Unlocking Encounters Backfired - Welcome to Old Sebelis in EQ2 Dungeons

[Yimway]

I'm sure many will flame me for this, but I believe it is degrading the game significantly.  I believe it was a huge mistake in the first place, and I believe the effect is the direct opposite of the intention. Reasoning for unlocking encounters - To improve the social aspect of the game.  Allow a drive by healing, a rez, encourage people to cooperate more. Why it flat out doesn't work. Dungeons are reworked now to spawn nameds frequently.  Camping place holders spawn them faster.  And these nameds now drop master chests and legendary gear with GREAT frequency.  I think this is indeed a good thing.  I play in regular alt groups in almost every tier of play and having a rewarding, challenging, and interesting dungeon to do it in is a great thing. Encounter Unlocking breaks this.  I discovered how fruitful the changes were a few weeks ago.  I also discovered since my wife and I have accounts, how easy I could 2 box farm these zones.  Level 57 Swash groups with a 35 Warden and heads to RE.  We run the entire zone greyed.  Swash can clear 7 named PH's before the first respawns.  I can camp 7 master chest dropping nameds, and pull down 2-3 an hour easy.  I farmed it a couple of nights to gear up people in my guild, I wont lie.   However there was no one else in the zone when I did it, or no groups working in there.  The one time a group showed up I quit farming that area. Its all grey, how do I get the reward?  Well, I just clear a safe spot, disband group, warden casts one spell on named and does 11pts of dammage.  I then ambush, and murder the mob with my out of group swash.  Master chest drops, Party begins. Greed motivates all... Two weeks past and 30% of the server knows about the zones now.  But people take it even farther.  Group your lowbie at zone in, find the master dropping mob, attack it within group, and disband with a dot left on the mob to finish it off.  Still drops master chest.  Run looter down to loot it.  Either case is easy to farm with, problem is we've got 5-6 groups of people of appropriate level working in the zones cause they know about the rewards, then you have groups of botters, boxers, and other 'undesirable' types name farming, camp steeling, jumping over people that belong there stealing the rewards. Surely in game customer service has seen a rapid rise in these reports? So in the end, encounter unlocking doesn't create cooperation, it creates user anger, frustration, and allows people to exploit these dungeons, camp steal, etc, etc.   IMO, The farthest thing from bolstering cooperation. I implore you to re-lock encounters and look into changing the grey out factor.  I don't beleive you intend for people to exploit invite to move freely in zones they should be agro in (the intent is to prevent xp?).  I implore you not to nerf the rewards but cap the exploit. Why not take the lowest group level, any mob even con or higher that agro's him solo is now agro to the group?  Make this atleast slightly more difficult to greed farm. Ok, Flame away on me guys. Yim <div></div>

[Cuz]

<DIV>I just wanted to be able to help others... I wanted to be there just in the nic of time and taunt / heal / kill, whatever it took to save a player. Now others are ruining that out of sheer greed. It's down right pathetic.</DIV>

[Fami]

<DIV>I have to agree with ya Yim... I loved that the old KS issues were once gone. Now I get KS'd (often on long camped mobs) on a regular basis. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this needs to be looked at and altered, maybe not quite all the way as it previously was but some middle ground. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Herrod]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fami wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have to agree with ya Yim... I loved that the old KS issues were once gone. Now I get KS'd (often on long camped mobs) on a regular basis. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this needs to be looked at and altered, maybe not quite all the way as it previously was but some middle ground. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Turn on automatic locking and no one can steal the mob after you have engaged it. If someone else is camping and manages to engage before you do then he has just as much right as you do. Not that hard to figure out is it?

[Cuz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Herrod97 wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Fami wrote:<BR> <DIV>I have to agree with ya Yim... I loved that the old KS issues were once gone. Now I get KS'd (often on long camped mobs) on a regular basis. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think this needs to be looked at and altered, maybe not quite all the way as it previously was but some middle ground. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Turn on automatic locking and no one can steal the mob after you have engaged it. If someone else is camping and manages to engage before you do then he has just as much right as you do. Not that hard to figure out is it? <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>It's not getting the mob that's the issue, it's the fact that people farm the mobs using a higher level character. If a few groups of level 30~40 are fighting for named mobs that's not an issue. If the group of 30~40s have to compete with a level 30 and 60 that can walk around the dungeon with impunity, that's an issue.<BR>

[Yimway]

I do not entirely agree. You're in a level approrpriate group level 35 average clearing the spawn just before some 37^^^ named to pull him.  As you are engaged, a level 60 ranger runs past you invised, snipes the named and kills it.  3 mins later his level 35 boxed account runs up and loots said named drop. I disagree that this person has 'just as much right to it'.  I disagree that this playstyle is 'fair'. And I _STRONGLY_ disagree with the combat system put into place to enable this person to do this. It takes away from the game, it takes away from cooperation, in general it sucks. Yim

[thepriz]

