Pandemic screwed essential workers trying to /list

[Sunderfury]

Any system is just going to be abused, regardless of what fixes you put in place. /List is a great solution and was highly touted by nearly everyone when it was announced. You will not stop pixel lust whatever you do to the system, someone is going to figure a way to get what they want.

Seems to me the abysmal drop rate is what causes abuse of screen sharing / days of listing. I'd say keep list as is, but for Green 2.0 perhaps do the following:

Say, just for example, that current manastone would be on the server for 6 months @ 5% drop rate (I don't know exact numbers). Implement manastone for only 2 months @ 25% drop rate. Adjust level requirements as needed, implement lifetime lockout of /list. Hopefully that keeps same amount of items entering the server.

Even the above would issue cries of abuse that you need to toon share to level up to get on list because of limited window of drops blah blah blah. One does not simply stop a neckbeard, they will always have an advantage over the masses.

[loramin]

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

Any system is just going to be abused, regardless of what fixes you put in place. /List is a great solution and was highly touted by nearly everyone when it was announced. You will not stop pixel lust whatever you do to the system, someone is going to figure a way to get what they want.

Seems to me the abysmal drop rate is what causes abuse of screen sharing / days of listing. I'd say keep list as is, but for Green 2.0 perhaps do the following:

Say, just for example, that current manastone would be on the server for 6 months @ 5% drop rate (I don't know exact numbers). Implement manastone for only 2 months @ 25% drop rate. Adjust level requirements as needed, implement lifetime lockout of /list. Hopefully that keeps same amount of items entering the server.

Even the above would issue cries of abuse that you need to toon share to level up to get on list because of limited window of drops blah blah blah. One does not simply stop a neckbeard, they will always have an advantage over the masses.

Dude, it's like you didn't read a single word I wrote [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I've already addressed your concerns: there is no way for neckbeards to game a player agreement roll system (which is precisely why that system is so popular among the players here!) All neckbeards can do is show up to it more often than others.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So be in a group camping it?

wtf are we talking about here..because without that list thing you would have to be. You gonna show up to a group/guild camping the item and throw out a /random 100 for shits and giggles?

You are not entitled to squat just because you play, modern games takes you into consideration and lets you buy your items to 'support' the poor dev team.

To be clear, I'm talking about an extremely high level change: going from "the 0.1% of the server that is willing to do things no one else will ... gets the best stuff" to "everyone has an equal chance to get the best stuff (but of course some will put in more time, and thus have a better chance)".

I worry that quibbling over exact details will miss the point ... but this is a forum and we all have too much time, so let's quibble [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you had a player-roll-agreement-style /list, one simple answer to your concern is "well what would happen if someone did that for Scout?" And so one answer is ... everyone on /list would have to help. /list wouldn't compel them to, but if they want the mob dead so it can respawn and they can have a chance on that next spawn, they''ll be incentivized to kill it.

But I'd argue "everyone is compelled to help" isn't very EverQuest-y; it's us players making the best of a bad situation, and lots of people here don't like it because of that. What would be more "EverQuest-y" in my opinion is that winning a "/list roll" gives you a window to kill the mob. If you don't do so within that window, another roll happens.

[therealmd]

All I can say is, OP, I pretty much think you’re an idiot. 3 million people a weekend file for unemployment and you’re stupid ass is actually complaining about having a job and not being able to get an item in a game? You need to re-evaluate your life there big guy.

[Mblake81]

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

willing to do things no one else will ... gets the best stuff

[loramin]

Exactly MBBlake81! What I'm saying is that we as a community have a choice (I know ultimately it's R&N that have a choice, but contrary to public opinion I truly do believe they care about and listen to the community).

There are X Fungi Tunics/Vindi BPs/Guise of Deceivers/Manastones/etc. There are Y players who want those items, where Y is much higher than X. Ultimately the server has to somehow how decide which of those Y players get X.

The EverQuest answer, and this is true at every level of the game itself, is simple: everyone has the same chance, but more time = more chances = better gear. The P99 option, which you quoted, is to make everyone in Y do increasingly nutty and non-EverQuest things, until it gets down to being the same number of people as X.

I vote the EverQuest route (but to be clear, I'm not in any way faulting the staff for their solution; it was a reasonable one to deal with a very different playerbase than live ... I just think there's an even better option possible).

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

'Someone else will kill it, they will be incentivized to so they can get the next one"

the other guy is thinking the same thing. Oh, is this a GM enforced thing? you say it wont compel but you will have to have some rules such as if you don't help you can't be on the list for 2 weeks, then a month then perma banned from it.

Adding more workload to GMs to keep up with this petty crap. You could have joined any of the top guilds, showed up when you wanted to, got your DKP but you stayed butt chapped on Blue.

Then you cried because the big bag GMs took your teal, now you want communist pixels.

You're in fight mode, so you're reading what I write to try and find something to argue with, instead of actually trying to understand what I'm saying as one human to another. This is making you miss the answers to your own posts.

I already said I don't think the "you must help" option is best. I think it's the best possible option for a player-enforced agreement, because giving a window and then re-rolling would be far more organization than the players can muster (I say this as one of the people who founded the Shady Goblin roll: you have no freaking idea just how difficult that was to start even with its extremely simple rules!)

I think player agreements are a great model though, so I think list should mostly work like them. I just think that instead of forcing everyone to help (not "EverQuest-y", but necessary for a player solution) an official /list solution could instead provide a window, and if the roll winner doesn't kill the mob in that window, they lose the mob and a new roll gives it to someone else.

