Obviously, that is hogging. Manon wouldn't be right to use as comparison towards lyka due to the way you change channel and It is because both bosses have different agenda towards individual players. Basically why manon is so popular is because of the drops manon's cry is needed for horntail and the skill genesis. Lyka is for the Pink bean's quest (only need to do once) and the drops from lyka. So players have different agenda for both bosses and the time spawn is also totally different. Yes, please stick to lyka and don't bring in other issues. I hunt lyka too. Yea maybe removing the leaf would fix the problem but right now i'm sure it's not 40% cause that would mean 1/3 = 1 leaf but i don't see it happen that way. Different players have differences and they have different ideal of what is fun to them in this game. Some people like to come online and just clear theit boss quota, some people want to stay in the free market the whole day to chat with friends and some people just want to farm lykas/manon/anego all day. When it comes to drops is all about luck and hard-work, your dedication towards your ideal goal and as long the player followed the server's T&C. I wonder what do you mean by people have ruin the game for others by hunting lyka 24/7? Yes, lyka still do seduce to players. Changing channel and log out depends on whether the person HP is high enough to tank the hits during the sed duration. Yes, that is the issue that we need to focus more on. The spawn time duration of lyka right now is also partly causing it and the mapowner in lyka. I'm hoping more admins and gms can input their perspective on what they think.
From personal experience, lyka has become much more popular recently with many people spending a lot of time there, especially since you can teleport there now. You need to claim map owner of a map before the lyka spawns to guarantee that you will own that lyka as people will use the mapowner against you.
A very simple solution: In only boss maps, if a boss spawns and the current map owner is not present in the same channel then map ownership is passed to whoever first attacked in the map. This prevents players from hogging multiple channels of boss maps with a single character. This does not affect players training on popular boss maps while going to repot (i.e. Encounter with Buddha aka Black Crow map) Players can still camp a boss map (e.g. manon) and when a boss spawns, he/she is still mapowner. If a player has found a boss, and he/she wants to get SE/HS from a friend in another channel in FM, he/she still holds mapownership. If two players entered a same boss map at the same time while map owner isn't in same channel and the boss spawned, then whoever attacked first should get mapowner. People training in non-boss maps are not in any way affected, ~mapowner still works how it is. Is not a complicated idea and is not a major change to how current ~mapowner works. Although I've never personally fought Lyka so I've never experienced the so-called "competition" over there but I've personally seen someone abusing this before in manon, simply because he has three(?) death timers in three different channels, I think. He camps his bishop in the first channel and use his attacker to cycle between the other two channels. It's a smh-but-helpless situation.
In that situation if you know that they're holding two maps you aren't helpless since you're only allowed to hold one boss map
Yep, I've only found out that you can't hold 2 boss maps per person when people were discussing Balcony vs MajoraMask case in the shoutbox, kinda too late But the problem is, it is very hard to prove that someone is hogging two channels at the same time, unless you've two clients opened in the same channels as him. He/she can also claim he was simply surfing the channels unless you're going to have to screenshot & ~servertime & /find currentmapowner each time you start fighting a boss, to show, he was earlier in another channel, came in later and made you cc. That is not fun D: And more often than not, if you know two characters belong to the same person, you probably know him personally/as a friend. so yeah...
So how does that work? Why does changing channel getting SE/HS it would still make the person own the map? It's not a bad idea but would that be possible for the coders? I think you need to elaborate more cause it sound like the map owner can't leave the map. That is not a helpless situation. If you know both char is the same owner, he is hogging and is against the rule.
i suggest that there is a limit 1 map limit, once you gain mapowner in another map your previous map will be free of mapowner simple as that? i dont see there being any problems with that sort of mapowner for anymap? i also dont see why people should be able to hold multiple maps just by walking through and attacking so 1map limit would solve that problem.
It's simple and works like how current ~mapowner works. It's just that if a boss spawns and the current mapowner isn't present in the same channel, then mapowner is awarded to that person who found it. So, he has mapowner for 3mins, and he could go fm to get buffs/hold the boss for a friend, etc etc just like how current ~mapowner works. There are only 20 something Area/mini bosses, so I don't think it is very hard to code...But I've never done coding in maplestory source code, so I can't exactly say so. E.g. Alice just killed a kentaurus in channel 1 Manon forest and gains map ownership Alice changed channel to channel 2. A minute later, Bob went in channel 1 manon forest, killed a kentaurus but mapowner still belonged to Alice. However, a manon spawned, Bob immediately gets mapowner since Alice is in channel 2. Bob can go fm, change channel, get buffs but still hold map ownership of channel 1 manon forest for 3 mins. Alice is unable to hog 2 channels of manons because when manon spawns and she isn't in the same channel, then mapowner is given to someone else.
What if someone grinding at a popular map, e.g. skeles, leaves the map to npc, and another person comes and decides to summon a rog or galore bag.
Good question, but my suggestion is only targeted at boss maps, so, non-boss maps will not be affected. :c There's a slight problem with this is that... if someone was to go back to town to npc and accidentally used a skill or attacked the air, he would gain map ownership of the town and automatically lose his grinding map's ownership. Furthermore, people can abuse this by camping in towns, and opening boss summoning bags, say, at the center of leafre where mystic door spawns, forcing bishops to use genesis or heal, again, losing ~mapowner of skeles map.
A solution to this could be to make towns and other non-monster maps not have any mapowner. There are no monsters to kill or loot to be looted in maps with no monsters, so there is no reason for mapowner to be active on such maps. This would eliminate the issue of losing a map if you were to accidentaly attack in fm or while npcing, although mapownership would still be lost if the owner attacked in another map with mobs, but that can be avoided if one wishes to keep his map.
i dont see why a bishop would be forced to use heal or genesis just because theres a monster in town. If this were to be implemented i dont think it would take that long before people learn to not attack in other maps such as fm or in town while npcing or getting buffs. Or like yuame said they could make it so that towns and fm is not affected by mapowner.
