Why every list change idea is terrible (as simple as possible)

[turbosilk]

I don't see a reason to /list the fungi king. You need a legit group to clear and hold the camp.

/list is a bad idea for fungi king because the FD classes are just going to FD and afk on list.

[DMN]

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

I don't see a reason to /list the fungi king. You need a legit group to clear and hold the camp.

/list is a bad idea for fungi king because the FD classes are just going to FD and afk on list.

The lists weren't introduced for that reason. They were intended to avoid a small group of people from monopolizing the legacy camps. Unfortunately, as I've been saying since lists have been introduced, it's just simply shifted the previous group of players to a different one, those willing and able to multi-account.

[Sabin76]

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

The lists weren't introduced for that reason. They were intended to avoid a small group of people from monopolizing the legacy camps. Unfortunately, as I've been saying since lists have been introduced, it's just simply shifted the previous group of players to a different one, those willing and able to multi-account.

This, and many other responses in this thread (and every other /list thread before it) highlights the problem with these kinds of discussions: The "problem" is poorly defined. If you can't agree on what the problem is, then there is no way you can agree, or even productively discuss, what the solutions should be.

[Izmael]

Randomly award to top 6 people on the list.

> Encourages people to work together as a group, instead of hoping someone in front of them dies.
> Removes at ton of need for CSR (waaa waaah #1 doesn't want to kill a_goblin_0039, please ban him for life wahh)
> Keeps 6 people on their toes instead of just #1
> Keeps it just as random

[Castle2.0]

> Encourages people to work together as a group, instead of hoping someone in front of them dies.
> Removes at ton of need for CSR (waaa waaah #1 doesn't want to kill a_goblin_0039, please ban him for life wahh)
> Keeps 6 people on their toes instead of just #1
> Keeps it just as random

Your first three points are all based on the same wrong assumption. Your last point isn't specific enough to be a point is flat wrong.

Your assumption seems to be: "when 6 people can get the drop instead of 1, people will participate more."

Maybe you haven't heard the saying, "When it's everyone's responsibility it's no one's responsibility." When there is a list, it's ultimately the responsibility of #1 because if the item drops it is 100% their item. When it's 6 random individuals who don't know each other... well... the other guy will do it.

If you think list participation is bad now (and it really wasn't except for a few times @ Rubi BP), it will be worse with the "top 6" idea.

Let's use Manastone as an example.

It takes 1 person to kill the EE. With 5 other people responsible why bother? Check in every 10 minutes to hit afk-check and have my GINA timer set to trigger when I get the

*** Your List Item has dropped! You have exclusive permission to loot the corpse, and you have been removed from the list. ***

#1 has NO more motivation than #6 to kill the mob. There is no person ultimately responsible because the drop isn't guaranteed to any one person. Now you're going to get into issues of participation. As I said above, I don't think this can be hardcoded that isn't either easily gameable or meaningless. I've written a full post on this (do you have to do damage? If so, how much? What if you're a cleric? What if you drop buffs inbetween spawns? etc etc etc..)

Here's the kicker: You're going to have people justifying their lack of participation because "I've been helping for X hours and have lost every roll. You just got here, you do some work to earn yours!"

That's points 1-3. Point 4: "Keeps it just as random" is wrong. The RNG for the drop is the same, yes, but now you add an additional roll against 5 other people.

The "random to top X number of players" is just plain bad.

[Castle2.0]

This, and many other responses in this thread (and every other /list thread before it) highlights the problem with these kinds of discussions: The "problem" is poorly defined. If you can't agree on what the problem is, then there is no way you can agree, or even productively discuss, what the solutions should be.

This. People have different interests and weigh them differently, and all of these typically reflect their own personal interests. (i.e. casuals want it to be more casual-accessible, even if it really shouldn't be)

People have different interests...

• Player health
• Capable to be camped by casuals
• "Fair" access by all
• Winning items "fairly" (how much RNG, how much merit via participation and/or time)

A lot of the above are about "fairness" and it seems everyone has their own idea of "fair"

[adichi]

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

A lot of the above are about "fairness" and it seems everyone has their own idea of "fair"

Fair just means how can it benefit themselves the most, people are selfish like that. Either way high valued items will get monopolized if a top tier guild wants to monopolize it, regardless of everyone else's feelings. The beauty/ugly nature of this game compared to an instanced game like wow is that it inherits the rules of nature, strong will thrive weak will die and Darwinism will always prevail.

Either GMs hand hold the players to prevents guild from alternating groups at camps, or let the player base figure it out and fight for it themselves, either way nobody will be satisfied. That's just the nature of the game I suppose

[DMN]

If you are in camp radius you get a purely random chance to win it if it drops.
12 hour lockout if you drop off the list.
Lifetime lockout once you get the item.

Solved.

[Jibartik]

Everquest was never supposed to be a fair fight! [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Castle2.0]

If you are in camp radius you get a purely random chance to win it if it drops.
12 hour lockout if you drop off the list.
Lifetime lockout once you get the item.

Solved.

This is even worse - now the neckbeards don't even need to pay attention. Neckbeards can make and level more toons. Manastone camp was same people, different toons. Do you know how many level 35 anonymous/unguilded, largely ungeared toons I found at Manastone camp? AFK checks held back the neckbeard swarm from overrunning that place. But lifetime lockout ain't gonna stop them from their current level of insanity.

Do you know how many top raiders already have a 2nd or 3rd level 50 just to ding 52 then park at Vox/Naggy when Kunark goes live?

"If you're in Blackburrow you may randomly get awarded a gnoll fang regardless of killing anything, time spent in zone, etc." Love this. I know exactly where to AFK my level 7 barb shaman.