The problem I was addressing mainly was that due to the limitations I play
under as a casual player, I can only play long enough to see some named
spawns spawn twice about once every two weeks. If the spawn is more than 45
minutes apart, letting my group share any night at every other spawn means
we'll generally get one shot at the named spawn. The rest of the two weeks
or so in between these meetings the people who get on and want to do
something else must leave and travel elsewhere. It isn't worthwhile to
travel for 45+ minutes to get to a spawn site to play for 2 hours to fight
the spawn once, then have to do the whole thing again a week or two later.
As we have worked things out before we only do named spawns when we can set
up a time in advance and get a group member to get there early to get on the
list if there is one so we can all get to hunt the spawn's area for 2 hours
or so and see the spawn 3-4 times. Under this system we will only rarely be
able to fight the spawn once, rarely twice. This pretty much locks us out
of any chance of ever getting rare drops. We can only play with enough of
us to do tough camps once every other week pretty much anyhow. Giving us
the ability to get a chance at the spawn every nite while reducing our
ability to camp the spawn longer gains us exactly zero access, while
reducing the access we did have. None of my regular groupmates plays more
than 4 times a week and those are the ones who can solo easily. Once a week
is the most often we get more than three guildmembers together. From our
experience the new rules will not increase our access as casual players, but
exactly the opposite.
Kit
-----Original Message-----
From:
kim@... [mailto:
kim@...]
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 2:37 PM
To: '
eqbards@onelist.com'
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Worldly Issues & "Play Nice"
From:
kim@...
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@...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9%
Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW!
http://click.egroups.com/1/936/7/_/451022/_/953329058/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send submissions for the eqbards newsletter to lol@...
with the subject submissions.