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

don't think it gets more simplistic than permanently locking out a toon once they get an item.

I'm sort of in favor of that, but really the decision on lockouts is almost totally separate from the decision on how to do /list, so they're really separate discussions.

The part I don't like about permanent lockouts is that it's not very EverQuesty. In any system the staff comes up with, if the item isn't no drop I don't think it's a bad thing to have people farming it and selling it.

Ultimately any system is going to require large amounts of time sunk to "win" an item. Not everyone will want to do that, and I don't see anything wrong (or out of character for EQ) in letting player A farm plat, character B farm a legacy item, and then those two players exchange their goods. Permanent lockout prevents that, and makes it much harder for people who'd rather farm plat to ever see a legacy item.

But for no drop legacy items? There is no reason for anyone to ever farm two, at least if they're lore (and I think they all are?), so it doesn't even require a lockout, because who is going to waste hours camping an item they already have, and can't use a second copy of?

[boukk]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I like this idea ... as I like any idea that returns /list to playing EverQuest (ie. luck and patience) instead of playing a non-EQ made-up game (click the box every few minutes).

That being said, I don't think the group thing is necessary at all, and it'd be simpler to just list for a random chance to kill the mob when it spawns. To solve the "people don't kill their own mob" problem, make it so winning /list only gives you a ten minute window to kill: if you fail to do so in that time, /list happens again, giving the mob to someone else.

Again, I'm happy with any "more-EverQuesty" solution (and also, to be clear, /list 1.0 is still far more "EverQuesty" than not having a list at all) ... it's just that among all possible solutions I favor simpler ones over complex ones.

Solo kill fungus king? hmmmm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[loramin]

Originally Posted by boukk [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Solo kill fungus king? hmmmm [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah, because it's totally possible to solo clear King [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[drdrakes]

Originally Posted by Izmael [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So we just went through the first incarnation of the /list feature.
Post your thoughts and eventual suggestions for improvement.

I'll start.

The good: overall, a great success. It worked exactly as announced, I haven't ran into any glitches. It allowed people who aren't as dedicated to EQ as some others to still compete to an extent which is a Good Thing. Meanwhile, it allowed the most commited ones to still get the lion's share of the loot, as it should be.

Kudos for the implementation, to whoever did it (I assume Rogean).


The bad: how it draws people to wish others (with a better # position than them) failed and the inevitable lawyering that ensues. The mechanics of /list create too many situations where instead of camaraderie, it results in tension and hard feelings. It's hard to imagine the number of /petition that have been generated by the manastone camp alone.



A solution to this problem has been proposed - randomly award the coveted item to one of the first 6 players on the list - drawing the mechanics of a particular camp closer to what it would be without /list - an exp group camping it and /rolling on the loot.

I would like to know what the GMs and the rest of people who used /list think of it.

Between screenshare and afk checker bots/exploits the only improvement I see is requiring characters to be max level for lists and to be active during the engagement of the mob.

[Izmael]

I agree that Everquestiness shall be respected. Permanent lockout (even though I wouldn't mind personally), isn't right. Droppable or nodrop. The lockout can be randomish though, just like it was for phase 1.

[Bristlebaner]

I think you should only be allowed to be on the list for 12 hours total. Anything beyond that is encouraging unhealthy behavior, as well as account sharing.

[Taiku]

Originally Posted by Bristlebaner [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think you should only be allowed to be on the list for 12 hours total. Anything beyond that is encouraging unhealthy behavior, as well as account sharing.

This wouldn't work, having a time limit on the list would just cause chaos and a lot of anger as you would finally get to #1 and then not have enough time to get the item before your window was up.

This whole thing seems like some sort of psychological torture for people who are very invested, with the fear of missing out on the items, I think the whole thing is very unhealthy and rather unethical if people are spending DAYS at the keyboard to hit afk checks while they wait for their chance to wait for an item.

I've no investment in any of these items, but I wish there was a better solution.. I feel sad for the people who are spending days camping these items, having a way to limit the time invested would be ideal but a hard time cutoff seems rough, unless each spawn that didn't contain the item dropped like a fragment of the item, so you could spend 10 hours at a camp, and come away with 1/5th of the item or whatever it works out to be.

But anyway, not classic, so enjoy your fungi staff camp experience!

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Taiku [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wish there was a better solution

I think either the system Izmael has proposed (/list to join the item group), the system I proposed (/list to win the rights to kill the item mob for 10 minutes), or any other system that relies on "luck and patience" (ie. playing EverQuest) as opposed to not sleeping and clicking unclassic boxes, will be a vast improvement (but just so I'm not misunderstood, the current /list was also a vast improvement over no lists at all).

Any such "randomness, not staring at your screen endlessly" system would address all the concerns you listed and more.