<span><blockquote><hr>Yimway wrote:I do not entirely agree. You're in a level approrpriate group level 35 average clearing the spawn just before some 37^^^ named to pull him.  As you are engaged, a level 60 ranger runs past you invised, snipes the named and kills it.  3 mins later his level 35 boxed account runs up and loots said named drop. I disagree that this person has 'just as much right to it'.  I disagree that this playstyle is 'fair'. And I _STRONGLY_ disagree with the combat system put into place to enable this person to do this. It takes away from the game, it takes away from cooperation, in general it sucks. Yim <hr></blockquote>Sorry, I have to say that I like it this way. It is a game if I want to two box and work with my alts to get them stuff I should be able to do so. I don't think I would do it that way but I would mentor down and actually two box my characters. It gives me an option how to play the game and I am able to heal and rez people that are not in my group. I don't like the idea of people doing what you say to exploit the game but I rather have the options than not have them. The game is way more fun if I can role play and not be limited by the mechanics of the game. </span><div></div>

[Dischord]

one short term fix would be to go back to the system that disallowed disbanding a group while engaged.  Won't adress all your issues, but will remove the one specific exploit you named.  Also, TLC should be determined by the lowest member of the group.   And, loot should not drop simply because the party that initiated combat coned XP, but by the level of the party that does 50% or more of the damage.  You can always lock your encounters to prevent getting KSed, and you can even PL under the new rules, you just can't farm. 

[luciu]

I agree with you Yim. I have not seen much advantage out of removing the locking system.

[Cuz]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lucius8 wrote:<BR>I agree with you Yim. I have not seen much advantage out of removing the locking system. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>See my first post in this thread. It has advantages for players like me... Kind of irrelevent, but I like it.

[Azamien-Dermorate]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> lucius8 wrote:<BR>I agree with you Yim. I have not seen much advantage out of removing the locking system. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P><BR>Which is why some people protested this change when it was announced.   A few actually predicted similar behavior but it fell on deaf ears at the time because there was a majoirity that wanted to do away with locked encounters  this so that they could do drive by buffing ect ....   now it sounds like a few are seeing the true nature of the change ....</P> <P>... aint it grand? :smileymad:</P>

[Yimway]

<span>Az, I posted about this previously.  However, because Epic targets still locked regardless, and only epic targets had a reliable chance of dropping gear worth farming, it sorta worked out ok.  There were some isolated problem cases, but it was tolerable.   Once they threw in a bunch of non epic con mobs that drop farmable loot, the dirty underside to this change came to the surface. I don't completly advocate bringing back encounter locking; however, if a reasonable sollution isn't found to remedy these types of 'exploits', then yes I take enforced locking over exploits. Yim <blockquote><hr>Azamien-Dermorate wrote: <blockquote> <hr> lucius8 wrote:I agree with you Yim. I have not seen much advantage out of removing the locking system. <div></div> <hr> </blockquote> <p>Which is why some people protested this change when it was announced.   A few actually predicted similar behavior but it fell on deaf ears at the time because there was a majoirity that wanted to do away with locked encounters  this so that they could do drive by buffing ect ....   now it sounds like a few are seeing the true nature of the change ....</p> <p>... aint it grand? :smileymad:</p> <div></div><hr></blockquote></span>

[Belgor]

<DIV>"easy" sollution would be to somehow tag boss-mobs as auto-lock encounters like epics are.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This might require some additional coding though to seperate named bosses from regular heroics.</DIV>

[ca]

<P>I must be missing something because I have an option to auto-lock encounters and have seen MANY groups in locked encounters using the option that SOE left in for people who do not like the open encounters.</P> <P>Personally I love the fact that encounters can be left unlocked BY CHOICE since I do not farm zones for masters and thus do not get irritated when someone else motivated by greed um.....gets greedy and steals an encounter I left unlocked.</P> <P>I think SOE has made several mistakes in this game but this one is a minor irritation compared to the good it can do.</P> <P>Granted I haven't checked my group op's in a while so it is entirely possible they removed this option but if not there shouldn't be any complaining.</P>

[EvilIguana9]

I think the simplest solution here might be the best, and that is to mark named encounters as auto-locked.  Maybe there should be a new class of encounters, Epic x1.  Nameds are usually a good deal more powerful than normal heroic encounters of the same level, so I think that would be a reasonable designation for stuff that needs to be farm-[expletive haxx0red by Raijinn]. <div></div>

[Magu]

They knew about this when they added the unlocked encounters. What makes you think they'll go back now? <div></div>

[Xehl]

<span><blockquote><hr>cavv wrote:<div></div> <p>I must be missing something because I have an option to auto-lock encounters and have seen MANY groups in locked encounters using the option that SOE left in for people who do not like the open encounters.</p> <p>Personally I love the fact that encounters can be left unlocked BY CHOICE since I do not farm zones for masters and thus do not get irritated when someone else motivated by greed um.....gets greedy and steals an encounter I left unlocked.</p> <p>I think SOE has made several mistakes in this game but this one is a minor irritation compared to the good it can do.</p> <p>Granted I haven't checked my group op's in a while so it is entirely possible they removed this option but if not there shouldn't be any complaining.</p><hr></blockquote>Yes, I think you missunderstood what OP meant. Killstealing can easily be prevented as you say, but that is not the problem. The problem is that people can exploit the open encounters to kill grey mobs and still get all the rewards.</span><div></div>

