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

[Castle2.0]

There is a cost to camp a list item: time, attention, location.

Let's eliminate some ideas that are very unclassic and will never happen:

Change the item (make it better/worse, make it no drop, make it lore, etc. etc.)
Change the drop rate (make it easier/harder, make it drop 6 copies for all 6 people at top of list, etc etc.)
Make it drop off more mobs and/or make the spawn rate of the mob faster.
Make it randomly drop to 1 person in top 3, top 6, top 50, top 100, whatever. Staff will never put in a lottery system. It's unclassic in spirit.
Make the camp easier/harder. They aren't going to change mob/camp difficulty for 1 list item for the period of time it can be /listed.


These will never happen, and that's why these ideas suck.

So, you can't change the item stats, drop rate, spawn rate, or difficulty. The only thing left is player interest, attention (AFK checks) and location.

First, a simple, irrefutable economic fact that destroys every argument to make the list easier: price elasticity of demand

Price elasticity of demand, is the degree to which the effective desire for something changes as its price changes. In general, people desire things less as those things become more expensive.

Disneyland tickets are $100. The most popular ride has a 1 hour wait time. If tickets were dropped by $50, more tickets will be sold, and the wait time in the line will increase, maybe by 30 minutes, 1 hour, maybe 2 hours. In either case, it will increase. This is exactly what will happen to list camps. Making the camp cheaper (easier) for YOU, also makes it cheaper (easier) for EVERYONE. It's like saying... "I can't afford a fungi at 60k. Give everyone 60k so we can all afford it." Speaking of Disney, do you even Duck Tales, bro? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LWQQrpSc4)

What happens when there is ZERO cost (no afk check) to being in line for a list item? We saw this at AC camp. The list gets insanely long. Yes, many people just /listed to get on the list and didn't show up. But many people got on the list did actually camp all the way through. Instead of a list of 6-10, you have a list of 100+ (was it 150+?), but maybe 30-40 people not in top 10 go all the way through. This still means the "zero cost" makes the real wait time longer. Wow, it's like "free stuff" isn't free.

The same applies to location. Allowing people to /list from anywhere removes the opportunity cost of the camp - you'd be able to /list and then go exp, raid, etc. - and the "danger cost" of having to be physically present at the camp (if it's a dangerous camp.) This will similarly increase wait time.

Conclusion (aka the TL;DR):

You can't change the item stats, drop rate, spawn rate, difficulty of camp. Removing/reducing AFK checks or physical presence requirement will increase wait times proportionately. Your list idea sucks. Making it easier doesn't make it easier. Go join the "give everyone a [insert list item here]" group - you're just as bad.

Sorry, you won't get your list items for free/cheaper. Everyone wants them, and they will be limited in number. Welcome to Norrath and welcome to Life!

[Tunabros]

I dont really understand what your point is
what do you mean by "get your list items for free/cheaper"
Are you saying we shouldn't change the game to make the list camp easier?

[Baler]

Kick people off the list if their IP Changes!

[Ivory]

Change the drop rate (make it easier/harder, make it drop 6 copies for all 6 people at top of list, etc etc.)

They did this with guise though.... it was WAY more rare than normal during the /list.

[douglas1999]

Yeah he's saying don't make it easier. Whether they actually made it rarer than usual during the /list period is irrelevant (and I don't think they did, that may just be in your head). Making it easier, as opposed to harder, is the critical point. Also seconding some kind of curtailing of account sharing\handoffs. I really like the /list system other than that one weakness.

[drackgon]

I don't always agree with Baler bc of his elf pal friends. But I actually 100% agree with him. If your toon changes IP address(which sucks bc I personally lost inet but was saved via hotspot), should be removed. The list wouldn't be nearly as long. You wouldn't have guilds paying dkp to sit on toons for Manastones. There is no way a player could of managed staying up 80+ hours, so list would cycle through much faster. And would give everyone an actual shot at it. Instead of a group of 5 friends all sharing their toons 5 times ina row.

[Ivory]

Making it easier doesn't make it easier.

If 100 fungi staffs drop... is instead 200 fungi staffs drop... it does make it easier.

