List Integrity

[Legidias]

Nah, lituviel needs to farm a manastone for his 4th box account, i mean friend

[slayer69]

Why fight with 2 year olds? Win or lose, in the end, you’re still fighting with 2 year olds!

The list doesn’t give you “the camp”. It only gives you loot rights for one specific item. #1 on the list doesn’t own the camp. This, and just about every other scenario was discussed before green and teal went live.

Meet the rules of the list and do your thing... stop worrying about the haters.

Although, I will admit, this is entertaining!

[Juntsie]

Juntsie try ta review dis thread fer proffering objective, troll opinion, but head start hurting after half-minute, so Juntsie just go crawl in hole and sleep.

Ancient shiny loots dumb anyway. Now, if dere were only gnomes left for eating for one year, Juntsie would understand. But dumb stone? How it even help??? Help keep regular? No understand da squishies these days.

[nenja]

I posted this in the sticky outlining the List system, and I'm just now seeing this thread, so I figure I'll share the same sentiments here.

Rather than devising mechanics to account for and accommodate the countless ways players will potentially try to game/abuse the system, would it not just make the most sense for any qualifying player (i.e. appropriate level, in zone) be allowed to loot a 'copy' of the item. I.e. The corpse remains for the usual time and every player on the list can loot the corpse to receive a copy of the item? Perhaps keep the one week lockout for those items that are not NO DROP.

I realize this would affect the economy of certain items (e.g. Manastone), but at the end of the day, what are we really accomplishing by creating an unnecessary gate on some of these items? I'm not sure a perceived sense of prestige is a good reason. Overall player enjoyment should be the prevailing principle and while this list system is certainly better than the default behavior, I am not sure either really makes sense. If we all walk away happy, I don't think anyone is going to complain for a moment that some number of other players were also able to receive an item.

The original system exists solely because the producer wanted to ensure players needed to continue to pump revenue into their coffers through continued subs. Keeping a flawed system for the sake of trying to stay true to the original version of the game doesn't always make sense. In other words, doing something because it's always been done a certain way doesn't make it right or, as is often the case here, fun.

[aaezil]

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

I posted this in the sticky outlining the List system, and I'm just now seeing this thread, so I figure I'll share the same sentiments here.

Rather than devising mechanics to account for and accommodate the countless ways players will potentially try to game/abuse the system, would it not just make the most sense for any qualifying player (i.e. appropriate level, in zone) be allowed to loot a 'copy' of the item. I.e. The corpse remains for the usual time and every player on the list can loot the corpse to receive a copy of the item? Perhaps keep the one week lockout for those items that are not NO DROP.

I realize this would affect the economy of certain items (e.g. Manastone), but at the end of the day, what are we really accomplishing by creating an unnecessary gate on some of these items? I'm not sure a perceived sense of prestige is a good reason. Overall player enjoyment should be the prevailing principle and while this list system is certainly better than the default behavior, I am not sure either really makes sense. If we all walk away happy, I don't think anyone is going to complain for a moment that some number of other players were also able to receive an item.

The original system exists solely because the producer wanted to ensure players needed to continue to pump revenue into their coffers through continued subs. Keeping a flawed system for the sake of trying to stay true to the original version of the game doesn't always make sense. In other words, doing something because it's always been done a certain way doesn't make it right or, as is often the case here, fun.

The most sick here (dannyl, detoxx, maner types) derive their only enjoyment in EQ from “denying other’s pixels” - their words not mine. Locking down content had been a “feature” of p99 backed by staff forever now sadly thats just the reality. Theres no “competiton” left if everyone gets free pixels in their / the staffs eyes.

[nenja]

A compromise, then, could be to allow #1 to receive the item and everyone else on the list have a certain chance (e.g. 30% or something) of also getting a copy. This is similar to other games' loot systems (e.g. WOW) and I can tell you from personal experience that it make an immense difference in addressing these types of issues.

I would like to believe we can enact change if we encourage and push for better mechanics and not allow a few vocal people dictate them for all. As someone else said much earlier in the thread, this is one reason raid rules are as obscene as they are. Non-instanced raid bosses is the root of it, but that's for another discussion.

[Rooj]

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

I don't think anyone is going to complain for a moment that some number of other players were also able to receive an item.

You are so incredibly wrong about this. Part of the reason people play Everquest on P99 is its harsh and "hardcore" nature, and the difficulty of obtaining rare items.

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

Overall player enjoyment should be the prevailing principle

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

In other words, doing something because it's always been done a certain way doesn't make it right or, as is often the case here, fun.

The staff is trying to recreate Classic EQ - even with all of its issues, even with all of the things that aren't "fun." And many of the players are here for those same reasons. Everyone and their mother running around with a Manastone is not Classic. IMO we probably are already at a non-Classic amount of Manastones.

Do I want QoL features? Yes, but I know they go against the design philosophy of the P99 staff, so I will never expect them, and is one reason I play TLP from time to time. The fact that there is even a list system for legacy items is a pretty fucking incredible spectacle, something people should be way way way more grateful for.

There are things I hate about P99 and things I hate about TLP, and things I love about both, sadly can't have it both ways.

[nenja]

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

You are so incredibly wrong about this. Part of the reason people play Everquest on P99 is its harsh and "hardcore" nature, and the difficulty of obtaining rare items.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "so incredibly wrong." I do agree we want rare items to exist and have meaning when we obtain them. For this reason, I think a % chance system is better than this /list feature. It's a poor solution, really, to an already poor mechanic. I definitely appreciate that the staff is trying to make a change, but this was shortsighted.

[Phaezed-Reality]

hmm nenja, i never thought of verant that way. interesting theory about making items hard to get to profit more. or was that sony at the time? i dont even remember anymore

[Meiva]

Some wont be happy with that. Epeen is all they have left now. Thank goodness they are only the vocal minority. I think yours is just too generous. EQ isn't known for being too generous.

Remove list and do not ever remove manastone drop. It's no longer legacy.