@map is broken

Status
Not open for further replies.

SnoopyTheSheep

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
425
Best answers
0
IGN
SnoopyASheep
I agree on most of the things. I didn't code @map, but let's use this thread to come up with something that works even better. Would love to hear some ideas from all of you. Doesn't have to look like the current @map functionality. Obviously prioritising on activity makes sense!
You did mention in another post that you were not going to change the spawn/exp/meso rate of other maps because it opens a never-ending can of worms, but this and similar threads shows that there is a clear lack of viable maps in the server.
My suggestion on this matter is to make PQing the optimal way to level from 70-120. This way, players won't have to fight over gallos/Ulu2 maps as much (full map attackers leeching their second character on a different account will still prefer gallos/Ulu2) and by the time they are 120 they can train at skeles, which is a mini-dungeon.
I think it's a fair compromise between not wanting to change any maps and there being not enough maps.

We could take one of the underutilised PQs (LPQ, pyramid PQ, pirate PQ) and tweak the numbers and up the level requirement to make it a leveling area for 70-120.
 

Uchi

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
794
Best answers
0
You did mention in another post that you were not going to change the spawn/exp/meso rate of other maps because it opens a never-ending can of worms, but this and similar threads shows that there is a clear lack of viable maps in the server.
My suggestion on this matter is to make PQing the optimal way to level from 70-120. This way, players won't have to fight over gallos/Ulu2 maps as much (full map attackers leeching their second character on a different account will still prefer gallos/Ulu2) and by the time they are 120 they can train at skeles, which is a mini-dungeon.
I think it's a fair compromise between not wanting to change any maps and there being not enough maps.

We could take one of the underutilised PQs (LPQ, pyramid PQ, pirate PQ) and tweak the numbers and up the level requirement to make it a leveling area for 70-120.
LPQ would need an entire revamp to make it viable for 70-120, that I disagree with. I don’t think ppq should be viable post 100.. not against a ppq buff tho. Pyramid PQ could use a buff that scales with lv I guess, but the rewards the PQ gives are already so good.
 

SnoopyTheSheep

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2018
Messages
425
Best answers
0
IGN
SnoopyASheep
LPQ would need an entire revamp to make it viable for 70-120, that I disagree with. I don’t think ppq should be viable post 100.. not against a ppq buff tho. Pyramid PQ could use a buff that scales with lv I guess, but the rewards the PQ gives are already so good.
I'm no expert on PQs so I'm open to ideas which PQ to change and how to change it. 70-120 is 50 levels, so to make PQing optimal for those levels we probably at least 2 PQs.
 

Teddy

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
92
Best answers
0
I think @map is fine as it is and apparently so do many people. If someone is camping your map for 7 hours and as soon as you leave the map he starts attacking then he obviously was patiently waiting for the map to become free which is perfectly fine, fair and deserved. Just because he didn't jump around or use buffs shouldn't put him at a disadvantage and should not be interpreted as afking right away. After all if he was really afking then he'd lose the ownership soon enough. The command has not only been implemented so that it can be better clarified who the map owner is, but also so that everyone has a chance to train in a map and it is not only passed on to friends and guild members. Some might see it as not working properly but to me what mike described is not a problem but is exactly fullfiling the intended purpose. Why would you even bother? If you are still using the map you can do so as long as you want and when you are done why would you care that the person who has waited there for over 7 hours takes the map next? You are not supposed to hand over the map to your friends anyway.

Right so during the times that I don't have a map, we're all ok with me putting 7 chars in 7 channels and just waiting for the first person to leave? Do I "deserve" a map if I do that?
If anything should be changed then this. A check could be added so only your first opened client will count towards @map. Wouldn't work with multiple computers, but it would at least limit unfairness, because most people don't have 7 computers with them and any improvement is better than none. But then again it can be argued whether this is really unfair, because everyone can use multipleclient to do this.

So how about this: when the map ownership is passed on to the next person, he will only have a limited time, for example 1 minute instead of the normally 5 minutes, to carry out an attack to claim the map before it's the turn of the next person in the queue. This can ensure that the person was not just afking, but really paying attention and waiting without putting him at a disadvantage.
 

mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
434
Best answers
0
IGN
water
So how about this: when the map ownership is passed on to the next person, he will only have a limited time, for example 1 minute instead of the normally 5 minutes, to carry out an attack to claim the map before it's the turn of the next person in the queue. This can ensure that the person was not just afking, but really paying attention and waiting without putting him at a disadvantage.
I like this a lot better.
 