You are trying to use some weird capitalist supply / demand logic acrobatics to explain why "making it easier doesn't make it easier"....

It's just crazy haha

Though, the real difference with list camps in kunark is going to be

1) The items aren't around for that long (so not time to level enough to be able to solo camp them so easily, let alone access to spells you would need)

2) Most of the camps aren't trivial (especially if you aren't a level 60 enchanter or something)

Like when rubi BP was dropping, there were times no one was down there.... because holding the camp wasn't super trivial (like holding the manastone camp was).

[Izmael]

Award the item randomly to one of the 6 first players on the list

Otherwise, the system is perfect and should be extended to Blue on many many camps and maybe even raid lewts (there's your custom content!).

[Jibartik]

I would prefer a guild dominates and sells loot rights at extremely high prices until nerf, but thats just me :o

fwiw I would not be in that guild :o but it would be a lot funner and classic to read about in RNF than this stuff!

[Castle2.0]

If 100 fungi staffs drop... is instead 200 fungi staffs drop... it does make it easier.

You are trying to use some weird capitalist supply / demand logic acrobatics to explain why "making it easier doesn't make it easier".... You don't read, or basic economics and human behavior are just beyond you.

When things are easier/cheaper more people do/buy it. Do you believe more people would be at Disneyland if they cut their price in half to $50? Do you believe more people would mean longer waits in line?

If you can't wrap your mind around that, I'm not interested in discussing further. You don't even need to be an economist to get it. It's basic human behavior.

If Fungi stick is 2x more common, the "cost" to camp one is now less and it will draw in more people. Doubling the drop rate, will not decrease the wait time. Obviously there could be a slight increase or decrease because the curve is theoretical, but the change wouldn't be meaningful. The principle still holds true.

Kick people off the list if their IP Changes!

WON'T WORK. They can share a VPN with a dedicated IP# or share a computer or VPS running EQ via Remote Desktop. Easy peezy. Like gun control, it doesn't help the average Joe - it only hurts him.

NEXT

Award the item randomly to one of the 6 first players on the list Average wait time will INCREASE. The lure of the lottery will draw in more people. "ZoMgZ i just need to b top 6 and I have a chanz to git it!" The drop rate and other factors won't change. It'll just be a random person gets it faster and a random person gets it slower. But average wait time will increase because stupid people are drawn to low-odds big pay-off RNG. Hence, we have $100M+ lotteries.


Isn't in the spirit of EQ
Won't decrease average wait time
Isn't inherently more "fair" by any measure
Due to RNG, it will cause a minority of people wait an INCREDIBLY long time (relative to others) which isn't a positive change from the already long lists. You could be #1, but lost the last 6 drops... Feelsbadman, feelsevenmoreunhealthyman.


NEXT!

[Castle2.0]

this

[Ivory]

Do you believe more people would be at Disneyland if they cut their price in half to $50? Do you believe more people would mean longer waits in line?

Lol your rational thinking isn't working too good today....

Items dropping isn't getting INTO disney land (anyone can do that, you can show up to a camp and start camping).....

What we are talking about is the ride itself.

So, a disney ride line might be an hour long normally. Because the ride has a capacity of 100 people an hour.

Now, if Disney adjusted the ride to make it faster... so the ride could accommodate 200 people an hour... yes, the line would move faster, and maybe people who were put off by the hour long wait would decide to line up (since it's starting to take less time), until it comes to an equilibrium point again.

But at the end of the day, that's 200 people an hour enjoying the ride....instead of 100 people an hour enjoying the ride.

It's very simple, increasing the drop rate means the line would move faster and more people would enjoy the ride (get the item). Would the line have more people in it? SURE, but THE LINE MOVES FASTER....so it evens out in the end. The net effect is just more people being satisfied.

You were doing such strained mental gymnastics trying to understand this... with ticket prices and all sorts of pseudo economic theory (lol)... that you completely missed the actual thing we are talking about here....

[Baler]

WON'T WORK. They can share a VPN with a dedicated IP# or share a computer or VPS running EQ via Remote Desktop.


If they're playing two characters that's boxxing and a bannable offense.

Kick people off the list if their IP changes.