So basically you want Map owner to stay how it is, with the 3min timer. But on gaining map ownership it removes all other maps you currently own, and remove the fact you can own a town/fm map etc. so you don't lose your map if you're npcing/fming buffs. sounds like it has no flaws that I can see so far
I think that's a viable solution too It doesn't differ very much from how current ~mapowner works so I think people can quickly understand and adapt to it. Only downside I could think of is that this also makes selling maps very easy, which is not something I think many people will like, but perhaps this will save us a lot of drama like a very recent case, so it's not too bad I supposed. But I don't think there's a perfect system anywhere in the world, so yeahh
I'd agree to the idea of ~mapowner being limited to one map. I'm seeing this same behavior at Manon as well; It's silly.
So I've been following this thread here and there to monitor the situation and review feedback given by you all and we've decided that a change to Lyka does need to be made. I will summarize our thoughts on Lyka and mapowner for general knowledge; Lyka is clearly a boss that has a major upside - the fact that it's relatively easy to not only hold multiple channels and make exorbitant amounts of NX off them with relatively little effort is a problem. ~mapowner as it stands allows players to hold multiple maps and multiple channels around the game. This can be beneficial for some purposes (see: 3rd job FP mages grinding multiple channels to make up for their horrid 2nd job experience) but is clearly a negative in this particular situation. ~mapowner has been considered the end of the discussion as far as KSing is concerned for the last very long time, with the only exception being map hogging using character mules that cannot reasonably kill a boss on the map, which were ruled to not be allowed and map ownership held by those types of characters (see: HS mule at Anego) would be considered null. We do not want to change this policy at this time. We do not want to make a change to the game to fix this problem that will also affect other aspects of the game. So that being said, let me explain roughly what our thought process is. Changing ~mapowner may result in unintended negative aspects to other parts of the game and may confuse an already fairly unique policy that we use here. Throw on top of that the first point that I made - it's Lyka that's broken, in our opinion, not ~mapowner - we're led to potential solutions of changing Lyka itself. We bounced around a few ideas that we would hope to reduce the reason to farm these bosses quite so adamantly without making any drastic change to the way that we all know and hate love the ~mapowner command. What we will be implementing specifically are the following nerfs to Lyka; the spawn time on Lyka will be raised, in hopes that players find less of a reason to camp multiple maps for long periods of time. Additionally, the rate of Maple Leaf drop will be reduced to be more in line with other high level area bosses, however it will also drop smaller NX cards as compensation. We hope that this pushes players towards the mentality of checking for Lyka spawns rather than camping for Lyka spawns, and of course we will continue to monitor the situation after the changes have been made. Thank you all for your contributions and opinions.
edit: fixing something that isn't working properly makes sense, but people have a misconception of what makes something OP, in relation to the competition that comes with it. Lyka isn't even "OP". Yes, I leave my character in o5 for whole days, but I don't camp it. I spend no more than 5 minutes checking, and if I don't find any, I don't check for another couple hours. For all the effort I put in, the tp rocks I use getting in and out of o5, I find maybe 1 or 2 leaves in a whole day which is valued at 15-40m. So how is that op? I know there are some people that camp pretty hard but even then: they don't get all the lykas that spawn while they camp, they spend hours checking, and they find maybe 5+ leaves if they are lucky. If they work that hard to get however many leaves they get, I think they deserve it - they know how to keep up with competition and devote time into getting something that does not even pay out well (for the time spent). People complain about how lyka dropping leaves with their "short" spawn time is op, but as someone who has been hunting consistently for at least half a year, I can say that the lyka scene has improved in a way. There are a lot more regular hunters, and even though I dislike the competition of course, a better variety of people are benefiting from what lyka has to offer compared to when just a few wealthy players hunted lyka all day. If you can't keep up with the competition, then that's it. Sometimes things are unfair - this issue in topic is pretty insignificant for a pretty small boss. If I spend 2 hours of a day getting 3 leaves, don't say lyka is op. If I get lucky and find 5 leaves in one sweep, then I was just lucky and there was no competition at that hour. People keep forgetting that 5k nx is valued at 15-20m. I know my time is not worth hunting lykas, but as for many others, its purely for emotional satisfaction - the excitement of finding nx or just being able to stock up for a big gach run. People outside of the lyka scene think its so op and should be nerfed, but those that hunt it know that the rewards are only average for the time and effort spent. In the end, it's just competition and mapowner is still mapowner - sure what some people do to stay ahead of the competition may be immoral, but it's still an issue of morals. Hate that person and call them out then. Some people say that constantly undercutting prices in FM to the point of undervaluing them are immoral - when I see that, I bash on them in bl and chose to dislike them, maybe even defame for the thrill of it. Competition is part of the game and the lyka scene is so overly exaggerated. So maybe change will be good? I just wanted to say that people have the wrong idea about lyka. When looking at the issues of lyka while considering that it's just about competition, it really is just fair game, and with any competition there are moral issues that can arise, in this case I'd say is pretty rare and small. edit: You can't just say that "lyka is op cuz it drops ___ amount of leaves in ___ amount of time" and whatnot. It all depends on how many people are hunting it. If anything, you're complaining about the inflow of leaves to the server from lyka, which is arguably insignificant.
When I spent all day at lyka I could easily make 50-60k nx there. That being said it's a lot harder to do that now(before nerf) because of the amount of people there.