NoNameID

Active member
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
265
Best answers
0
I think @map is fine as it is and apparently so do many people. If someone is camping your map for 7 hours and as soon as you leave the map he starts attacking then he obviously was patiently waiting for the map to become free which is perfectly fine, fair and deserved. Just because he didn't jump around or use buffs shouldn't put him at a disadvantage and should not be interpreted as afking right away. After all if he was really afking then he'd lose the ownership soon enough. The command has not only been implemented so that it can be better clarified who the map owner is, but also so that everyone has a chance to train in a map and it is not only passed on to friends and guild members. Some might see it as not working properly but to me what mike described is not a problem but is exactly fullfiling the intended purpose. Why would you even bother? If you are still using the map you can do so as long as you want and when you are done why would you care that the person who has waited there for over 7 hours takes the map next? You are not supposed to hand over the map to your friends anyway.


If anything should be changed then this. A check could be added so only your first opened client will count towards @map. Wouldn't work with multiple computers, but it would at least limit unfairness, because most people don't have 7 computers with them and any improvement is better than none. But then again it can be argued whether this is really unfair, because everyone can use multipleclient to do this.

So how about this: when the map ownership is passed on to the next person, he will only have a limited time, for example 1 minute instead of the normally 5 minutes, to carry out an attack to claim the map before it's the turn of the next person in the queue. This can ensure that the person was not just afking, but really paying attention and waiting without putting him at a disadvantage.
So if I understand correctly, basically reduce the 5 min to 1 min? That's mean you can't even go to pee without losing the map
 

Alice

Active member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
124
Best answers
0
So how about this: when the map ownership is passed on to the next person, he will only have a limited time, for example 1 minute instead of the normally 5 minutes, to carry out an attack to claim the map before it's the turn of the next person in the queue. This can ensure that the person was not just afking, but really paying attention and waiting without putting him at a disadvantage.
I'm fine with that. But let me add maybe one or two things. One, add an announcement in the map when the map owner changes. I can see some people exiting then entering the map and continue attacking to make it seem like they still own the map. Also maybe remove the message where you can't spam when typing the same thing three times for @ commands. One minute is too short so they would have to constantly use @map to check if it's their turn but it probably wont be a problem if you implement an announcement.
 

Babe

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Messages
986
Best answers
2
IGN
Wish
I'm fine with that. But let me add maybe one or two things. One, add an announcement in the map when the map owner changes. I can see some people exiting then entering the map and continue attacking to make it seem like they still own the map. Also maybe remove the message where you can't spam when typing the same thing three times for @ commands. One minute is too short so they would have to constantly use @map to check if it's their turn but it probably wont be a problem if you implement an announcement.
I mean some people do exit by accident, sucks if they hit up by accident, got map owner switched just so they can lose the map. People make mistakes all the time!

If the user waiting is active then they will notice when things like these happen, and take action upon it.
 

Uchi

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
794
Best answers
0
I mean some people do exit by accident, sucks if they hit up by accident, got map owner switched just so they can lose the map. People make mistakes all the time!

If the user waiting is active then they will notice when things like these happen, and take action upon it.
I have never once exited my map by accident.. It's not really relevant to what he's saying though.

I think 1 minute is too short but I agree with reducing the time @map runs through queue.
 
Last edited:

Teddy

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
92
Best answers
0
If one minute is too short then what is appropriate? I mean this is just for claiming the ownership and a message, so you don't constantly have to type @map, can be added too. If you are already owner you do of course still get the regular 5 minutes.

Also maybe remove the message where you can't spam when typing the same thing three times for @ commands.
This requires client hacks, so probably not going to happen.
 

Slumber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
278
Best answers
2
So how about this: when the map ownership is passed on to the next person, he will only have a limited time, for example 1 minute instead of the normally 5 minutes, to carry out an attack to claim the map before it's the turn of the next person in the queue. This can ensure that the person was not just afking, but really paying attention and waiting without putting him at a disadvantage.
I think one minute is fine for cycling through the queue (People in lines for everyday tasks are usually given 1-2 minutes to approach the window or the like). It is not fair for someone to be afking or leeching and by mere chance they pop back on and are like "oh, i'm map owner." Reward paying attention, reduce happenstance.