You just don't want this change because you're a shill for manastone selling.

[Castle2.0]

Baler baler baler....

You don't use the VPN to box. You use the VPN to play ONE toon at a time on ONE IP that doesn't change so you don't get booted. Yes, if you load up your main or an alt, you will be in trouble for boxing - that's irrelevant to the /list.

Player A connects to VPN on 123.123.123 on Account123 on CamptertoonABC, camps list item for 8 hours, logs off VPN back on his his home internet IP to play his other toons or sleep. Player B connects to VPN on 123.123.123 on Account123 on CamptertoonABC and keeps camping list item on the same toon.

Can you understand this? Have you ever used a VPN before? Do you know how a VPN works?

It's the same exact toon-sharing scheme people used for list camps except now they have a $3-5/month VPN to share 1 IP number on the toon they camp list items with. CasualBob has internet issues and resets his internet that just happens to have dynamic IP and he loses his spot on the list.

The next thing you might say is "zomgosh if their computer ID # changes, kick em off." Ok, then they all share 1 crappy laptop on 1 IP via Remote Desktop or w/e people use these days. CasualBob, wants to switch computers so his son can do homework. *boot*

Your proposal won't stop the very people you want to stop - it will have the opposite effect discourage more casuals from doing a /list camp. "Ban all gunz! Will make us safe!" Surething.

NEXT

------------------------------

Ivory, First, your assumption is wrong, and I'll explain below, but first let's just assume you're right for fun.

Why not just build 1,000 identical "rollercoasters"? Oh wait, instancing isn't classic.
Why not just make the drop rate 1000x more common? Oh wait, 1000x-drop rate isn't classic.
Why not just hand everyone a manastone? Oh wait, handing out legacy items to every person isn't classic - it's called the EZ Server.

You set up "more people enjoying it" as the standard (specifically, how much YOU think it should drop.) If that is the ultimate standard, why not do the above 3 things: instancing, 1000x drop rate, and/or give one to everyone?

When you answer that question you may just have my answer to your proposal.

It seems you argument is: "Make these unclassic changes to my own personal standard of how EQ should be for I have spoken." Next thing you know we got teleporters instead of boats and cats on the freaking moon.

When you say "equilibrium" you're saying more rides will happen, but due to more people riding the actual wait time won't decrease - it'll stay the same. Sure, we can agree on this. Now... why you're wrong saying "more people will get to enjoy [list item.]"

If Manastone is still a 48-148 hour camp, will someone that didn't camp it before now magically camp it? No.

100 more drops DOESN'T mean 100 more people get to enjoy it. It just means 100 more drops. The main reason people didn't camp Manastone was the camp time + attention cost of AFK checks. You're gonna have the same neckbeards (people willing to camp for that long) super pumped they are getting 2x as many list items. Instead of 4 neckbeards sharing 1 toon, you now got 2 sets of 2 neckbeards sharing 1 toon each. If you got 10 toons on list doing Manastone, maybe you got 30-40 neckbeards behind it all sharing toons - and a few individuals who are total champions. By making Manastone easier, those 30-40 dudes on 10 toons aren't going to disappear, they will get in line themselves.

NEXT

[douglas1999]

There's still a fundamental question of how many people are sharing accounts to get list items vs. how many innocent campers would be negatively impacted by any given proposed change. Bob casual getting kicked off because lightning struck his pumpkin patch represents, I would assume, not many instances of people getting kicked off. People will do the lazy thing and just share accounts if they have no reason to take measures to mask it, and the laziest among that set won't want to deal with extra restrictions on account sharing and the total amount of account sharing goes down. Bob casual's net chance to get a manastone then goes from a billion:1 to a billion:1.1

[Jibartik]

Imagine if this thread was about how a guild trained them off of a 16 hour manastone camp instead of what it's about.

[Baler]

There's still a fundamental question of how many people are sharing accounts to get list items vs. how many innocent campers would be negatively impacted by any given proposed change. Bob casual getting kicked off because lightning struck his pumpkin patch represents, I would assume, not many instances of people getting kicked off. People will do the lazy thing and just share accounts if they have no reason to take measures to mask it, and the laziest among that set won't want to deal with extra restrictions on account sharing and the total amount of account sharing goes down.

