Player Agreement: Rule Change at the DS Camp

[berbax]

Originally Posted by magicfest2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This discussion seems to be a bit stuck due to a similar issue to what I mentioned in passing earlier — you seem quite good at completely ignoring things that are explained in great detail, or else mentioning them and then redirecting discussion away immediately as if they were resolved.

1) Even if I thought change was a good idea, /list isn’t it. List is actually so much worse than even the status quo — the list system is probably *the single most toxic system on p99* and the most detrimental to player health that you claim to be concerned with. Instead of allowing for people to swap out and help each other, one single character must be online and active for the entire camp period, which is absolutely insane. I did the list for Summon Corpse when ST tried to lock it down before Sky opening, and I was literally playing 12h/day and swapping out with an IRL friend for the other 12, and maintained our spot on the list for TWO FULL WEEKS. I still wake up sometimes in sweats thinking I missed an afk check. No person should be subjected to that kind of trauma. As you can see too, all it did was advantage guilds that had shared credentials for bots they could pass out and share the effort. Since the item in both cases is essentially free to trade (or MQ) there is no problem just using any random shared bot for this. Continuing to mention /list as a viable alternative makes it impossible for me to take your posts seriously.

2) Multiple people have tried to explain some Economics 101 concepts but you still appear to not get it. The supply is fixed. The demand is larger than supply. Changing who gets the item does not affect the price. Maybe with an example it would be easier:

* Players A, B, C are a farm crew.
* Players D-Z want urns for SWC.


In the case where players A/B/C each get an urn over the course of a week:

* 3 Urns are sold with 23 prospective buyers.

In the case where players A/B/C don’t even play, and D/E/F get urns there are multiple outcomes as well:

* D/E/F all use their urns for SWC. Zero urns are sold this week. Players G-Z are buying but the market supply is empty.
* D uses urn and E/F sell. 2 urns are available for 21 prospective buyers.

In either case, there are still a ton of buyers and very limited availability. Thus in both cases, the price is actually likely to go up since the urn:buyer ratio gets worse!
Unless you think the drop rate of urns matches the number of prospective buyers, the price will not drop significantly or possibly at all. This example still works even if we limit the interested parties down to D-M or something, it really doesn’t matter unless the supply meets or exceeds demand.

3. Random is bad for all the reasons people have mentioned, which it hurts me to repeat, but in summary:

* there are no enforceable prerequisites to roll
* the drop is not guaranteed, in fact statistically from our large sample set it seems closer to 20-25% — even if I was rolling against 10-20 people like at ring 8, winning for a 25% chance is dumb, it’s random on top of random
* it would need something like the scout/angry agreement that everyone rolling must help with the kill, which is difficult to enforce (I see people /q at both every time already) and if you’ve done scout much, you can see how hilariously badly it can go even in a relatively safe environment, while DS is train central and can be an exceedingly difficult recovery

In conclusion: my opinion is that the only rational option for change would be an equity based system like URN, which is very similar actually to how my current group operates, just with more open membership. I’d probably be fine with that. However, I don’t ACTUALLY think anything needs to change other than having the current player agreement clarified and more consistently enforced. Sure, Castle is holding it now, but I say this as their direct competition: good for them! They organized well and they’re doing something impressive as a group in an MMO. Eventually they’ll get tired or slip up or realize that very few people ever actually camped there for more than 12 hours and it will go back to trading hands on the regular. And hey, it seems like a bunch of them are getting urns to use for their quest (not resale), so literally the only thing that would change if you got your way is which people got their SWC, to random people instead of people putting in effort. We care about this… why?

I have not been ignoring key details; I’ve been trying to address the main issues raised, so I'll go ahead and continue with yours.

List System Concerns:
I understand your concerns about the list system's toxicity. However, the current system also promotes unhealthy behavior by encouraging 24/7 camping. A well-designed roll or list system with proper breaks and shared efforts can mitigate these issues. It’s about finding a balanced solution. As already mentioned many times, random has be implemented for other parts of the quest chain.

Economics of Supply and Demand:
Your economic argument misses the impact of monopolization. When a single guild controls the camp, they manipulate supply to keep prices high. By democratizing access, we reduce monopolistic control, which can help stabilize prices. This isn’t about basic supply and demand; it’s about addressing artificial scarcity created by monopolization.

