Tweet
First, notice for all forum posters, and do please read this before continuing: Should this thread be moved to another part of the forum, it is originally intended as one of the questions for SE. If it remains in its original forum section, it is not up for discussion where it is, and if need be, a thread created specifically for discussing this idea can be made on the general board. Or, if this post itself is moved elsewhere, then its fair game too. Now, I'm well aware that the idea that I posted following the question is really rather unrealistic, as the idea of such a queue would be incredibly taxing on the servers, with far too much data to keep track of. The idea is merely what my idea of a queue for NMs would entail. No, I haven't thought of every situation. This was just something I thought of overnight, so I'm sure there are several questions unanswered. It's just a general idea, and like all quickly thought-up concepts, there are sure to be several holes and flaws. And yes, I know that the thought of queuing NM claims is a very unpopular idea, and the mere thought of it is probably going to cause several players to see in a red haze and spit acid. But then again, since when have ideas intended to make things fairer for almost everyone ever been popular?
Now for the question at hand:
Have you, SE, ever considered the idea of queuing NM/HNMs? Just asking the question makes it a tad difficult to understand clearly, so please allow me to elaborate. Now, the idea following this is just what I would picture as an effective queue system, but it's probably very unrealistic, and would only really be used to get a general idea of what I would mean by a queued system.
At various Timer-spawned NMs all or some (no force/trigger spawns or mission/quest spawns), possibly have a ??? spot or something set for players to place their name on a queue for their chance at the NM. The queue would allow virtually any player to have a chance at an NM of their choice, without the worry of monopolizations that have plagued various types.
How the queue would work is that it would operate on a first come, first serve basis. Say there's 3 in the queue for an NM, being PC1, PC2, and PC3. PC1 would have first crack at the NM. However, PC1 would have to be in the zone when the NM spawns or he would instantly lose his claim, and PC2's turn would be up, but PC2 would have to be in the zone when its his turn or he instantly loses claim, and it goes to PC3, and so on. Say PC3 was the last in the queue and he wasn't there, then he'd lose his claim and the NM would just remain there, unclaimed. This would help speed along the queue by not wasting time on no-shows. Now, if PC1 were in the zone when the NM spawned, he would have claim, but the NM wouldn't aggro until he attacked it or got in aggro range, but he would have 5 minutes from spawn to begin his attack on the NM or he would lose claim to PC2. This would speed things along by not wasting time on unprepared players and would prevent holding.
Now, I could see how this would be abused, as members of an HNMLS could spam the queue with their claims and try to monopolize the NM that way. I've given thought to how to counter that. If PC1 and PC2 are both in the queue for the NM, and PC1 gets his claim, but PC2 happens to be in a party with PC1 to help defeat the NM, since PC2 has taken action on the NM through affiliation with PC1, PC2 would be removed from the queue and PC3 would be the next in line. That way, situations where PC1 through PC18 could all be in a queue, but if they allianced a fight with an NM, PC2 through PC18 would be bumped off, and a fresh player PC19 would be next in line.
A possible way around that would be that PC1 may have claim on an NM, but PC2 may be outside of the party and could be casting outside cures and whatnot on PC1 and his allies. That's where any hate-causing actions apply. If any player on the queue, does anything to gain any type of enmity from the NM (curing or casting support spells on a player fighting the NM), and their name is in the queue, it would be removed, and their spot is given to the next in line.
And yet another way around that is that PC1 would have claim on the NM and is fighting it with a group of people. Then on next spawn, PC2 could have claim, and PC1 and his same group would join PC2 and fight the NM again. That's where the idea of NM fatigue comes in. NM fatigue is an idea I've heard about from other posters who had suggestions on how to curb NM monopolization and give more players a chance at them. If you fought the NM, or did anything to generate enmity from the NM, then you're given a fatigued status that will prevent you from acting against the NM for a period of time. This would include not only taking direct actions against the NM, but casting cures/support spells to others who are currently engaged in battle with the NM.
With that, at least each time the NM is fought over its queued period, it will be fought with a fresh set of players. Also, to prevent other players from crowding around a group fighting the NM and trying to block their view or smother them in the action, I'd say make NM aoe moves affect everyone in radius, and if someone trying to interfere with a group gets smacked with an aoe, then they're fatigued for the duration of the queue, and if their name is on the queue, it's removed, and their spot given to the next.
Now, I know SE wants to keep the general rarity of items obtained from NMs the way they are, so I'm not suggesting any type of adjustment to their spawn timings. However, to ensure that as many people within a reasonable time frame gets a fair shot at an NM, I'd say make the queue allowable for for a conquest's length, and reset it with each new conquest tally, but delay a player's ability to fight the NM again by an amount of time relative to the respawn rate of the NM. Say, for an NM with a respawn time of 1-5 hours, delay a player's ability to reclaim for, perhaps 4 days to a week. For NMs with a respawn time of roughly 21-24 hours, delay reclaim by about 10 days to 2 weeks. That is, however, unless the queue runs empty before the fatigue timer expires, by then which anyone can claim the NM.
Now, say PC1 had first claim on an NM and defeats/loses to it. He could turn around and put his name in the queue again, but since his would be a repeat addition to the queue in the same span of the queue's timelength, his name would be bumped back for each new entry to the queue.