This^ Most people won't be willing to bypass a list IP lock and the ones who have real issues with their ip changing naturally are minimal.

Imagine if this thread was about how someone trained them off of a 16 hour manastone camp instead of what it's about.

This^ is exactly why the list is better than how it was! Great Point!

[Ivory]

It seems you argument is: "Make these unclassic changes to my own personal standard of how EQ should be for I have spoken."

They already made unclassic changes for /lists ... such as .... the lists....

Oh, and they also killed the drop rate on things like guise.

Oh, and they also nerfed a ton of stuff recently (like wands).

The "but it's not classic" arguments really don't work when there are so many non-classic changes happening regularly....

I wish they would at LEAST make it classic... let players do lists and sort it out... the clicking every x minutes is a paiiiin. And put the classic drop rates back (instead of the SUPER brutal drop rates).

But, really, it's not for me... my fellows is most elite adventurers ... so treasure shall belong to gnomes soon enoughs!

[Mario 7]

The only fair list is to completely recycle it after the item drops so normal people have a chance to get spot #1 and not some sick drug addict who does not go outside

[Castle2.0]

The only fair list is to completely recycle it after the item drops so normal people have a chance to get spot #1 and not some sick drug addict who does not go outside Great arguments so far. I'll put this right up there with "give everyone a manastone."

I don't have the time to camp it... so make it random because that fits my individual playtime requirement.... Awww <3

This^ Most people won't be willing to bypass a list IP lock and the ones who have real issues with their ip changing naturally are minimal.

"Most people" aren't the group of people you're complaining the /list caters to.... If your IP change boot rule got put into play, neckbeards be like...

[Albane]

Remove all of the items that were removed from the game because of balance issues. Manastone, Guise, Rubi BP all should have never been on this server. Any items like this in Kunark should be removed before Kunark releases.

[Jibartik]

yeah because this game is so balanced without those items!

[Castle2.0]

The fact that such items exist and are even possible to attain is one big draw for some people. It's also preserves the classic feel - the unique progression of EQ.

[Jibartik]

What fun would the universe be if when we discovered quantum physics the creator just nerfed it.

[Wutaan]

Mannastone, serious question. Are you retarded, or just assbergers?

[Castle2.0]

Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 18 Saw your post history. Go back to RnF. Not even a good troll.

[Raev]

First, a simple, irrefutable economic fact that destroys every argument to make the list easier: price elasticity of demand

Your post is 100% correct, but I think it might be clearer without this fact. Because the supply is fixed, the elasticity of the item is irrelevant.

[DMN]

Make it drop off more mobs and/or make the spawn rate of the mob faster.
Make it randomly drop to 1 person in top 3, top 6, top 50, top 100, whatever. Staff will never put in a lottery system. It's unclassic in spirit.

What's all this unclassic jibah jabah? The whole freaking EQ loot system is a lottery. How the hell is that unclassic? people could be killing the shroom king from day one until the drop is nerfed and NO ONE could get a single staff.

[Castle2.0]

What's all this unclassic jibah jabah? The whole freaking EQ loot system is a lottery. How the hell is that unclassic? people could be killing the shroom king from day one until the drop is nerfed and NO ONE could get a single staff.

A slot machine and a lottery aren't the same.

Camping a mob solo is a slot machine. If the numbers hit, I win.

The proposed idea to random off the item to top X people camping is a lottery on TOP of a slot machine. Gotta hit the RNG it drops, THEN you gotta hit the RNG it goes to you.

#1 has put in significantly more time than #6 - it doesn't make sense to random it off with equal odds. No additional RNG should be artificially added into EQ on P99 Green unless their is an incredibly good reason to do so. None has been given so far.

I'm not saying RNG isn't a big part of EQ. Lottery is not. Player agreed "scout roll" and "server-wide raid" is fine if players want to come to an agreement. There will never be a player agreement on legacy items. Devs/GMs have to make an executive decision, and the best option is the current list system.

The List (as it is) is the best we have. It's as fair as it gets.


