Quote:
Originally Posted by Mblake81
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
'Someone else will kill it, they will be incentivized to so they can get the next one"
the other guy is thinking the same thing. Oh, is this a GM enforced thing? you say it wont compel but you will have to have some rules such as if you don't help you can't be on the list for 2 weeks, then a month then perma banned from it.
Adding more workload to GMs to keep up with this petty crap. You could have joined any of the top guilds, showed up when you wanted to, got your DKP but you stayed butt chapped on Blue.
Then you cried because the big bag GMs took your teal, now you want communist pixels.
|
You're in fight mode, so you're reading what I write to try and find something to argue with, instead of actually trying to understand what I'm saying as one human to another. This is making you miss the answers to your own posts.
I already said I
don't think the "you must help" option is best. I think it's the best possible option
for a player-enforced agreement, because giving a window and then re-rolling would be far more organization than the players can muster (I say this as one of the people who founded the Shady Goblin roll: you have no freaking idea just how difficult that was to start even with its extremely simple rules!)
I think player agreements are a great model though, so I think list should mostly work like them. I just think that instead of forcing everyone to help (not "EverQuest-y", but necessary for a
player solution) an official /list solution could instead provide a window, and if the roll winner doesn't kill the mob in that window, they lose the mob and a new roll gives it to someone else.
As for this being "communist"? I want the EverQuest to be EverQuest, you want it to be this non-EverQuest game created to combat advanced player knowledge. I think the latter is more communist: the core EQ system is a meritocracy.