How was /list received on Green?

[Tilien]

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

Just want to reiterate that switching to randomness solves nearly everything people complain about.

Want to take a break and not sit there for 24+ hours? Great: take your break, and when you come back you have just as much random chance as when you left.

Are people cheating list afk checks? Well, even if they aren't, everyone hated afk checks ... but in a random system, there are no afk checks. Your "afk check" is that you could win the roll, but if you're afk and don't kill the mob in X minutes, there's another roll and you lose your chance.

Is some low-level sitting in the manstone list? Great! If they win the random roll, they have X minutes to kill the mob ... and then if they can't, there's another random roll. Everyone else is only inconvenienced X minutes, and pretty soon people will learn there's no point in having a low-level sit-in line.

Same deal for beads camp: you can sit there and not help, but then there won't be any random rolls and you'll be sitting a long time. Everyone at the camp has a stake in clearing the holgresh, because everyone has a chance of winning the random roll.

Now, I'm not against making these items lore, and obviously the Holgresh /list boundaries could use some improvement, but overall I think the vast majority of /list issues would be solved with a random system.

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.

[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.

[Castle2.0]

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

Just want to reiterate that switching to randomness solves nearly everything people complain about.

Want to take a break and not sit there for 24+ hours? Great: take your break, and when you come back you have just as much random chance as when you left.

Are people cheating list afk checks? Well, even if they aren't, everyone hated afk checks ... but in a random system, there are no afk checks. Your "afk check" is that you could win the roll, but if you're afk and don't kill the mob in X minutes, there's another roll and you lose your chance.

Is some low-level sitting in the manstone list? Great! If they win the random roll, they have X minutes to kill the mob ... and then if they can't, there's another random roll. Everyone else is only inconvenienced X minutes, and pretty soon people will learn there's no point in having a low-level sit-in line.

Same deal for beads camp: you can sit there and not help, but then there won't be any random rolls and you'll be sitting a long time. Everyone at the camp has a stake in clearing the holgresh, because everyone has a chance of winning the random roll.

Now, I'm not against making these items lore, and obviously the Holgresh /list boundaries could use some improvement, but overall I think the vast majority of /list issues would be solved with a random system.

This has been discussed before. The answer was no. Move along, pleb.

Failing an afk check after 56 hours, at #1, while at my computer, with fraps on, while chatting in group and voice.

System is aids, driving you to the edge of whats healthy and beyond.

Did maybe 500hrs of /list combined soloing, and assisting/getting assistance from others for all the usual camps. Absolutely unhealthy nonsense.

Gnome warrior? I was there when that guy failed at #1. Twas sad, but also epic.

[Solist]

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.

Gnome warrior? I was there when that guy failed at #1. Twas sad, but also epic.

The gnome warrior was also mine if it was on teal. We were camping them on both. Friend of mine failed an afk check at #1. But we got stone within 18hrs again. Blue was 56hrs fail then 52hrs to redo, human cle Dont.

[Castle2.0]

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

The gnome warrior was also mine if it was on teal. We were camping them on both. Friend of mine failed an afk check at #1. But we got stone within 18hrs again. Blue was 56hrs fail then 52hrs to redo, human cle Dont.

Yep, on Teal

*moment of silence*

[red_demonman]

List was flawed in that it required people to unhealthily stay up for over 24hrs to get the item. Some of these lists were hitting 3+ days (manastone) which requires swapping or cheating.

The other issue with the list is the minimum levels. A lot of times you had people show up that just could not manage the camp at level 35, this was more an issue at rubi bp camp.

A lot of this could be mitigated if they wanted to just increase the % chance for the item to drop and keep the current system or replace it with a system that requires whoever is #1 on list to be able to kill it or be removed and allow #2 and beyond to afk.

[Swish]

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

List was flawed in that it required people to unhealthily stay up for over 24hrs to get the item.

"Back in the day" if you wanted a cleric epic you were doing this if you weren't in a big guild.