First come, first served to get on list
No one can cheat you out of your spot on the list
No group or guild can hold the camp or list hostage or totally dominate it so others can't get on
No one can go AFK for extended periods of time
The item cannot be ninja looted
When someone makes it to #1 and it drops, it's 100% their item
When the list item drops, #1 is removed from the list and everyone moves up 1 spot. #1 cannot lie and say the item didn't drop, and keep camping the item.

[DMN]

A slot machine and a lottery aren't the same.

Camping a mob solo is a slot machine. If the numbers hit, I win.

The proposed idea to random off the item to top X people camping is a lottery on TOP of a slot machine.

Gotta hit the RNG it drops, THEN you gotta hit the RNG it goes to you.

I'm not saying RNG isn't a big part of EQ. Lottery is not. Player agreed "scout roll" and "server-wide raid" is fine if players want to come to an agreement. There will never be an agreement on legacy items. Devs/GMs have to make an executive decision, and the best option is the current list system.

The List (as it is) is the best we have. It's as fair as it gets.


No. the current list system sucks because it severely rewards non classic experience in mass account sharing which was actually against the rules in classic EQ. You got it all twisted backwards.The current system is far worse than a random one and it.s a billion years from being "fair".


Also most groups when they went to camp mob X for a drop it was usually RANDOMED amongst the group.

[cornisthebest]

list items should be no drop :)

[peterpal]

mass account sharing which was actually against the rules in classic EQ.

I was actually shocked how many people encourage it and guilds expect you to share your account with them on p99

[Tunabros]

I was actually shocked how many people encourage it and guilds expect you to share your account with them on p99

:/
people do that?
i would never do that

[Wutaan]

Kick people off the list if their IP Changes!

I say you're retarded because this is the only legitimate solution to list camp sperging and your assbergers syndrome immediately dismissed this because 'muh vpn/VM'. Account sharing list camps with 15 minute afk checks is actual cancer, increasing the afk checks to 1 hour and enforcing an anti-account sharing policy would fix all list camp issues.

(A off the top of my head solution; require eligibility for /list camps that account is linked to cellphone and /afk checks send code to phone in text)

[Castle2.0]

A: LeTs MaKe It No DrOp!
B: YeAh D00d! LeTs AlSo GiVe OnE tO EvErYonE!
A: AlSo S0000 gud!!

....would fix all list camp issues.

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

Exactly what are the "list camp issues" that need to be fixed?
Exactly how will your proposal actually do that?

BTW, adding an extra layer (code sent to cell phone) which scares off casuals is dumb. Neckbeards will remain unaffected. Send a code to their google voice account # they share with their buddies with whom they also share their account.

All these solutions are BS "free/easy pixels for all" ideas or won't affect neckbeards at all and might make it even worse for casuals.

[Castle2.0]

Here's a crazy idea to make the list less busy and would be super pro casual just like your incredibly pro-casual player ideas already....

Make Kunark list camps level 60 requirement :D Who is with me?!

[cannobeers3]

King is going to be a shitshow.

[Castle2.0]

I for one will be genteel, even-keeled, fair-minded, magnanimous, but I can't speak for the ruffians.

[kudlezz]

Imagine spending the time to write this up in response to literally nothing and no one.

[aaezil]

Manastone is a bad item though once xpac
continents drop haha also go outside

[Castle2.0]

aaezil
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,731
go outside


Manastone is a bad item though once xpac

nah, u bad. go read manadance thread, and learn more about classic ;) 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]

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]

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]

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?

[turbosilk]

I don't see a reason to /list the fungi king. You need a legit group to clear and hold the camp.

/list is a bad idea for fungi king because the FD classes are just going to FD and afk on list.

[DMN]

I don't see a reason to /list the fungi king. You need a legit group to clear and hold the camp.

/list is a bad idea for fungi king because the FD classes are just going to FD and afk on list.

The lists weren't introduced for that reason. They were intended to avoid a small group of people from monopolizing the legacy camps. Unfortunately, as I've been saying since lists have been introduced, it's just simply shifted the previous group of players to a different one, those willing and able to multi-account.