As for this being "communist"? I want the EverQuest to be EverQuest, you want it to be this non-EverQuest game created to combat advanced player knowledge. I think the latter is more communist: the core EQ system is a meritocracy.

[Castle2.0]

Say, just for example, that current manastone would be on the server for 6 months @ 5% drop rate (I don't know exact numbers). Implement manastone for only 2 months @ 25% drop rate. Adjust level requirements as needed, implement lifetime lockout of /list. Hopefully that keeps same amount of items entering the server.

Even the above would issue cries of abuse that you need to toon share to level up to get on list because of limited window of drops blah blah blah. One does not simply stop a neckbeard, they will always have an advantage over the masses.

Interesting idea, but I don't see it having the intended effect. In fact, it will have some dire unintended consequences.


Point 1: On increasing drop rate

Think of "time spent at Manastone camp to get my own Manastone" as a currency. Some people have more of it than others.

Currently, people that successfully camp a Manastone are willing to spend 3-7 days at the camp. If the drop rate is 25% instead of 5%, you may have a list that is 5 times longer, since there are still people willing to spend the 3-7 days. Instead of 12 on list, you have 60 people and it moves at the same speed.

I doubt the numbers would work out exactly, as above, but I 100% believe the above trend. Increasing drop rate, or removing AFK checks totally (or for those who arent #1, or top 3, or top 5, or whatever arbitrary number) will just increase the length of the list.

Point 2: On decreasing time period in which Manstone drops + increased level + increased lockout

Now you just have farm crews constantly disrupting exp zones with powerleveling for levels 1-35 to get toons up to the required level. If the level is 45 or 50, and the timeline is a short two months, you effectively lock out a lot of a casuals from ever having any shot at the Manastone. It just means less total Manastones available, and they are still in the hands of a few.

----------------------------

/list isn't perfect, but I've looked at a lot of "solutions" and nothing looks better than what we currently have.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Interesting idea, but I don't see it having the intended effect. In fact, it will have some dire unintended consequences.


Point 1: On increasing drop rate

Think of "time spent at Manastone camp to get my own Manastone" as a currency. Some people have more of it than others.

Currently, people that successfully camp a Manastone are willing to spend 3-7 days at the camp. If the drop rate is 25% instead of 5%, you may have a list that is 5 times longer, since there are still people willing to spend the 3-7 days. Instead of 12 on list, you have 60 people and it moves at the same speed.

I doubt the numbers would work out exactly, as above, but I 100% believe the above trend. Increasing drop rate, or removing AFK checks totally (or for those who arent #1, or top 3, or top 5, or whatever arbitrary number) will just increase the length of the list.

Point 2: On decreasing time period in which Manstone drops + increased level + increased lockout

Now you just have farm crews constantly disrupting exp zones for levels 1-35 to get toons up to the required level. If the level is 45 or 50, and the timeline is a short two months, you effectively lock out a lot of a casuals from ever having any shot at the Manastone. It just means less total Manastones available, and they are still in the hands of a few.

----------------------------

/list isn't perfect, but I've looked at a lot of "solutions" and nothing looks better than what we currently have.

Drop rates, like Teal itself, don't address the core problem. On any game even remotely resembling EQ, there will always be more people that want the item than items that drop (Y will always be much higher than X). If it wasn't (if Fungi's dropped like candy off Fire Beetles) the game wouldn't be fun.

The issue is just how we settle the Y - X difference: create non-EQ challenges for Y until it's X-sized ... OR give everyone in Y an equal chance to be one of the X's (but, again, the people in Y who play more will earn more chances, and statistically will wind up with more phat lewtz).

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

has the permafrost frozen your brain, the community already decided then cried when the GMs tried to implement a fairness system.

Ok first off, props for the in-game insult. It helps keep this fun and not mean [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But that being said, I do think you're wrong about the community crying over a "fairness system". Player roll agreements on Blue have gone from being just for Scout, to being for Scout, Ring rolls, and Shady/Angry Goblin. They've been going successfully for years, and none have ever gone back to FTE.

To me, that signals the community has embraced them.

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, the players do.

Again, you're objectively wrong. If "the players did", all loot on the server would go to the biggest concentration of players, and the largest guild would get everything. That's very P99 (it's how TMO was for years) ... but again it's not very EverQuest.

All Manastones (here or on live) did/do NOT go to uber guild members: as Bellamy noted, /list very much prevented that exact scenario, and I don't hear anyone saying "yes, let's go back to giving TMO (or its latest descendent) all the phat lewtz".

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Incorrect. They do that because everything is known, you have a concentration of die-hards willing to go further to get that over the others. Just like in classic but everythign wasn't known and there was no precedent for the behavior going any further than it did. Just playing a game for 8 hours was bonkers. Now you have a concentration of bonkers on top of a time in society when playing games is accepted, hell even encouraged with the likes on streamer money.

Your solution is to get rid of all the older players and start fresh, like a great revolution.

What are you even talking about here? We agree that there are players that play more than others, but how does giving everyone an equal chance (which by definition gives those who play more a better chance) = getting rid of older players?

Originally Posted by Mblake81 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Line a bunch of them up at the OT gorge and cap em.

Again, creating new non-EverQuest games inside of EQ (like FTE races or not sleeping for days) is an option ... but it's just an option, and I think playing EverQuest is a better one.