Random Roll:
Enforceability and drop rates are valid concerns, but they can be managed with community agreements and GM support, as seen in other successful camps. The goal is to ensure fair participation without creating chaos.

Regarding the insult about not understanding economics, I’m well aware of supply and demand principles. My argument focuses on how monopolization distorts these principles, leading to artificially high prices. A fairer system would address this distortion. If you feel you'd like a response to anything further feel free to let me know. I see you already voted "No", so if any of this changes your decision that would be great, if not then thanks for you feedback.

[Otsego]

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

However, the current system also promotes unhealthy behavior by encouraging 24/7 camping. A well-designed roll or list system with proper breaks and shared efforts can mitigate these issues. It’s about finding a balanced solution. As already mentioned many times, random has be implemented for other parts of the quest chain.

I feel you're a bit misguided in this way of thinking. I understand that from a solo player perspective, the idea of you having to camp a 24 hour spawn feels quite unhealthy, since that burden falls entirely on you to maintain presence and hold the camp over that day. But the same is not true for the groups/guilds/alliances holding the camp, the ones you are trying to prevent by your agreement.

At least with our group, we split the burden of covering long hours by having people rotate in and out based on their free time and real life commitments. They can literally pop online and offline at any time, even if they only contribute for 5 minutes at a time. The team actually creates a more healthy environment for them because the entire burden does not fall on them.

It has also had the benefit of creating friendships within guilds/communities that did not exist prior to the group forming. Normally we saw each other on raids, did our roles, then left and did other things. We may talk in passing while in groups, but it was never at the level it has been while camping Drusella. This has been a deeper bonding experience and each person allowing the others around them to share the burden of maintaining the camp. People begin to work around each other's schedules and availability. People log on to help or take over for others. This has fostered friendships and deeper bonds within our alliance and has been a positive and healthy experience.

A /random system like at angry would just promote people looking for easy RNG-based profit, a jackpot - it introduces greed where greed wasn't even the focus before (at least for our group, who is looking to help each other complete their quests and become stronger). It would definitely cause more urns to hit the market - you are correct - but who is to say that's even a good thing? Multiquesting and the selling of MQs, if anything, is discouraged by the GMs and they will not help you if your MQ goes wrong. Its just bypassing the need to do the quest yourself, usually in exchange for platinum. I don't judge anyone who goes this route - it's fine, but you're acting like MQs are an entitlement or the greater good here - at the direct expense of those genuinely trying to complete the quest themselves legitimately.

I've said this previously, but you keep acting like this is the same as Angry or Shady Goblin rolls, just because they are in the same quest chain. When both of those require you to be factioned in order to participate and you also prove you are at that point in the quest line by having the item to be turned in to both of those mobs.

That is not the same for Drusella. You do not have to prove you are factioned to loot an urn off the boss. You do not have to prove you have even completed the Regal Band quest. Absolutely anybody can come just to /random if they have the key to zone in.

That means you're gonna have 100-200 people, some utilizing their IP exemptions, all trying to levitate into east (and failing), causing trains, and even those that make it will have one of their invis's drop, or not even know they need double invis, or can double invis to begin with, and there's just going to be a bloodbath in the east wing, with people trying to recover their corpses and making things worse in the process. That's not even considering the trains that are not accidental. How about the people who see the opportunity to kill dozens of people? There are so many ways to cause trains into the east wing without much or any proof that it came from you.

And then what happens to all the people who win but no urn drops? "Oh well"

That's a good system? You could theoretically let a winner carry over to future days until an urn drops, but that person may not show up. Or they may lie and say no urn dropped when one did. There's too much room for players to abuse the system, but the worst part is going to be the zone turning into train city at all hours of the day because a lottery is now being held there. People will try to park during off hours and fail, so it won't only affect Drusella's spawn hour.

More than likely though your dice roll victory only affects the Drusella that spawns that day, so you take your shot and might walk away empty handed - the difference there though is that the victory will not often translate into you completing that part of the quest, where with the already implemented dice rolls it does guarantee that.

Have you even considered any of this? Or are you only concerned about your solo perspective in a zone that is meant to be for group content and teamwork?

This game is not meant to coddle you or cater to your desires for easy access to things. When you look at Everquest camps overall, you can easily make the argument that most of them are a timesink and likely a little bit unhealthy. You know this going in though.. it's not a secret that this game is brutal in those ways. A lot of us like that aspect of it. If we wanted easy mode we'd have played WoW or other games instead.