[Sabin76]

The lists weren't introduced for that reason. They were intended to avoid a small group of people from monopolizing the legacy camps. Unfortunately, as I've been saying since lists have been introduced, it's just simply shifted the previous group of players to a different one, those willing and able to multi-account.

This, and many other responses in this thread (and every other /list thread before it) highlights the problem with these kinds of discussions: The "problem" is poorly defined. If you can't agree on what the problem is, then there is no way you can agree, or even productively discuss, what the solutions should be.

[Castle2.0]

This, and many other responses in this thread (and every other /list thread before it) highlights the problem with these kinds of discussions: The "problem" is poorly defined. If you can't agree on what the problem is, then there is no way you can agree, or even productively discuss, what the solutions should be. This. People have different interests and weigh them differently, and all of these typically reflect their own personal interests. (i.e. casuals want it to be more casual-accessible, even if it really shouldn't be)

People have different interests...

Player health
Capable to be camped by casuals
"Fair" access by all
Winning items "fairly" (how much RNG, how much merit via participation and/or time)


A lot of the above are about "fairness" and it seems everyone has their own idea of "fair"

[adichi]

A lot of the above are about "fairness" and it seems everyone has their own idea of "fair"

Fair just means how can it benefit themselves the most, people are selfish like that. Either way high valued items will get monopolized if a top tier guild wants to monopolize it, regardless of everyone else's feelings. The beauty/ugly nature of this game compared to an instanced game like wow is that it inherits the rules of nature, strong will thrive weak will die and Darwinism will always prevail.

Either GMs hand hold the players to prevents guild from alternating groups at camps, or let the player base figure it out and fight for it themselves, either way nobody will be satisfied. That's just the nature of the game I suppose

[DMN]

If you are in camp radius you get a purely random chance to win it if it drops.
12 hour lockout if you drop off the list.
Lifetime lockout once you get the item.

Solved.

[Jibartik]

Everquest was never supposed to be a fair fight! :o

[Castle2.0]

If you are in camp radius you get a purely random chance to win it if it drops.
12 hour lockout if you drop off the list.
Lifetime lockout once you get the item.

Solved. This is even worse - now the neckbeards don't even need to pay attention. Neckbeards can make and level more toons. Manastone camp was same people, different toons. Do you know how many level 35 anonymous/unguilded, largely ungeared toons I found at Manastone camp? AFK checks held back the neckbeard swarm from overrunning that place. But lifetime lockout ain't gonna stop them from their current level of insanity.

Do you know how many top raiders already have a 2nd or 3rd level 50 just to ding 52 then park at Vox/Naggy when Kunark goes live?

"If you're in Blackburrow you may randomly get awarded a gnoll fang regardless of killing anything, time spent in zone, etc." Love this. I know exactly where to AFK my level 7 barb shaman.

[Ravager]

I just had a crazy idea... if you don't like it, then don't do it. There's plenty of other fun shit to do.

[DMN]

This is even worse - now the neckbeards don't even need to pay attention. Neckbeards can make and level more toons. Manastone camp was same people, different toons. Do you know how many level 35 anonymous/unguilded, largely ungeared toons I found at Manastone camp? AFK checks held back the neckbeard swarm from overrunning that place. But lifetime lockout ain't gonna stop them from their current level of insanity.

Do you know how many top raiders already have a 2nd or 3rd level 50 just to ding 52 then park at Vox/Naggy when Kunark goes live?

"If you're in Blackburrow you may randomly get awarded a gnoll fang regardless of killing anything, time spent in zone, etc." Love this. I know exactly where to AFK my level 7 barb shaman.

LOL. no one is going to get 2. They will still have to level the second character up to 55-56.. probably what the list will be set at. So they gonna grind 1 guy to 55-56 then camp forever to get a staff then grind another to 55-56 and hit jackpot twice in the sort window the item is going to be available? Nope. just not happening.


Anyway I wasn't saying do away with AFK checks either. Though i think they could be improved.

[Jibartik]

EQ is like christmas morning, there are sparkly treasures everywhere, but after you open them all its just a regular morning.

Aiding players when it comes to obtaining these items imo was a mistake, one I thought was a very smart choice back when we did it.

