List AFK checks

[Deathimself13]

Lists are a good idea, but AFK checks aren't very good. In classic if you where camping something you'd kill it or the ph, set a timer, go and do some stuffs around the house, come back and repeat. These AFK checks are unhealthy, forcing you to sit at the screen for hours and hours just incase you miss clicking that button. If I've got time to play i'll find a group, exp, farm stuffs, but theres days where I cant commit and would just like to sit and camp a mob and get some housework or something else done in my downtime. Keep lists but, please, get rid of that afk check or atleast have it timed so you don't have to stare at an empty spawn spot for 10+ hours.

[Albane]

The afk checks are fine, but maybe only do them to the top 2 people. I don't see why I have to be paying attention when I am still 3-9 hours away from having a chance at the drop.

[cd288]

If you want that legacy item so bad, you need to put in the time. I'd also add that AFK checks probably make the list go somewhat faster since people end up getting booted off the list and you get moved up, which potentially saves you tens of hours of waiting.

[Smellybuttface]

Without afk checks, those lists would be absurdly long. No one is entitled to a legacy item.

/List changes have been beaten to death. There are some legitimately good ideas for changing them, but getting rid of afk checks isn’t one of them.

[lubyen13]

Imagine a system promoting bannable practices (sharing accounts) or unhealthy/potentially deadly behavior (40 hour camps).

[cd288]

Imagine a system promoting bannable practices (sharing accounts) or unhealthy/potentially deadly behavior (40 hour camps).

Er what? Sharing accounts isn't bannable at all. The staff have expressly said that it's not.

[silo32]

Sharing accounts should be bannable. I have seen people share info to farm stones. If they suspended account's when ips change constantly. These lists would be way shorter.

[cd288]

Sharing accounts should be bannable. I have seen people share info to farm stones. If they suspended account's when ips change constantly. These lists would be way shorter.

I don't see why it should be bannable. Just because people have friends and guildies who will help them out?

If you share your account, you're putting yourself at risk as you're responsible for whatever happens while the account is logged in. Someone could do things to get you banned; someone could steal all your stuff. I'd say that's enough of a risk. Don't need to make it against the rules to account share.

[Bigsham]

i like the idea of changing ip resets list

[mcoy]

i like the idea of changing ip resets list

Doesn't help against people that use remote control software to change places. Toon is logged in from the same PC/IP the whole time.

-Mcoy

[loramin]

In classic if you where camping something you'd kill it or the ph, set a timer, go and do some stuffs around the house, come back and repeat. These AFK checks are unhealthy, forcing you to sit at the screen for hours and hours just incase you miss clicking that button.

If you want that legacy item so bad, you need to put in the time.

"That would be classic, and it's not like this place is for classic EverQuest or anything: geez!"

[pirate23]

I don't see why it should be bannable. Just because people have friends and guildies who will help them out?

If you share your account, you're putting yourself at risk as you're responsible for whatever happens while the account is logged in. Someone could do things to get you banned; someone could steal all your stuff. I'd say that's enough of a risk. Don't need to make it against the rules to account share.


so you're cool with sharing accounts, but don't think the AFK should be changed as people need to be there for a legacy item. Ok got ya.

[Wallicker]

Legacy items should be extremely difficult to obtain, if you wanna do a casual camp and come back after doing laundry or the dishes or whatever pick one of the hundreds of other non list camps... this isn’t complicated. If you want Ruby BP, Guise, Manastone you gotta put in the consecutive man hours OR come up with platinum.

[cd288]

so you're cool with sharing accounts, but don't think the AFK should be changed as people need to be there for a legacy item. Ok got ya.

The AFK checks serve multiple other purposes so it's not really the same thing.

[BlackBellamy]

The AFK checks serve multiple other purposes so it's not really the same thing.

why are the server admins interested in interrupting my search for chubby lesbians on porntube i have no idea

[silo32]

Doesn't help against people that use remote control software to change places. Toon is logged in from the same PC/IP the whole time.

-Mcoy

Staff here said this is already bannable

You should drop off the list if IP changes IMHO

[loramin]

Staff here said this is already bannable

You should drop off the list if IP changes IMHO

It's all but impossible to detect VNC-style software because it takes control at the OS level and "remotely controls" it the same way as an ordinary user. In fact, if I were a betting man I'd put $20 on at least 1/4 of manastone /listers doing exactly this. The only alternative is to drop on/off to switch with another person (risking losing your position) or using a ton of Adderall to do it yourself.

Oh, and for basing it on IP address, that wouldn't help at all. When two people remotely control one computer, that one computer maintains its same IP. All it would hurt is people whose connection goes down (ie. the people /list is trying not to kick off), because they get a fresh IP from their host (or VPN) when they reconnect.

