New Angry Goblin Agreement

[Toxigen]

enable pvp and no CSR

problem solved

[Smedy]

something is not conveniently setup for my liking time to

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

that being said, everquest without pvp is plain stupid, there is no fun to be had when every camp is taken and there's no mechanic that can resolve camp disputes, you're telling me i would login and travel all the way to camp jboots only to discover after 40 minutes of travel there's a 6 man queue to camp an item from a mob that spawns perhaps 4 times every 24hours? that's a bad game, enable pvp and fix all problems.

[Knuckle]

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

something is not conveniently setup for my liking time to

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

that being said, everquest without pvp is plain stupid, there is no fun to be had when every camp is taken and there's no mechanic that can resolve camp disputes, you're telling me i would login and travel all the way to camp jboots only to discover after 40 minutes of travel there's a 6 man queue to camp an item from a mob that spawns perhaps 4 times every 24hours? that's a bad game, enable pvp and fix all problems.

It's time to wipe it clean - goblin agreement style.

Smedy I do miss the PVP's, but EQ is EQ and still a fun game, just has a lot of shit mechanics when PVE only. I've gotten to engage with a lot of content I would have otherwise ignored so I can appreciate the time I've spent on green.

[Jimjam]

As a Brit I have to say queueing is the very best in game design. I’ve never felt more realised.

[shovelquest]

The server needs a government made of PC's who roleplay hardcore as gnomes and their council should decide all rules.

[shovelquest]

A system that rewards effort and not random luck? why would anyone work for a living instead of playing the lotto??

I'd much rather participate in something that I am able to calculate the investment/reward than worry about spending my life rolling 1's on something Ive had to work hard for.

Not that I care about the angry goblin just saying that I think that system sounds appealing.

[Jimjam]

Either way the """""effort""""" is show up a bunch of times and eventually win.

[shovelquest]

It's like real life!

Which I am sure anyone reading this feels is stacked against them [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So we invented socialism.

And if you play games and are against socialism you're a bad guy but if you ask for it with player made agreements you're the bad guy.

Sometimes I don't get you gamers.

[loramin]

Here's the thing: no agreement is going to make more goblins spawn. That's what you all really want, but since you can't make it happen you're trying to trick others into giving their chance at a goblin to you.

By definition, any system you propose will have winners and losers. By definition, half the people at the current roll will be losers if the system changes (... and in all honestly, I think some of the people who think they would be "winners" will actually be losers in the new system).

So you're welcome to try and get half the people at the agreements to vote against their own interests (and against classic EQ) ... but again, I don't think it's going to happen.

[bcbrown]

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

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?

Disregarding the challenging bookkeeping requirements, I think there's a decent argument to make that the player dynamics would incentivize such a change. Assuming the systems starts from scratch at the moment of agreement, everyone who is voting is actually going to end up being in the "old guard" when the agreement has been in place a while. It's the people who can't yet vote because they aren't yet rolling who end up penalized.

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

By definition, any system you propose will have winners and losers. By definition, half the people at the current roll will be losers if the system changes (... and in all honestly, I think some of the people who think they would be "winners" will actually be losers in the new system).

I don't think it's necessarily true that half the people will be losers in the new system. Who do you think would end up being losers?

The way I'm thinking about it, you would be less likely to win after only a few rolls, but also it would be less likely that it would take very very many rolls. It would reduce the tails of the probability distribution, or reduce the variance. The number of rolls you'd have to attend in order to win would end up being more predictable and consistent. I think everyone wins under this change, except I don't see how it could be implemented and operated.