How was /list received on Green?

[Chortles Snortles]

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

By that logic, we should have /list on every camp, to make things the most classic! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Somehow I don't think most people (including the staff) would agree with that though.

hey guys, i know what the GMS think! JUST TRUST ME OK
(lol)

[cd288]

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

That is not true whatsoever.

The 1999 era of the game doesn't need any GM intervention at all, aside from stepping in if someone is actively griefing (following a player around wherever they go and killing anything they try to fight). We can also include training into that for p99, even though training was allowed in 1999. If this server was actually classic-minded there would be far LESS work for the GM's.

GM's could instead focus on what they're supposed to be doing - creating dynamic events in the game world. This can include going around the game world daily and spawning extra NPCs to surprise groups and keep them on their toes. (IMO dynamic NPC spawning should ideally be built into Green anyway - give this server updates to improve game quality, while keeping Blue server as the "museum" coding).

If that much better and classic ruleset is not what's going to be used, then at the very least p99 should be using the classic play nice policy. The "list" system already could have incorporated taking turns, exactly as described, and for camps that aren't specifically "listed" the players should be aware to work out rotations on their own. If players do not create a rotation on their own for other camps, and know it's punishable, then it's no different than the workload GM's have to do right now anyway to investigate and punish "kill stealing".



Yeah, another thing in the long list of changes Green should make to improve gameplay. Manastone on server launch is very dumb indeed. Guise doesn't change gameplay to the same degree but is still dumb.

Rubicite BP should perma drop though, no harm in giving melee a more obtainable small regen boost. HP regen rate in the game is abysmal.

Imagine thinking that if /list wasn't implemented you wouldn't have nonstop trains on people camping manastones on Green in order to allow a guild to just take it over lol

[magnetaress]

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

“Legacy “ items should not exist.

Fixes all problems. Fuck your eq 401k

Either not in at all or implemented permanently in a way that makes sense. It literally ruins the entire server progression and is 1000000% unclassic. There was never a time when there was a nerf schedule to live by it’s a dumb EMU contrivance

This. Back in 1999 no one really knew they'd be removed.

[Zuranthium]

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Imagine thinking that if /list wasn't implemented you wouldn't have nonstop trains on people camping manastones on Green in order to allow a guild to just take it over lol

If training is allowed, that guild can be trained too. Nobody can "take it over", as it's a constant battle to hold the position AND to get the kill on the NPC after it spawns. In many ways this is the most exciting gameplay possible in PvE EQ. You need constant awareness and coordination; it creates dynamics that otherwise don't exist.

If training is not allowed, then those people simply get banned. It's not hard. Also note that if Lguk was being fully camped as it eventually was in Classic, there would be hardly anything to train anyway, as people would be constantly killing pretty much everything in the zone. That is what a group should be doing anyway, were the game centered around group vs group play -- people would be moving around killing things for exp and then getting back to the Evil Eye spawn point (or whichever item spawn points they want to try and hit) in time for it to pop.

And finally, if it's decided to have a shit game without any form of actual battling over content and without dynamic gameplay, that doesn't mean /list needs to be different than the Play Nice Policy which existed in 2000 era EQ.

[Fammaden]

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

“Legacy “ items should not exist.

Fixes all problems. Fuck your eq 401k

Either not in at all or implemented permanently in a way that makes sense. It literally ruins the entire server progression and is 1000000% unclassic. There was never a time when there was a nerf schedule to live by it’s a dumb EMU contrivance

The one thing Gustoo consistently makes any sense about. Could delete all these items tomorrow and the servers would not suffer at all.

[magnetaress]

Imagine the shit show if they only dropped one day a year (legacy items). (Including bind affinity trinkets). They should let ppl bind at TD pots year round too.

List is still a horrible thing.