[berbax]

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

I feel you're a bit misguided in this way of thinking. I understand that from a solo player perspective, the idea of you having to camp a 24 hour spawn feels quite unhealthy, since that burden falls entirely on you to maintain presence and hold the camp over that day. But the same is not true for the groups/guilds/alliances holding the camp, the ones you are trying to prevent by your agreement. At least with our group, we split the burden of covering long hours by having people rotate in and out based on their free time and real life commitments. They can literally pop online and offline at any time, even if they only contribute for 5 minutes at a time. The team actually creates a **more healthy** environment for them because the entire burden does not fall on them.

It has also had the benefit of creating friendships within guilds/communities that did not exist prior to the group forming. Normally we saw each other on raids, did our roles, then left and did other things. We may talk in passing while in groups, but it was never at the level it has been while camping Drusella. This has been a deeper bonding experience and each person allowing the others around them to share the burden of maintaining the camp. People begin to work around each other's schedules and availability. People log on to help or take over for others. This has fostered friendships and deeper bonds within our alliance and has been a positive and healthy experience.

A /random system like at angry would just promote people looking for easy RNG-based profit, a jackpot - it introduces greed where greed wasn't even the focus before (at least for our group, who is looking to help each other complete their quests and become stronger). It would definitely cause more urns to hit the market - you are correct - but who is to say that's even a good thing? Multiquesting and the selling of MQs, if anything, is discouraged by the GMs and they will not help you if your MQ goes wrong. Its just bypassing the need to do the quest yourself, usually in exchange for platinum. I don't judge anyone who goes this route - it's fine, but you're acting like MQs are an entitlement or the greater good here - at the direct expense of those genuinely trying to complete the quest themselves legitimately.

I've said this previously, but you keep acting like this is the same as Angry or Shady Goblin rolls, just because they are in the same quest chain. When both of those require you to be factioned in order to participate and you also prove you are at that point in the quest line by having the item to be turned in to both of those mobs.

That is not the same for Drusella. You do not have to prove you are factioned to loot an urn off the boss. You do not have to prove you have even completed the Regal Band quest. Absolutely anybody can come just to /random if they have the key to zone in.

That means you're gonna have 100-200 people, some utilizing their IP exemptions, all trying to levitate into east (and failing), causing trains, and even those that make it will have one of their invis's drop, or not even know they need double invis, or can double invis to begin with, and there's just going to be a bloodbath in the east wing, with people trying to recover their corpses and making things worse in the process. That's not even considering the trains that are not accidental. How about the people who see the opportunity to kill dozens of people? There are so many ways to cause trains into the east wing without much or any proof that it came from you.

And then what happens to all the people who win but no urn drops? "Oh well"

That's a good system? You could theoretically let a winner carry over to future days until an urn drops, but that person may not show up. Or they may lie and say no urn dropped when one did. There's too much room for players to abuse the system, but the worst part is going to be the zone turning into train city at all hours of the day because a lottery is now being held there. People will try to park during off hours and fail, so it won't only affect Drusella's spawn hour.

Have you even considered any of this? Or are you only concerned about your "solo perspective" in a zone that is meant to be for group content and teamwork

Otsego, I appreciate that your group may be having a positive experience camping DS, but it’s important to consider how this impacts the rest of the community. While your group benefits from sharing the burden and fostering deeper bonds, this system effectively monopolizes the camp, making it inaccessible to others who aren’t part of these organized groups.

If you’re part of Castle, as it seems you may be, this might explain why you’re having a good experience right now. But this setup isn’t creating a positive environment for anyone outside of GG, Castle, or sometimes Kingdom, who historically are dominating the camp. It’s crucial to recognize that the broader community isn’t sharing in these benefits, they’re instead being locked out.

My focus is on finding a solution that works for everyone, ensuring that all players have a fair chance, whether they’re in a group like yours or not. That’s why I’m currently looking into the Blue URN system, as it may provide a more balanced open approach.

Lastly, my solo journey at DS has ended (as I've mentioned many times now), my goal is to address a much broader issue that promotes fairness and community health.

Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[Otsego]

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

Otsego, I appreciate that your group may be having a positive experience camping DS, but it’s important to consider how this impacts the rest of the community. While your group benefits from sharing the burden and fostering deeper bonds, this system effectively monopolizes the camp, making it inaccessible to others who aren’t part of these organized groups.

You can choose to play the game solo, or not part of any group/team. But the burden falls on you to compensate for your self-imposed hard mode.

Groups are how it was intended to clear this content.

If you want to do it solo, you have my full support, but you have to step up and compete. Trying to get the rules changed to some RNG system to benefit you is not the answer, it's a cop-out.

(Absolutely no bad feelings toward you or anyone else here, I am just extremely blunt.)

[Otsego]

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

Economics of Supply and Demand:
Your economic argument misses the impact of monopolization. When a single guild controls the camp, they manipulate supply to keep prices high. By democratizing access, we reduce monopolistic control, which can help stabilize prices. This isn’t about basic supply and demand; it’s about addressing artificial scarcity created by monopolization.

Again.. a bit misguided

No matter what you do, Drusella only spawns X number of times and drops Y number of urns at some percentage (lets be generous and say between 20-40%)

That doesn't change. Change the system all you want, but the community is only receiving that many urns for players to utilize.

If a system changes the urns from going from the hands of players willing to put in effort to players who win a RNG dice roll.. the demand for the urns does not change. All that changes is those players who were camping it now need to buy their urn instead, keep showing up to the dice roll, or give up on the quest entirely - which would be a shame, but would begin to happen a lot more often. It would balance out though, to be fair, because those not willing to put in effort would also receive urns.

Is it a good thing to move the urns from those willing to put in effort to those who are not?

That aside - no, we are not "monopolizing" in order to "manipulate supply and keep prices high". Don't think a single one of us even cares about the prices on the open market. We are farming to complete the quest and not have to buy from people who farm just to resell for their own profit.

(Not trying to villainize anyone who does this, it's fine, it's your time/effort, so it's your choice if you convert that into platinum - more power to you.)

The point is that the number of urns is not changing and those who previously farmed will still be in the pool of demand. So supply is stable.. demand is stable.. why would the market price change?

If anything, I'd actually make the argument that the supply of urns goes down. At least some who win the dice roll will leave the urn rotting in their bank, or intend to sell it but never sell it - maybe holding onto it for when prices raise in the future - who knows. They may intend to use it "someday" if they ever get factioned, but never do. They may win, then suddenly decide to quit or go inactive.

The thing changing here is that urns are going from people who were willing to put in the effort to farm them (immediate need), to people who may only be showing up to win a lottery/dice roll - people who may not even want the urn themselves.

Scarcity is not created by this "monopolization" you claim exists - at least not with my group. Scarcity exists because it's a 24 hour spawn and a low drop rate.

Nothing in your post here will ever change that. All I've seen is you using scare tactics to try to manipulate people into changing how it works so it better suits your solo play style.

I get it, I don't even hold that against you. It does suck potentially having to hold a 24 hour camp solo or with limited resources. Welcome to Everquest.

[berbax]

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

Again.. a bit misguided

No matter what you do, Drusella only spawns X number of times and drops Y number of urns at some percentage (lets be generous and say between 20-40%)

That doesn't change. Change the system all you want, but the community is only receiving that many urns for players to utilize.

If a system changes the urns from going from the hands of players willing to put in effort to players who win a RNG dice roll.. the demand for the urns does not change. All that changes is those players who were camping it now need to buy their urn instead, keep showing up to the dice roll, or give up on the quest entirely - which would be a shame, but would begin to happen a lot more often. It would balance out though, to be fair, because those not willing to put in effort would also receive urns.

Is it a good thing to move the urns from those willing to put in effort to those who are not?

That aside - no, we are not "monopolizing" in order to "manipulate supply and keep prices high". Don't think a single one of us even cares about the prices on the open market. We are farming to complete the quest and not have to buy from people who farm just to resell for their own profit.

(Not trying to villainize anyone who does this, it's fine, it's your time/effort, so it's your choice if you convert that into platinum - more power to you.)

The point is that the number of urns is not changing and those who previously farmed will still be in the pool of demand. So supply is stable.. demand is stable.. why would the market price change?

If anything, I'd actually make the argument that the supply of urns goes down. At least some who win the dice roll will leave the urn rotting in their bank, or intend to sell it but never sell it - maybe holding onto it for when prices raise in the future - who knows. They may intend to use it "someday" if they ever get factioned, but never do. They may win, then suddenly decide to quit or go inactive.

