On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Kimes, Dean W. wrote:
>
> I'd be tempted to agree with that, but their are several places where it is
> ridiculous for a group to go in and sit and do nothing for hours while
> waiting for one spawn because there are only two and another group has
> demanded you let them have the other one. The group who can play for hours
I have a hard time understanding what you're saying here.
It's worth it to sit there for hours hoping for two named
spawns, but not worth it to sit there for one? What about all
the spots where there is only a single named spawn? Are these
spots simply not worth your time no matter what?
The MO I've seen nearly everywhere is to camp one named mob
site, while pulling generic mobs from other locations. The
only 2-named-mob sites that come to mind are the
assassin/supplier, and the king room in permafrost. Maybe the
maid/butler room in Mistmoore.
> still gets the benefit as they are going to be there for hours anyhow, your
> group gets their limited playing time suddenly made nearly pointless while
> had the group that's going to be on for 6 hours simply let you have their
> two hours they would miss only 1/3 rd of their available time, you are
> forced to lose half your time which may well make the room unviable for you.
You're still not looking at the big picture. Yes you might
lose half your time this time. But instead of having to wait
2 weeks before getting another crack at it, you can go back
tomorrow, no waiting (well, aside from the waiting for the
named mob to show).
This rule does not change the crowding, does not change the
mob spawn rate, does not change the item drop rate. It only
changes the composition and number of the people camping those
mobs. If it results in casual players having easier access to
oft-camped mobs, then it improves their chances of getting
items from that mob. If the mob still remains camped to the
point where casual players are discouraged, then it is
*already* camped to the point where casual players are
discouraged.
> Result is you move on to find something you can actually enjoy your two
> hours at and the long termers get the whole room anyhow for the full time.
> Eventually the short timers will find everything shared and will quit in
> frustration as they never get a turn at getting a useful chance to do a room
> instead getting many turns that are not very useful.
Define "useful chance" and "not very useful." If you normally
only had a shot at a named spawn once every 2 weeks, and under
the new rules if every named spawn has an average of 2 groups
(highly unlikely as I don't think there are that many players
despite the overcrowding); then your shot at getting a night
at the named spawn has gone from 1 in 14 days to an effective
1 in 2 days. If you normally had a shot at a named spawn
point once every 2 days, then it's not camped to the point
where it'll be a problem under the old or the new rules.
I don't understand why so many people are so vehemently
opposed to the concept of sharing. When I first started the
game, that's how I played. Share the derv camp, share the orc
camp. I only went along with the camper-has-all-rights rule
because that seemed to be the majority consensus. And even
then, if I was group leader and holding a spot with multiple
named mobs in a crowded zone when another group came looking,
I gave them the extra.
I really think this is one of those prisoner's dilemma
situations, where the bad choice from an individual
cost/benefit analysis results in the best outcome for everyone
overall (and the good choice from an individual cost/benefit
analysis results in the worst outcome for everyone overall).
--
John H. Kim
kim@...