New Angry Goblin Agreement

[cd288]

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

Except, it doesn't. You don't sit at a camp, getting points for sitting there, until you accrue enough points to get the item you want. Maybe in some modern EQ expansion, but not in the classic era.

What do you do? Keep taking random chances that have no connection to any previous chance, until you get what you want. Even if you raid and accrue DKP outside the game, inside the game you still need a random chance for the item you want to drop.

That's how the game we all love works: no points that improve your odds when you take lots of random chances, just equally random chances until you "win".

Agreed

[Castle2.0]

/list was better. Only people who really wanted it got it. #classic

[Estrang87]

Raids are influenced by participation over time. I was referring to solo/group content since we have participation points that give us the ability to outbid our competition via personal agency over time. In solo/group content you are competing against yourself or at most 5 other players. All of the above examples increase your odds by participating, with raiding being the most agency. The scout roll is the same thing as angry goblin. It would equally benefit from increased odds/bids per roll participated. Its not as frustrating because its a shorter bottle neck since you can lottery 2x per day, thats only difference. Ring war is same thing(ring 8 example). Annoying, but 1x per day. Would benefit from increased odds the longer youve been rolling for it.

[Knuckle]

I disagree. There is a 100% chance that a raid mob drops raid loot. The rarity can vary obviously, but it has a loot table. In a DKP environment, you increase your odds of success over time when that item drops, there is no such system in the blind lottery that the goblin is at. 1 day, 5 years. You have no impact on probability. Is there a possibility that a specific item never drops off a raid mob, ever? Yes, but that's being pedantic. There is a chance I can't login to play EQ because my internet connection drops.

If you are trying to say the 16% odds of winning a roll in a group for a named mobs item are the same as the angry goblin you are smoking crack. Is the angry goblin agreement better than no agreement? Sure, but it still sucks, and has room for improvement. Having people get +5 or +10 to a roll each time they attend more realistically simulates the time spent camping an item. And no, I don't know anyone who cant get a FBSS camping frenzy for 3 years straight, because the odds are weighted against repeat failure, which is why they have a PERCENT CHANCE drop rate greater than 0%.

What I am saying is the odds at angry goblin are shit, and there is no reason you can't have a system where the more time you spend, the closer you are to achieving your goal.

[loramin]

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

there is no such system in the blind lottery that the goblin is at

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

If only the game already had such a point system built-in. A system where you could go do other camps that other people want, and in return they would do the random rolls you don't want to do. Only it's a little tricky to find just one item that someone would trade for doing all those random rolls ... maybe you could acquire a bunch of items, and then trade them to other player for points, and then collect enough points to trade them to a single player for an SWC?

If only EQ had such a system already ...

[Knuckle]

Dear Loramin,

I can appreciate that your solution is to not engage with the content and farm plat for the item. I would prefer an alternate method to the less than ideal player made agreement, which does exist, and has room for improvement much like Drusella is done. There is no reason why you should have to resist someone improving an EXISTING player made agreement. I do not understand your defense of it. It's not constructive.

Also I'd like to reiterate that I do not care significantly, just enough to get conversation going on forums. I stopped camping this thing a long time ago it's not a big deal, BUT I have the need to suggest better things that increase satisfaction in the game.

[loramin]

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

There is no reason why you should have to resist someone improving an EXISTING player made agreement. I do not understand your defense of it. It's not constructive.

Because what you are proposing isn't an improvement: it's you trying to do something that goes against the spirit of classic EverQuest because you haven't rolled well and refuse to just earn "points" towards acquiring the item you want another way.

BTW, it's also never going to happen. I say that as someone who helped make the original agreements, and who knows how difficult it is to get consent from everyone at those rolls. What you're asking for is for anyone new to the roll to have a lesser chance: why would they agree to that?

[cd288]

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

What you're asking for is for anyone new to the roll to have a lesser chance: why would they agree to that?

While I don't disagree with your overall comment, I think people would agree to this because it means eventually they'll have a much higher chance. Somewhat analogous to why people accept DKP as a raid currency concept. Lower chance of getting items in the beginning/when you're low on DKP; higher chance once you have contributed/participated more because you have more DKP than some of the others who are also looking for that drop.

[shovelquest]

According to the principles of probability, over a large enough sample size, random events will average out. So, your time invested does yield something.

[Knuckle]

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

According to the principles of probability, over a large enough sample size, random events will average out. So, your time invested does yield something.

Sure.