The thing changing here is that urns are going from people who were willing to put in the effort to farm them (immediate need), to people who may only be showing up to win a lottery/dice roll - people who may not even want the urn themselves.

Scarcity is not created by this "monopolization" you claim exists - at least not with my group. Scarcity exists because it's a 24 hour spawn and a low drop rate.

Nothing in your post here will ever change that. All I've seen is you using scare tactics to try to manipulate people into changing how it works so it better suits your solo play style.

I get it, I don't even hold that against you. It does suck potentially having to hold a 24 hour camp solo or with limited resources. Welcome to Everquest.

I understand where you’re coming from, but there are some misconceptions in your argument. Yes, Drusella’s spawn and drop rates are fixed, but monopolization by a few groups limits access for the broader community, effectively reducing the supply that’s available to everyone. This isn’t just about RNG versus effort, it’s about creating a fairer system where more players have a chance without needing to camp for 24 hours straight.

While your group may not intend to manipulate supply, the result is the same: fewer urns circulate among the wider player base, maintaining scarcity and high prices. Even if the current system works for you, it doesn’t for the broader community, who are locked out by this monopolization.

In a well-balanced game, systems would be in place to prevent this kind of monopolization, ensuring a fair experience for all players. So when you say "welcome to EverQuest," it’s more accurate to say "welcome to Project1999," because this level of unchecked behavior wasn’t intended in the original game.

It’s difficult to address these issues if we can’t agree on what monopolization is or that it’s even happening. My goal is to create a more inclusive environment where everyone has a fair shot, not just those who can commit to extensive camping sessions. I look forward to seeing your opinions on the blue URN system I'm investigating.

Thank you again.

[magicfest2]

“A well designed list system with proper breaks and shared efforts” is absolutely not “/list” so if you mean a player run list please be careful to differentiate it from /list which is a specific code-implemented feature of the server. I’m going to assume from here on that you DO NOT mean /list when you refer to lists. Hopefully that’s correct.

As far as the current Castle camp, they aren’t monopolizing the supply to drive up prices — they’re literally the ones using the urns in most cases. It isn’t a conspiracy to make prices go up. It’s just a normal reduction of supply, whether it’s Castle doing it or the server as a whole, the difference is just which players get them, at which point it is a question of whether it is effort based or RNG based. I gave an example before which may have seemed abstract but is based directly on months of observation. Essentially the second case happened when my group originally took over and had the camp for a great deal of a three month period. That’s when you saw prices go up to 250k — because the first 20 or so urns we got were almost exclusively not for resale, so the supply for several months almost completely dried up. That is what happens. When more resellers are camping it, the prices go down. I’m sure you are correct that there are different mindsets when it comes to buying or camping — some players likely will camp instead of buy (I’m an example of this, because I literally was dead broke 100% of the time, so helped form a group for this), but a lot of people really would likely still just pay instead of trying to figure it out or put in the rather large time commitment as there are much easier ways to make money over the long term with lower effort. I understand that just like real world economics, there are so many factors that even the best economists are honestly right about as often as wrong. I’m pretty confident from having watched an actual example of this play out though, so we can revisit in a year of you manage to get a change (assuming we’re both still around) and one of us can say “I told you so”. XD

[berbax]

Originally Posted by magicfest2 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

“A well designed list system with proper breaks and shared efforts” is absolutely not “/list” so if you mean a player run list please be careful to differentiate it from /list which is a specific code-implemented feature of the server. I’m going to assume from here on that you DO NOT mean /list when you refer to lists. Hopefully that’s correct.

As far as the current Castle camp, they aren’t monopolizing the supply to drive up prices — they’re literally the ones using the urns in most cases. It isn’t a conspiracy to make prices go up. It’s just a normal reduction of supply, whether it’s Castle doing it or the server as a whole, the difference is just which players get them, at which point it is a question of whether it is effort based or RNG based. I gave an example before which may have seemed abstract but is based directly on months of observation. Essentially the second case happened when my group originally took over and had the camp for a great deal of a three month period. That’s when you saw prices go up to 250k — because the first 20 or so urns we got were almost exclusively not for resale, so the supply for several months almost completely dried up. That is what happens. When more resellers are camping it, the prices go down. I’m sure you are correct that there are different mindsets when it comes to buying or camping — some players likely will camp instead of buy (I’m an example of this, because I literally was dead broke 100% of the time, so helped form a group for this), but a lot of people really would likely still just pay instead of trying to figure it out or put in the rather large time commitment as there are much easier ways to make money over the long term with lower effort. I understand that just like real world economics, there are so many factors that even the best economists are honestly right about as often as wrong. I’m pretty confident from having watched an actual example of this play out though, so we can revisit in a year of you manage to get a change (assuming we’re both still around) and one of us can say “I told you so”. XD

