How was /list received on Green?

[loramin]

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.

A well-detailed, well-reasoned, and insightful rebuttal [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

My only problem with this is that different classes can solo different content at different levels (duh). From my experience on Live I could join a group as a cleric and get an equal roll on an item without being able to solo kill level appropriate nameds.

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.

[Castle2.0]

A well-detailed, well-reasoned, and insightful rebuttal

Yes, it was. That's my point lol. I addressed all the hare-brained ideas, it's not worth re-arguing a finished argument: "Why every list change idea is terrible (as simple as possible)" https://project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=368086

Conclusion (aka the TL;DR):

You can't change the item stats, drop rate, spawn rate, or difficulty of camp. Removing/reducing AFK checks or physical presence requirements 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.

[Castle2.0]

A few gems from that thread lol

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.

Drake meme is resposne to people calling for some IP-lock mechanism.

[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.