[loramin]

I'm advocating a major, high-level shift, and I've deliberately tried to avoid "getting into the weeds" so we can focus on what's important (do we want a meritocratic "EverQuest-y" system, or a "threshold system"?)

But ...

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So guy that shows up for 5 minutes wins the roll I guess.

Yes ... just like the guy who lucks out and gets his Guardian Robe after killing one mob in Skyshrine, he can "win the roll" even though you've just killed 999 Skyshrine mobs. Shit's EverQuest.

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How does that take into account the people actively camping the item? holding it down and doing all the work?

I have never seen a camp in eq where holding it down and doing the work allowed others to come in and /random on the goods.

/list 1.0 already addresses this. /list 2.0 could solve it in multiple ways (as I previously outlined). Either it could go "full player agreement mode" and no one could get a new mob until the old was cleared ("forcing" people to help) ... or (and I think this is more EverQuest-y) "winning the roll" could only give you a window to kill the mob: fail to do so and there's a new roll, so someone who can kill it can do so.

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Is scout a camp?

/list 1.0 was very deliberately only applied to legacy items, because it was new and the staff wanted to "dip their toe" into the water of "automated GMing". I see no reason to change that, and so I'd start with /list 2.0 only applying to legacy item camps.

But ultimately, yeah I think having the server enforce an ("EverQuest-y") system would be superior to player agreements. For instance, a server-enforced system with a window could remove the need for people to help with fights (which as I've said, is necessary to make the agreement work ... but who remembers Scout working that way on live?).

Of course, for the "roll mobs" specifically P99 would require custom code to "give" the fight to another player if the first fails, and this is the sort of detail that would need to be worked out if/when this system ever made it that far (some people might argue that's more or less "EverQuest-Y" than the player agreement system; I'd argue it's more, but again I don't want to get lost in details).

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are we redefining what is and what isn't a camp because of a manastone?

Again, I'm talking about /list, and currently /list is legacy item camps. But I could absolutely see great benefit to extending the system elsewhere in the game ... it's just that the details of how it's implemented matter, and those details would need to be sorted out to make it applicable. Hadden is different from the Evil Eye, who's different from the Fungus King, who is different from an NPC (like Scout) you have to turn something into.

Which leads to ...

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

sheiit, put me down for a Fungi.. i will sit in the corner with my rogue and watch porn while some other fools do all the hard work.. alls I gotta do is /random and get lucky

While the details would have to be worked out, obviously it would need to address that sort of thing. One already-discussed mechanism to do so would be the window (good luck killing that king by yourself ...)

Ultimately, I'm not saying "let's change everything overnight without thinking", but I am arguing for a high-level change to make P99 more classic, expressed first through a superior (2.0) version of /list ... with the idea being that the principle could ultimately be used elsewhere.