Also all loot should just be random for whoever tags the mob at least once. Problem solved. Would be more pnp accurate as well. GMs did force players to take turns. Round robin style.. Especially if the players couldn't come to their own agreement. Never awarded sole ownership of a camp. That was more players saying u get camp till x item drops. Then I get camp. Also groups always trumped solo players so ppl always ran 6 deep. Because the larger group also trumped the smaller ones. And players would just combine groups if they could. If you where solo or two ppl at a camp you would often be laughed out of the zone and told to concede to a full group. Not even forced to take turns. GMs where also players (that just couldn't play on the server they GM'd) and treated soloers and shit lords like shit. If you wanted to solo or duo... u had to wait till like 2am off hrs or like 9-5 weekdays to maybe have a slim chance of getting a spot to urself anywhere.

[Tilien]

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

That's a legitimate critique, but it goes beyond /list. The way they've done the rules in general here highly favors soloers over groups, because they reduce things down to the soloer case for simplicity.

A simple example: per the Play Nice Policies a soloer can hold one camp. A group of six players can hold ... one camp.

Clearly, these rules encourage soloing over grouping (six soloers can hold six camps, a group can only hold one). But unfortunately, I don't see a way around it. Supporting groups better (whether for normal camp disputes or auto-GMed /list camps) would seem to add too much complication for our all-volunteer staff.

I agree p99 promotes soloing more than grouping overall. I think a 2 tier list could be implemented in a rather simple manner: tier 1 consists of 6 people, each spawn you get a /ran to loot the item if it drops.

When someone gets their item they're booted from tier 1.

Tier 2 listers get a /ran to join the kill group when someone has gotten their item to leave.

I feel like if they have /list working this couldn't be much harder, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Zuranthium]

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

Also groups always trumped solo players so ppl always ran 6 deep.

Actually for first 6 months of the game, the exp+loot was determined by the SINGLE player who did the most damage to an NPC. Magicians, Wizards, and Necromancers dominated on their own (Shadowknights with Harmtouch up could also compete, Druids could put up numbers sometimes, and the few Enchanters who played the class well enough had capability; Bards could also disrupt the kill with Charm sometimes). Even after it was changed to calculate full group damage, it was still possible for one of those solo casters to outdamage full groups, because of how vastly superior the Pet/Nuke damage was to the numbers of the lowly Did-Not-Go-To-Magic-School, Not-Smart-Enough-To-Be-A-Mage melee classes.

Green server should use a system that factors in aggro generated to determine which group gets the exp/loot when an NPC dies. That way every class can contribute offensively to the fight. The system would need a bit of balancing (for example Flux Staff should only count once towards the total, Warrior taunt needs to be looked at), but thankfully I am here and could do it exquisitely.

[Solist]

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

This has been discussed before. The answer was no. Move along, pleb.

Gnome warrior? I was there when that guy failed at #1. Twas sad, but also epic.

The gnome warrior was also mine if it was on teal. We were camping them on both. Friend of mine failed an afk check at #1. But we got stone within 18hrs again. Blue was 56hrs fail then 52hrs to redo, human cle Dont.

[magnetaress]

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

Actually for first 6 months of the game, the exp+loot was determined by the SINGLE player who did the most damage to an NPC. Magicians, Wizards, and Necromancers dominated on their own (Shadowknights with Harmtouch up could also compete, Druids could put up numbers sometimes, and the few Enchanters who played the class well enough had capability; Bards could also disrupt the kill with Charm sometimes). Even after it was changed to calculate full group damage, it was still possible for one of those solo casters to outdamage full groups, because of how vastly superior the Pet/Nuke damage was to the numbers of the lowly Did-Not-Go-To-Magic-School, Not-Smart-Enough-To-Be-A-Mage melee classes.

Green server should use a system that factors in aggro generated to determine which group gets the exp/loot when an NPC dies. That way every class can contribute offensively to the fight. The system would need a bit of balancing (for example Flux Staff should only count once towards the total, Warrior taunt needs to be looked at), but thankfully I am here and could do it exquisitely.

Yes that's most classic.

Most pnp is fully random.

PnP is not classic. At all. Even remotely.