New Green

[Castle2.0]

Imagine someone camping Hadden for 24+ hours, and someone comes up and says "heya this thing pops in 5 minutes, I'll stick around for the /random..."

A bunch of druids/wizard alts gate there where they are bound and do the same... lol... never happened in classic.

List ain't classic, but it's the most fair and closest to classic solution we have.

[Castle2.0]

You either don't count time at the camp or you do.

If you don't, you get a bunch of people logging onto alts every 30minute, 8 hours or whatever the pop time is to get a /random shot.

If you do count time, you have.... The /List

[loramin]

Wow, all those posts ... as a "list lifer", you were clearly triggered by my idea [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Look, I'll grant that for you, Castle 2.0, who clearly liked sitting for 48+ hours at the same camp, /list was great.

But for the vast majority of the server ... and for best emulating the game from '99 (where, again, no one waited even 24 hours for a camp) ... a random list still seems best to me.

[ezigrelnos]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lists are exactly the same with one important change: people can't just pass the camp to a friend/guildie of their choice AFTER they loot the item.

Anti-listers are either stupid, jealous, and/or don't have a lot of time to play.

They don't want what is 'fair,' they want whatever gives them a better chance at loot regardless of what is ackshually fair.

Period.

remotely accessing multiple computers at once to hit AFK CHECK every 15 minutes is very fair and is completely different than handing the camp off to your guildy/friend...

not to mention the real humans trying to not cheat the system actually sitting 40 hours in a row every 15~ minutes hitting an AFK check box is totally fair because fuck your health if you even want a chance at loot because these items are camped in perpetuity

totally not abused or broken in any way, nope, nuh uh, if you didn't get your game breaking limited edition item in time then you obviously don't care enough

ps. when green2.0 so i can let someone hit AFK on my account for 2 days for a chance at loot because i play fair and only care about whats fair for everyone

[Castle2.0]

No good argument put forward. Just "think of the casuals." Typical. Just want what is best for you instead of what is actually fair.

Also, if you had 2 brain cells to rub together, you could apply everything you just said to the exact system you propose [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lemme help you with that...

remotely accessing multiple computers at once to hit AFK CHECK /random for loot every 15 whatever minutes is very fair and is completely different than handing the camp off to your guildy/friend...

not to mention the real humans trying to not cheat the system actually sitting 40 hours in a row logging in every 15~ whatever minutes hitting an AFK check box to random for loot is totally fair

There you go.

You want what is 'easy' for you, not what makes for a level playing field.

If you think it'll cost your health, you get to decide if it's worth it or not.

[eqravenprince]

You want a Fungi, Fishbone earring, Manastone, Ring of the Ancients, etc for your character, come kill the NPC and loot it yourself. Making certain items No Drop and Not MQable solves a lot of this nonsense.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imagine someone camping Hadden for 24+ hours, and someone comes up and says "heya this thing pops in 5 minutes, I'll stick around for the /random..."

A bunch of druids/wizard alts gate there where they are bound and do the same... lol... never happened in classic.

List ain't classic, but it's the most fair and closest to classic solution we have.

Except if you’re allowed to do that and just show up for the /random why would you sit there camping Haden for 24 hours? Problem solved

[ezigrelnos]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No good argument put forward. Just "think of the casuals." Typical. Just want what is best for you instead of what is actually fair.

Also, if you had 2 brain cells to rub together, you could apply everything you just said to the exact system you propose [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Lemme help you with that...



There you go.

You want what is 'easy' for you, not what makes for a level playing field.

If you think it'll cost your health, you get to decide if it's worth it or not.

i never said anything about random so i don't know why this counters my entire argument, the point still stands that /list is broken in its current form and is NOT fair, which is the only thing you care about so I'm not sure why you are defending it and insulting anyone who brings up valid issues with it?

are you ignorant, do you not care, i dont understand? list is factually broken, and arguably makes loot EASIER TO OBTAIN for anyone who is willing to BREAK TERMS OF SERVICE of the server they play on (with little to no risk mind you)

and its not a choice of whether i want to damage my health, i just physically cannot stay awake for 40+ hours in a row so i guess I don't get loot/play the game? this is fair?

you want an actual fix to /list? make the hours earned roll over and base the prioritization of your list position on total hours logged at camp

spend 30 hours over 5 days? come back day 6 and you're ahead everyone under you. Are they mad they spent 20 hours and lost their spot? sure, but they can do the same thing and they don't lose their spot. eventually, given enough time spent, you will earn the right to loot (maybe 100 hours? who knows but at least this is FAIR and OBTAINABLE [read:not easy/free])



"think of the casuals." i dont want everyone and their grandma to be handed a mana stone on login but if you think you're a tuff guy on a PVE server because your guild rotates out AFK duty on limited items you're beyond help

[loramin]

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

you want an actual fix to /list? make the hours earned roll over and base the prioritization of your list position on total hours logged at camp

spend 30 hours over 5 days? come back day 6 and you're ahead everyone under you. Are they mad they spent 20 hours and lost their spot? sure, but they can do the same thing and they don't lose their spot. eventually, given enough time spent, you will earn the right to loot (maybe 100 hours? who knows but at least this is FAIR and OBTAINABLE [read:not easy/free])

We're just making up our own game at that point ... but the point of this place isn't to do that, it's to recreate EverQuest from 1999-2001.

Look, /list 1.0 started out with the best intentions of doing that. We know exactly what happened in classic when 2+ people wanted a camp, because we have the GM guidelines from back then:

8.2.3 Contested Spawn Complaints
When a complaint is received indicating that a spawn or kill is contested, a disruption investigation should first be initiated according to the procedures of section 8.2.2 to determine if harassment or Zone/Area disruption is occurring. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, instruct the parties involved in the contested spawn situation to work out a compromise. Then leave the scene.

If another complaint is received involving the same spawn site, another disruption investigation should be initiated. After following those procedures and issuing warnings as necessary, if any of the parties involved were involved in the initial situation, establish a compromise for the parties to which the parties are required to abide. The compromise should be as described in section 8.2.3.1. Any party refusing to abide by the compromise established by the CS Representative should be issued a warning for disruption.

On PvP servers, where players can reach a solution to the contested spawn situation, the CS Representative does not need to require the players to share the spawn.

8.2.3.1
The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

But, we don't have paid GMs with time to do all of the classic stuff described above ... so the devs made /list 1.0 as a way to resolve things automatically without human GMs.

The problem is, back in classic no one stayed at a camp for even 24 hours. Most players' internet connections wouldn't even stay stable for more than a few hours back then!

If we want to do the most classic thing (which, again, is the whole point of this place ... just look at the upper-left corner of your screen) it should be as close to what happened on live as possible. A random roll was used on live, and it came with an implicit time limit (the camp was assumed to free up within a few hours). If new people contested the same mob after that time, it would result in ... another random roll.

A random /list 2.0 solves all of the (unclassic) problems with people sitting for 24+ hours, trading accounts with each other, etc ... and it brings us as close as we can get (without paid GMs) to classic.

[SenoraRaton]

What I wanna know is if Mage is going to be "fixed" on launch, or if we are going to allow a class to be functionally unplayable for months again.