The 3 line spam is mitigated with typing @info or another @ command to reset and is not really that cumbersome.
 

Hamster

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
62
Best answers
0
I'm extremely against a 1 minute queue timer for inactives.

Issue:
Let's say you're 4th in the queue, behind the attacker and their two mules, but ahead of the attackers friends.

Attacker
Mule 1
Mule 2
You
Friend of Attacker

The attacker and their mules can instantly leave the map and you have a single minute to react before losing the map. I've waited hours for a map before and it's not feasible to expect that I can't use the bathroom without somebody juking me and passing the map onto their friends. That's exactly the scenario we're looking to avoid! And frankly since I saw it immediately, I don't think this possibility is lost on the more powerful players on the server either :p

Proposal:
If map ownership transfers there's a 5 minute wait time. At the end of this 5 minutes any player that isn't active (does not kill a mob) automatically gets removed from the queue. This way you can remove all mules from the queue but people waiting for a map don't need to sit there in paranoia hoping they can get a map. It preserves the 5 minutes while also helping to remove the queue of inactive users.

Example:
Attacker
Mule 1
Mule 2
You
Your Mule
Friend of Attacker

Attacker leaves and 5 minutes pass, but only you and attacker show activity. New queue:

You
Friend of Attacker

Inactive:
Mule 1
Mule 2
Your Mule

Or in the case that you don't want to create and mess with an inactive status it can be applied like this:

You
Friend of Attacker
Mule 1
Mule 2
Your Mule

But in the case you use inactive status, inactive players act like off-map players. The second they become active they become added to the end of the queue.

So yeah, this helps because before some people who had to brb and had 2-3 mules in the map would exit the map and come back and have a 20 minute queue where they could do as they pleased. Now they only have 5 minutes, unless they come back and begin killing mobs.

I also think the rule about area map bosses should apply here. Somebody who has no intention to train on the map (Ex 85 Meso up Mule Hermit Leeched at Ulu City 2 who was afk and is now timidly killing 1 mob every 2 minutes) should not be able to hold a map. This would be implemented as area boss map policy meaning it's bannable by report and not by mechanics. It's kind of insane if you walk into farming map and see a lvl 5x Blaze Wizard named iAmAFuckingMule and they tell you to cc while you're directly behind them in the queue, but ahead of the mage called "iFarmChaosScrollsPog" and then you have to leave, and the second you leave and come back iFarmChaosScrollsPog suddenly "stops being afk" and is now FMAing the map. I know people in this thread do that shit, so don't play coy LOL..

The one exception to this rule should be a Priest. Priests should have the full 5 minute duration to find a party member even if they're not actively attacking, but likewise they shouldn't be able to indefinitely hold a map.
 
Last edited:

Uchi

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2018
Messages
794
Best answers
0
I think it should remain 5 minutes for the first Queue change and 1 minute for every change after that. That way you're not waiting 30 minutes for it to cycle through all the mules on the map
 

Hamster

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
62
Best answers
0
I think it should remain 5 minutes for the first Queue change and 1 minute for every change after that. That way you're not waiting 30 minutes for it to cycle through all the mules on the map
I like this idea a lot more than the one that's been presented to us (aside from mine heh) but this is still susceptible to the mule of the Attacker being first in line then immediately leaving the queue and coming back. I think it would be abused against newer players who think they have a full 5 minutes but come back to find the map suddenly changed without understanding why. And then in that case, what would determine a 5 minute queue change or a 1 minute queue change? If it goes to my mule then I AFK, do I have 4 Min 55 Sec + 5 Minutes (Mule 2) to come back? There's not a strong way to distinguish between the attacker and the mule here. A strong system should be impervious to those kind of edge cases, something everybody can understand (and can easily be coded by the devs).