IMHO the problems with /list are NOT technical in nature: they're systemic. The only solution is for the system to change (eg. to short/fixed length lists that you have to win a random to join).

[pirate23]

The AFK checks serve multiple other purposes so it's not really the same thing.

You can't have it both ways lol.

[cornisthebest]

Staff here said this is already bannable

You should drop off the list if IP changes IMHO

remote desktop is actually bannable ? asking for a friend

[cd288]

You can't have it both ways lol.

Again, the AFK checks serve multiple additional purposes, so you can

[silo32]

remote desktop is actually bannable ? asking for a friend

Yes 100% staff quoted

I still wanna 2 cents this should be a solo camp not risk your Life or have to share access to your account to make gains


Not classic

60 days Left of this chit

[Smellybuttface]

Yes 100% staff quoted

I still wanna 2 cents this should be a solo camp not risk your Life or have to share access to your account to make gains


Not classic

60 days Left of this chit

But then we wouldn’t get the hilarious stories of people doing 4 day’s straight hitting an afk box! Those are some of my favorite threads.

[Videri]

Quick question. Would it work to have the AFK checks only when the mob respawns? Then everyone camping it could just set an alarm to click the AFK check box, and a mob would be there and most people would kill it, then they'd have one respawn period to go about their lives. Why are the AFK checks at randomized intervals again?

[Smellybuttface]

Quick question. Would it work to have the AFK checks only when the mob respawns? Then everyone camping it could just set an alarm to click the AFK check box, and a mob would be there and most people would kill it, then they'd have one respawn period to go about their lives. Why are the AFK checks at randomized intervals again?

The thought seems to be that it controls the length of the list since folks are more likely to drop when having to do afk checks every 5-15 mins. This is probably good for everybody. The /list system should not be built around appeasing the more casual player, since the items themselves are of such high value that the Devs wanted to make acquiring them an effort to match that value. If the /lists become much easier, the item itself gets devalued, and people that desire the item more and are willing to work harder for it aren’t incentivized to do so. It just makes the lists significantly longer by lessening their difficulty, so overall time spent by people could very easily be 100-150 hours.

[Videri]

The thought seems to be that it controls the length of the list since folks are more likely to drop when having to do afk checks every 5-15 mins. This is probably good for everybody. The /list system should not be built around appeasing the more casual player, since the items themselves are of such high value that the Devs wanted to make acquiring them an effort to match that value. If the /lists become much easier, the item itself gets devalued, and people that desire the item more and are willing to work harder for it aren’t incentivized to do so. It just makes the lists significantly longer by lessening their difficulty, so overall time spent by people could very easily be 100-150 hours.

Good points. However, the frequent random AFK checks are not the only thing making the camp difficult; there's also the overall span of time the character must remain at the camp.

The character that's #1 on the manastone list right now has been there for 77 hours. If the typical manastone camp time is approx 60-80 hours, frequency of AFK checks isn't what's separating the wheat from the chaff...it's whether people have multiple days in a row with virtually no commitments, or a dedicated group that takes turns on one character.

Decreasing frequency of AFK checks would make it more comfortable, so perhaps more people would join the list; but most of those people wouldn't stay on the list long enough because most people have jobs or families. Sure, the list would be 5 people longer, but if all 5 drop out after only 36 hours to go to work, they actually don't slow down the other people on the list from getting to #1. They joined and then left before getting to #1. It's as if they never even joined.

The exception would be squads of multiple people (perhaps with jobs/families) taking turns for only a few hours at a time. One wonders whether frequent AFK checks would slow those folks down. Let's imagine an ideal situation where you had 8 people with different daily schedules, each doing 3 hours every single day...3 hours with 6 AFK checks or 3 hours with 27 AFK checks...it's fine either way. They'll do that ez-pz.

I'm still not convinced the variability and high frequency of AFK checks keeps dedicated manastone campers off the list.

[cd288]

It's all but impossible to detect VNC-style software because it takes control at the OS level and "remotely controls" it the same way as an ordinary user. In fact, if I were a betting man I'd put $20 on at least 1/4 of manastone /listers doing exactly this. The only alternative is to drop on/off to switch with another person (risking losing your position) or using a ton of Adderall to do it yourself.

Oh, and for basing it on IP address, that wouldn't help at all. When two people remotely control one computer, that one computer maintains its same IP. All it would hurt is people whose connection goes down (ie. the people /list is trying not to kick off), because they get a fresh IP from their host (or VPN) when they reconnect.

IMHO the problems with /list are NOT technical in nature: they're systemic. The only solution is for the system to change (eg. to short/fixed length lists that you have to win a random to join).

I'm assuming that because of this the .dll file P99 has that scans things wouldn't pick up the VNC software because it doesn't interact directly with the client? If it could pick that up I'm guessing it means it's scanning everything on your comp which would of course not be okay.