How was /list received on Green?

[tadkins]

Leave list in, up the drop rates, address certain issues like with the bead drops spanning the whole zone. It's a good system that just needs some fixes, not be scrapped entirely.

If you show up at the right era in history, invest some time, you deserve a shot at the item imo.

[Zuranthium]

Classic play nice policy (which did not exist until a year into the game's lifespan) dictated that everyone had to take turns, aka everyone "listed" gets to fight the NPC once when its their turn on the list. After killing the NPC or dying you drop to the bottom of the list, and leaving the zone for more than a few minutes (for a reason aside from dying) removes you from the list entirely.

That is preferable to what p99 implemented, but still dumb. Anything aside from a free-for-all goes against the nature of Everquest and how it's supposed to be an immersive fantasy world. You're not playing an MMORPG anymore if you have forced lists. Anything of that nature should be community-created. Players who don't want certain parts of the community angry at them can choose not to compete, while those who do wish to compete are allowed, at the risk of being blacklisted by certain other players.

Camps should not be so static to begin with. The designers said they never intended and did not like people sitting in front of a single NPC all day long. If they had the time to re-code the game to be more dynamic, they would have. NPC's should spawn in different places and in different amounts. Loot tables should fluctuate.

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

the only alternatives to it were letting the players handle extremely popular camps like Guise or Manastone on their own (imagine the clusterfuck that would be)

It's not a clusterfuck at all, people fight for the kill and whoever gets it is the winner. Very simple.

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

keeping guilds like Seal Team from perma-monopolizing the camp

Zerg guilds can't monopolizing anything, when the game is coded to allow any focused 6-person group to be able to get the kill.

Traditionally it's just DPS deciding loot rights, but that can be modified to also include aggro generated into the equation. Let the Clerics cast stuns during high priority fights to contribute, Taunt adds something, debuffs add something, melee can pop a discipline, etc.

[loramin]

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

It's not a clusterfuck at all, people fight for the kill and whoever gets it is the winner. Very simple.

Gee, I wonder if anyone has tried that system already? Oh wait, they did, on Red. How's that server doing? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But if anyone is curious about the earlier part of Zura's post, you can find it on the wiki: https://wiki.project1999.com/Kunark_...awn_Complaints (there's also a separate "Velious Era" version).

The compromise will require all parties to take turns killing the spawn(s). All parties involved in the contested spawn should be instructed to use /random 0 100 to choose a number. The CS Representative then uses /random 0 100. The individual with the closest number to the CS Representative’s number will be next in the rotation. The CS Representative then bases the rest of the rotation order on how close the other parties’ numbers were to theirs. The compromise established by a CS Representative must be objective and not require the CS Representative to choose one customer over another based on subjective criteria. The CS Representative is the arbiter in any disputes in establishing the compromise.

[Chortles Snortles]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Swish]

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

Gee, I wonder if anyone has tried that system already? Oh wait, they did, on Red. How's that server doing? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But if anyone is curious about the earlier part of Zura's post, you can find it on the wiki: https://wiki.project1999.com/Kunark_...awn_Complaints (there's also a separate "Velious Era" version).

The only difference is because you can't pvp in the game on blue/green you all take to petitionquest and writing dissertations on 80% accurate recollections of what happened with some emotional/artistic license.

[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.

[Solist]

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.

[Ooloo]

As others have mentioned, the list system was about as successful as it could be. It prevented one guild from monopolizing the camps to a significant extent, and everything that made them tedious and awful was also the reason they worked. If you showed up to a camp and there were 15 people on list, that didn't mean you had to wait for 15 drops, you just had to get on the list and wait as people inevitably dropped off early.

Was it miserable? Yes. But I still got two guises and two rubi bps that I almost certainly wouldn't have without /list existing. And it still felt significant and like a real accomplishment. Upping the drop rates or making afk checks less frequent would just be making it a guaranteed loot giveaway, and the reward would feel cheap. Accomplishments not feeling cheap and easy is a fundamental appeal of classic EQ.

I think the notion that they're unhealthy is kind of misguided. Playing this game at all is unhealthy. There's not much difference between lacking the discipline to not sit on the manastone list for 24hrs straight and lacking the discipline to not just play the game in any other way for 24hrs straight. People sacrifice their health to play this game and a myriad of other games all the time, /list or not.

[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.

[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.