Why every list change idea is terrible (as simple as possible)

[Castle2.0]

aaezil
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,731

Originally Posted by aaezil

go outside

Originally Posted by aaezil

Manastone is a bad item though once xpac

nah, u bad. go read manadance thread, and learn more about classic [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] 1-55 in classic. ez. kthx, no caps for u, not worth your weak post.

[Tethler]

I'd support the idea of a loot limit per account similar to what was done with summon corpse. If you have the item or have looted the item in the past, you can't list for it again. Sure, quite a few people have multiple high levels spread across multiple accounts, so they could still no-life it, but I'm sure it would cut the list down a bit after the people farming list items for money get 1 or 2.

[Wutaan]

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

1 hour AFK check = list blows up and gets super long. Proven earlier in thread - go read.

Quit being a fuckin idiot, even the most diehard will likely only empty their adderall prescription and tease death once for that manastone list if account sharing wasn't a thing. There wouldn't have been account sharing crews permalisted, I say this from a perspective from someone who still wouldn't do the camp. Also if it WAS a rule that account sharing for /list camps was prohibited I assure you your fantasy VM and Virtual phone scenario will be mercilessly investigated by equally motivated nerds.

Either way, list isn't perfect and it definitely favors/requires account sharing crews but it works and is way better than the alternative. I still won't see any of you at a /list camp, have fun.

[sajbert]

The problems with the list system are obvious, the RNG is streaky, it promotes account sharing but...

The primary concern is player health and well-being. Players have been pushing themselves to camp items for multiple days on end. Some have even been resorting to using drugs to stay awake. The P99 playerbase isn't young, it's only a matter of time before someone dies due to a /list camp, if it hasn't happened already.

I propose a /list system that provides players with tickets per unit of hour of spent at that camp with the tickets giving you a chance to win at a roll each time the item drops. In addition, that the tickets are permanent until you've won an item. This way you could quit, eat, sleep and get back to it when you're better. Maybe more people would be doing the /list camps since then people who had jobs could also /list up, I don't see how this is an issue however and players who are hardcore /list campers are gonna get their items regardless. A bonus with a ticket system is that every player at the camp will be active, no more FD'ed players simply checking the AFK-window. In fact, you might even be able to do away with the AFK-window this way.

Yes, someone might just walk into camp and /list and after one spawn run away with an item, however has EQ ever been fair? I know of several /list players who got shafted after having spent countless hours without drops and eventually having to throw in the towel after 40+ hours.

[Castle2.0]

blahblah....if account sharing wasn't a thing...blahblah

Account sharing will always be a thing. It will not be outlawed and there are too many work-arounds as is. If you think there is a way to enforce it, I'd be glad to hear. Boxing is illegal and GMs can do a box check to enforce it. Rule + Enforcement = effective. Rule + No Enforcement = good guys (us rule followers) lose, bad guys win.

The primary concern is player health and well-being

Don't believe the Devs have said that, or Brad McQuaid.

A bonus with a ticket system is that every player at the camp will be active

Don't see where you explained this mechanic. Thought it through - don't see a way for code-based enforcement of "participation" that can't be easily gamed and/or doesn't really measure participation. Glad to hear the details of your idea tough.

however has EQ ever been fair?

EQ has never had rules-based enforcement of a lottery on items camped. It's never allowed others to get a shot at an item you are camping until you are done with that camp. It's just another lottery system. Can read earlier in thread about slot machine versus lottery.

[DMN]

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

The problems with the list system are obvious, the RNG is streaky, it promotes account sharing but...

The primary concern is player health and well-being. Players have been pushing themselves to camp items for multiple days on end. Some have even been resorting to using drugs to stay awake. The P99 playerbase isn't young, it's only a matter of time before someone dies due to a /list camp, if it hasn't happened already.

I propose a /list system that provides players with tickets per unit of hour of spent at that camp with the tickets giving you a chance to win at a roll each time the item drops. In addition, that the tickets are permanent until you've won an item. This way you could quit, eat, sleep and get back to it when you're better. Maybe more people would be doing the /list camps since then people who had jobs could also /list up, I don't see how this is an issue however and players who are hardcore /list campers are gonna get their items regardless. A bonus with a ticket system is that every player at the camp will be active, no more FD'ed players simply checking the AFK-window. In fact, you might even be able to do away with the AFK-window this way.

Yes, someone might just walk into camp and /list and after one spawn run away with an item, however has EQ ever been fair? I know of several /list players who got shafted after having spent countless hours without drops and eventually having to throw in the towel after 40+ hours.

Just stick with pure random. if you want to increase your chances, then you just sit there more often there is no need to give people "tickets" or anything similar. The ticket thing would also just encourage people multi accounting anyway especially the staff because how few are going to drop in the first place.

[Castle2.0]

Just stick with pure random

Agreed - keep it as is now: pure random. If you're #1 on list it either drops on the next pop, or it doesn't. RNG.

[Izmael]

Randomly award to top 6 people on the list.

> Encourages people to work together as a group, instead of hoping someone in front of them dies.
> Removes at ton of need for CSR (waaa waaah #1 doesn't want to kill a_goblin_0039, please ban him for life wahh)
> Keeps 6 people on their toes instead of just #1
> Keeps it just as random

[Castle2.0]

> Encourages people to work together as a group, instead of hoping someone in front of them dies.
> Removes at ton of need for CSR (waaa waaah #1 doesn't want to kill a_goblin_0039, please ban him for life wahh)
> Keeps 6 people on their toes instead of just #1
> Keeps it just as random

Your first three points are all based on the same wrong assumption. Your last point isn't specific enough to be a point is flat wrong.

Your assumption seems to be: "when 6 people can get the drop instead of 1, people will participate more."

Maybe you haven't heard the saying, "When it's everyone's responsibility it's no one's responsibility." When there is a list, it's ultimately the responsibility of #1 because if the item drops it is 100% their item. When it's 6 random individuals who don't know each other... well... the other guy will do it.

If you think list participation is bad now (and it really wasn't except for a few times @ Rubi BP), it will be worse with the "top 6" idea.

Let's use Manastone as an example.

It takes 1 person to kill the EE. With 5 other people responsible why bother? Check in every 10 minutes to hit afk-check and have my GINA timer set to trigger when I get the

*** Your List Item has dropped! You have exclusive permission to loot the corpse, and you have been removed from the list. ***

#1 has NO more motivation than #6 to kill the mob. There is no person ultimately responsible because the drop isn't guaranteed to any one person. Now you're going to get into issues of participation. As I said above, I don't think this can be hardcoded that isn't either easily gameable or meaningless. I've written a full post on this (do you have to do damage? If so, how much? What if you're a cleric? What if you drop buffs inbetween spawns? etc etc etc..)

Here's the kicker: You're going to have people justifying their lack of participation because "I've been helping for X hours and have lost every roll. You just got here, you do some work to earn yours!"

That's points 1-3. Point 4: "Keeps it just as random" is wrong. The RNG for the drop is the same, yes, but now you add an additional roll against 5 other people.

The "random to top X number of players" is just plain bad.

[DMN]

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

Agreed - keep it as is now: pure random. If you're #1 on list it either drops on the next pop, or it doesn't. RNG.

That's not random, that's arbitrary.

It would take a group to get down there and kill the king, for instance. So which player of that group should be #1?