Our goals are essentially as follows:

Prevent long queues of AFK players
Remove mules from holding maps
Prevent attackers from passing on maps to their friend and skirting the laws of the queue
Do all of this in a way that can easily be coded and understood by everyone

There are a lot of benefits to being a higher level, having high level friends, and I don't think it's possible to mitigate those benefits - nor that we should. However, I don't think @map should be one of those benefits and that we should do everything in our power to make sure it isn't. It's a massive turn off to newer or weaker players who find it inaccessible to ever gain access to some of the strongest farming and training maps in the game. One can say that fair is fair and that people who get maps deserve it but I think that ensuring our system enables diversity and helps level out the playing field is important. @map already does kind of do that - even if it's not perfect, so I'd like to continue the spirit of that. That being said, it's not just about me, my guild, or my friends. Even my small guild over the span of two days has gotten to the point where we're holding maps between us for 8-10 hours at a time. I don't think it's fair, nor do I think it's healthy for the longevity of Croosade :x

Note: Whatever changes we get, I think it'd be awesome to have @map and all of it's entirety stickied or even explained by @mapinfo in game, so players have easy access to understand what the rules are!
 
Last edited:

Slumber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2018
Messages
278
Best answers
2
The attacker and their mules can instantly leave the map and you have a single minute to react before losing the map. I've waited hours for a map before and it's not feasible to expect that I can't use the bathroom without somebody juking me and passing the map onto their friends.
This is such a "got ya" logic and thinking people are just saving maps for their friends (it happens with the new, old, proposed or any system that a friend could get a map. I guess that is how community works...).

If you're paying attention in the slightest, regardless, the map is yours. The mules wouldn't be able to attack or appropriately kill in the map so you knew it was yours. I don't know.... When I worked for the DMV in my teenage years, I waited 2 minutes before moving on to the next person in the queue. Sucks you were not paying attention, back of the line (read scholarship, virtual and real-life interactions are one-in-the same).

Again, lessen happenstance and reward paying attention.
 

Hamster

Active member
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
62
Best answers
0
This is such a "got ya" logic and thinking people are just saving maps for their friends (it happens with the new, old, proposed or any system that a friend could get a map. I guess that is how community works...).

If you're paying attention in the slightest, regardless, the map is yours. The mules wouldn't be able to attack or appropriately kill in the map so you knew it was yours. I don't know.... When I worked for the DMV in my teenage years, I waited 2 minutes before moving on to the next person in the queue. Sucks you were not paying attention, back of the line (read scholarship, virtual and real-life interactions are one-in-the same).

Again, lessen happenstance and reward paying attention.
But why have a system that requires you to check in on Maple every single minute over the course of multiple hours when you could avoid it? And the mules can attack in the map even if it's 'yours'. It doesn't disable attacking.

Let's look at this instance. You're 2nd person in the queue, and then there's the attacker.

Attacker
You
Leecher (AFK)
Leecher (AFK)
Leecher (AFK)

You look away for literally 5 seconds, and the attacker's friend comes in and hops onto a rope. Now it looks like this

You
Leecher (AFK)
Leecher (AFK)
Leecher (AFK)
Attacker's friend
Attacker

If you didn't @map in that next minute, you could have just lost the map to the Attacker's friend as they continue to FMA the map and pretend like nothing happened after they exited the map and came back. So even though the attacker is FMAing and you're paying attention, you've just lost your right to the map. That's even worse than the previous scenario, where at least you had 5 minutes!

Regarding your situation at the DMV... Everybody hates the DMV. Do we really want your experience on Croosade and waiting for a map to be equated to a process that every single person in America hates :x My idea of playing MapleStory - and I'm sure many others - is not looking at my screen every minute for hours hoping that the attacker will leave and I'll happen to catch it. If there's a better solution - and I'm not necessarily saying it's mine - we should look for it! There's no rush preventing us from iterating and reiterating over multiple concepts and solutions until we get something good for everyone~
 
Last edited:

Teddy

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
92
Best answers
0
After reading everything and thinking about it again, I came to the following decision:
The 5 minutes remain unchanged. Everyone should be treated equally and therefore the next person in the queue gets the same time to react. We cannot simply assume that a person is afk just because they do not react directly, because, like the previous map owner, he or she could only have gone to the toilet, for example.

But there will still be a change: if you are in a map with several clients, you will only be in one queue of the map for all channels with the character with which you first entered the map. This ensures to a certain extent that everyone can really only be 5 minutes afk and that nobody does occupy the map in more than one channel or extend his or her time by entering the map with several characters. This change does not apply if someone is online with multiple devices, as checking multiple devices would only be possible by comparing the IP, however, checking on the IP could disadvantage people living in the same household or people sharing the same network and thus the same IP.

Also upon using the @map command, you will be notified when the map ownership changes. This notification will only be active for the map you have used the command in and will stay active until you leave the map.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top