Of course, there'd have to be a cutoff point somewhere, so the queue would be wiped clean upon each conquest tally, so everyone would have to reapply.
This would also cut down on the usage of warp/speed/claim hacks that some players apparently use, as there'd be little use for them in terms of claiming NMs. This would probably cut down on a good bit of GM calls made regarding NMs, perhaps save for those Sky MPK attempts that have popped up recently.
Now for the question at hand:
Have you, SE, ever considered the idea of queuing NM/HNMs? Just asking the question makes it a tad difficult to understand clearly, so please allow me to elaborate. Now, the idea following this is just what I would picture as an effective queue system, but it's probably very unrealistic, and would only really be used to get a general idea of what I would mean by a queued system.
At various Timer-spawned NMs all or some (no force/trigger spawns or mission/quest spawns), possibly have a ??? spot or something set for players to place their name on a queue for their chance at the NM. The queue would allow virtually any player to have a chance at an NM of their choice, without the worry of monopolizations that have plagued various types.
How the queue would work is that it would operate on a first come, first serve basis. Say there's 3 in the queue for an NM, being PC1, PC2, and PC3. PC1 would have first crack at the NM. However, PC1 would have to be in the zone when the NM spawns or he would instantly lose his claim, and PC2's turn would be up, but PC2 would have to be in the zone when its his turn or he instantly loses claim, and it goes to PC3, and so on. Say PC3 was the last in the queue and he wasn't there, then he'd lose his claim and the NM would just remain there, unclaimed. This would help speed along the queue by not wasting time on no-shows. Now, if PC1 were in the zone when the NM spawned, he would have claim, but the NM wouldn't aggro until he attacked it or got in aggro range, but he would have 5 minutes from spawn to begin his attack on the NM or he would lose claim to PC2. This would speed things along by not wasting time on unprepared players and would prevent holding.
Now, I could see how this would be abused, as members of an HNMLS could spam the queue with their claims and try to monopolize the NM that way. I've given thought to how to counter that. If PC1 and PC2 are both in the queue for the NM, and PC1 gets his claim, but PC2 happens to be in a party with PC1 to help defeat the NM, since PC2 has taken action on the NM through affiliation with PC1, PC2 would be removed from the queue and PC3 would be the next in line. That way, situations where PC1 through PC18 could all be in a queue, but if they allianced a fight with an NM, PC2 through PC18 would be bumped off, and a fresh player PC19 would be next in line.
A possible way around that would be that PC1 may have claim on an NM, but PC2 may be outside of the party and could be casting outside cures and whatnot on PC1 and his allies. That's where any hate-causing actions apply. If any player on the queue, does anything to gain any type of enmity from the NM (curing or casting support spells on a player fighting the NM), and their name is in the queue, it would be removed, and their spot is given to the next in line.
And yet another way around that is that PC1 would have claim on the NM and is fighting it with a group of people. Then on next spawn, PC2 could have claim, and PC1 and his same group would join PC2 and fight the NM again. That's where the idea of NM fatigue comes in. NM fatigue is an idea I've heard about from other posters who had suggestions on how to curb NM monopolization and give more players a chance at them. If you fought the NM, or did anything to generate enmity from the NM, then you're given a fatigued status that will prevent you from acting against the NM for a period of time. This would include not only taking direct actions against the NM, but casting cures/support spells to others who are currently engaged in battle with the NM.
With that, at least each time the NM is fought over its queued period, it will be fought with a fresh set of players. Also, to prevent other players from crowding around a group fighting the NM and trying to block their view or smother them in the action, I'd say make NM aoe moves affect everyone in radius, and if someone trying to interfere with a group gets smacked with an aoe, then they're fatigued for the duration of the queue, and if their name is on the queue, it's removed, and their spot given to the next.
Now, I know SE wants to keep the general rarity of items obtained from NMs the way they are, so I'm not suggesting any type of adjustment to their spawn timings. However, to ensure that as many people within a reasonable time frame gets a fair shot at an NM, I'd say make the queue allowable for for a conquest's length, and reset it with each new conquest tally, but delay a player's ability to fight the NM again by an amount of time relative to the respawn rate of the NM. Say, for an NM with a respawn time of 1-5 hours, delay a player's ability to reclaim for, perhaps 4 days to a week. For NMs with a respawn time of roughly 21-24 hours, delay reclaim by about 10 days to 2 weeks. That is, however, unless the queue runs empty before the fatigue timer expires, by then which anyone can claim the NM.
Now, say PC1 had first claim on an NM and defeats/loses to it. He could turn around and put his name in the queue again, but since his would be a repeat addition to the queue in the same span of the queue's timelength, his name would be bumped back for each new entry to the queue.
Of course, there'd have to be a cutoff point somewhere, so the queue would be wiped clean upon each conquest tally, so everyone would have to reapply.
This would also cut down on the usage of warp/speed/claim hacks that some players apparently use, as there'd be little use for them in terms of claiming NMs. This would probably cut down on a good bit of GM calls made regarding NMs, perhaps save for those Sky MPK attempts that have popped up recently.
Comment