Your response essentially proves my point about monopolization: whether the intent is to use or sell, the outcome is the same - restricted access for the broader player base, leading to scarcity and high prices.

The fact that urn prices increased to 250k when your group held the camp for several months, primarily using urns rather than selling them, illustrates the impact of limited access on the market. When fewer urns are available for resale, prices naturally increase due to scarcity, regardless of the intent behind the monopolization. It also shows that it’s not "the server as a whole" creating this scarcity, but rather a minority of individual groups. Therefore, the "normal reduction of supply" is actually not normal; it’s a result of monopolization by specific groups.

Edit: I want to reiterate that the intent of my responses is not to argue about market economics, but to show how it’s not providing a fair and healthy environment for the community, which is why the agreement is being proposed.

[Ruien]

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

Edit: I want to reiterate that the intent of my responses is not to argue about market economics, but to show how it’s not providing a fair and healthy environment for the community, which is why the agreement is being proposed.

I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. You are equating "lower price" with "fairer, more accessible Urn for the general community".

There are definitely people who are able to spend more time than platinum, and (even at a reduced price) would be locked out of an Urn if you require them to pay for it. So, while it increases the availability for some people, it reduces availability for others. There's no free lunch here.

An equity-based system like URN breaks the monopoly without locking out these people.

Finally, there seems to be a running assumption by yourself and others (like 7thGate) that holding the camp is a waste of time, and that everyone would be better off without it. But actually you are removing gameplay - this is EQ, and I think we can all agree that camping items with friends is core gameplay. It's /random that's foreign and unnatural. Maybe people who want /random really just want to be playing a different game, because they don't seem to enjoy p99 as it is currently implemented. Some of us actually enjoy the DS camp and would prefer that you don't attempt to destroy gameplay and replace it with 50-100 alts that log in once per day and /q afterward.

[berbax]

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

I think this is where the disconnect is coming from. You are equating "lower price" with "fairer, more accessible Urn for the general community".

There are definitely people who are able to spend more time than platinum, and (even at a reduced price) would be locked out of an Urn if you require them to pay for it. So, while it increases the availability for some people, it reduces availability for others. There's no free lunch here.

An equity-based system like URN breaks the monopoly without locking out these people.

Finally, there seems to be a running assumption by yourself and others (like 7thGate) that holding the camp is a waste of time, and that everyone would be better off without it. But actually you are removing gameplay - this is EQ, and I think we can all agree that camping items is core gameplay. It's /random that's foreign and unnatural. Maybe people who want /random really just want to be playing a different game, because they don't seem to enjoy p99 as it is currently implemented. Some of us actually enjoy the DS camp and would prefer that you don't attempt to destroy gameplay and replace it with 50-100 alts that log in once per day and /q afterward.

Ruien, I appreciate your perspective, but there are a points and misconceptions to fix. The goal isn’t just to lower prices but to ensure fair access. Monopolization restricts access and creates unfair conditions where only those with excessive time can benefit. Fairness means everyone, regardless of their available time or money, has a chance.

An equity-based system like URN might break the monopoly, but it still doesn’t address the core issue of restricted access, or high prices (from what I understand). A roll or list system democratizes access, giving more players a fair shot without excluding anyone based on their time or wealth. Again, I'm not an expert on what you guys are advocating, but it appears to be met with mixed reviews. Even the poll image posted in a previous comment highlights that.

This isn’t about removing camping from the game. It’s about making the process healthier and more accessible. Fair systems enhance gameplay by allowing more players to participate meaningfully without promoting unhealthy behavior.

Lastly, random rolls aren’t foreign to EQ. They’ve been used successfully in other camps to ensure fairness and reduce toxic behavior. This discussion is about creating a fair and healthy environment, not just about item prices.