Like most things that history proves were a mistke, lists were made with great intentions.

[DMN]

EQ is like christmas morning, there are sparkly treasures everywhere, but after you open them all its just a regular morning.

Aiding players when it comes to obtaining these items imo was a mistake, one I thought was a very smart choice back when we did it.

Like most things that history proves were a mistke, lists were made with great intentions.

I'm not sure how you can make this claim since you have no idea the outcome of an alternative. Also, I can certainly say the need for GM/guide intervention due these lists most likely made a huge difference for them at least.

[Jibartik]

The alternative is that you dont obtain the legacy item you were hoping to obtain. Im very familiar with that.

I for one did not get one I wanted my whole life, and now looking back Im glad I can still lust after it, so I kind of do know the alternative. I also know that after obtaining things I wanted in this game for 20 years, on p99, that I do not enjoy it as much as I did for 19 years leading up to obtaining em.

Im glad I still do not have a decked out ranger dark elf or a lustrous russet shaman.

Here I am only saying that perhaps "getting what you want" is less rewarding in this game game as simply "enjoying the journey"

[douglas1999]

Still haven't read a good argument as to why taking some measure to throttle account sharing would be bad. It would dissuade a non-zero percentage of neckbeards. I do not think it would encourage *additional* neckbeards as some kind of fuck you dad, but maybe that is the case? It's speculative.

[douglas1999]

I mean specifically for lists btw, not for account sharing generally. While it is also kinda lame it's a reality here.

[Wutaan]

It's not speculative, limiting account sharing would be a fix but the current system has put in an automated system that is concrete, they reduced their already overwhelmingly ridiculous petition que by a huge amount.

/list is what it is and it is here to stay, it's not perfect but it's better than the alternative. If the community as a whole really starts to hate it then we will really make that known when people have to take a 50+ to a camp. Mob justice is the only thing that keeps an illusion of order in every country that aren't European.

[Castle2.0]

Still haven't read a good argument as to why taking some measure to throttle account sharing would be bad. Because the mechanisms offered so far wouldn't stop the small group of elite /listers and it would have negative impact on at least some casuals.

limiting account sharing would be a fix What exact mechanism should be used to limit account sharing? So far we've heard IP cannot change - but VPN or shared VM (don't even need to log out of the character on this one.) VPN much more likely and accessible to even the brain dead.

Anything else?

I'm all for limiting account sharing, but I can't see how it would be done well.

[Wutaan]

I for one will be genteel, even-keeled, fair-minded, magnanimous, but I can't speak for the ruffians.

Haha, man I wish you talked on discord. I talk a lot of shit to Mannastone but i've played with him and this analytical autism reflects in game. He is a very good and attentive player that is having an internal conflict 100% of the time there is an efficiency discretion. Which is hilarious because Black Lotus (have a lot of very good players) are generally casual and laid back asf, letting people play the way they want to as long as they aren't wiping the raid.

Meanwhile, Mannastone is a caricature of twitch on South Park desperately trying not to be THAT guy. Never change Manna.

[Castle2.0]

Haha, man I wish you talked on discord. I talked once. No one believed it was me - I didn't have a Chinese accent.

I am one of the most laid back people on a raid. So chill in fact, people thought I was dead..... So, I did what any person would do: I got my heart monitor hooked up via API to #mannastone-alive discord channel that beeps a notification every time my heart beats and pops out a systolic / diastolic update every minute. I've analyzed the results to know when my heart rate is most elevated with a timestamp. Using those timestamps, I review the footage of my local stream capture to review the game footage to see the zone I am, looking for the functions my character is performing, the texts I am receiving (with AI sentiment analysis ofc), etc.

I have not only proven that although I am chill beyond belief, I am in fact alive, and I have, through diligent analysis and application of my findings, improved my overall play experience with 5.6% more "exciting play." My next goal is to increase the number of people subscribed to #mannastone-alive channel.

Never change Manna. Noted.

[Wutaan]

My toon on green is Selasen btw, I haven't played in months but I had some time off so I rolled a rogue

[Castle2.0]

Heyo! Rogue name?

[Wutaan]

Sliverr, lvl 18