[Xerxess]

<P>Wow you exploited the system for greed and lewt, you must be proud of yourself. Unlocked encounters were nice for healers, most healers were annoyed that we had cool heals but guess what...we couldn't use them on a dying newbie or anyone for that matter unless they were in a our group. Or we couldn't rez a fallen person outside our group unless they joined us or we dropped and joined them.</P> <P>Healers do like helping people every once in a while...its nice to throw a heal on that person that is about to die that is not grouped with you.</P> <P>I think they should suspend your [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] but that is just me...I mean you willing knew about this exploit and you did it anyway then come on the boards to tell everyone about it and ask Sony to go back to the old ways. They shouldn't have to fix things because of a few bad apples, You cheated yourself and others around by doing this but your right this game is driven by greed and I suppose you are too.</P>

[Purg]

they have coding in place that means if the initiater does less than 50% damge he gets no xp, just add in that he gets no Loot either, That would help with the mentor unmentor trick. Stop people leaving groups whilst they are engaged too would help. The problem with the first suggetion is that could be abused, my lv 3x+ what ever could sit in oakmyst and kill ANY mob that any engages meaning they go no xp and loot, that is untill the noobs, encounter locks it. Other way is add in a limited encounter lock meaning a person more than X levels above you would see the encounter as locked where as people nearer  you level could join in, perhaps make it twice the group range. <div></div>

[Chefren]

Whats this talk about killstealing? The one to engage the mob first gets the looting rights. Locking or unlocking wont change that in any way. <div></div>

[Mew]

I think that Yim's point is that if you take a group and clear an area to get a named mob to spawn its not good sportsmanship to come along with a high lvl toon,  to which the named is gray, and gank it and then loot it.  Anyway, I agree.  My main toon is a 44 Templar.  Although I love the idea of 'drive by' heals and rezzes (it was one of the main reasons I liked the class) I prefer the encounter locking better.  Bring it back to the way it was. <div></div>

[sAs-Bartleby]

I have another solution. Let the mob didn´t change the aggro. Now the low level player attacks the mob with color and the aggro change once the high level player makes damage. Nobody is hurt in this case. But if the mob would be still aggro to the low level he needs healing or die. In this case a For example lvl 35 and 50 can only beat lvl 28 or 29 named Heroic. The loot is not interested for both of them and they may decide to do something more profit if they join groups and play the way they should do. I thought there stood that the encount starter have to do >50% of damage to the mob to reward loot. That had to be fixed if he only make one damage attack and 99,9 % of the damage is done from a high level player.

[dubbs]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dischordio wrote:<BR> one short term fix would be to go back to the system that disallowed disbanding a group while engaged.  Won't adress all your issues, but will remove the one specific exploit you named.  Also, TLC should be determined by the lowest member of the group.   <FONT color=#ffff00>And, loot should not drop simply because the party that initiated combat coned XP, but by the level of the party that does 50% or more of the damage</FONT>.  You can always lock your encounters to prevent getting KSed, and you can even PL under the new rules, you just can't farm. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>By that thinking, an ungrouped lvl 60 templar could still stand by and spam heal a lower level toon as he fought ^^^heroics and did the majority of the damage.</DIV>

[Dischord]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> dubbs wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dischordio wrote:<BR> one short term fix would be to go back to the system that disallowed disbanding a group while engaged.  Won't adress all your issues, but will remove the one specific exploit you named.  Also, TLC should be determined by the lowest member of the group.   <FONT color=#ffff00>And, loot should not drop simply because the party that initiated combat coned XP, but by the level of the party that does 50% or more of the damage</FONT>.  You can always lock your encounters to prevent getting KSed, and you can even PL under the new rules, you just can't farm. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>By that thinking, an ungrouped lvl 60 templar could still stand by and spam heal a lower level toon as he fought ^^^heroics and did the majority of the damage.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>true.  point conceded.   A more complex solution would be: whoever has agro while 50% or more of the damage was done.  Said healer would almost certainly get agro- even if they let the mob beat on them while the twink killed it.  Not sure how realistic that would be, however.   Or, at the end of the fight, all damage done by the mob is totaled.  If more than 50% of the damage done was either mitigated by a buff from a person not in the group, or the party members were healed for an amount of HP that was greater than 50% of the mobs damage durring the encounter, TLC would be calculated based on that persons level rather than the groups.  Another option would be to lock encounters, but allow them to be unlocked while engaged without having to break the encounter, with the penalty that no loot would drop.  Sort of a half step between an unlocked encounter, and a locked encounter that has to be broken to avoid death.  You live, you control wether or not others can attack the mob, you get XP (quest credit debatable), but you forfit the chance for loot. <p>Message Edited by Dischordio on <span class=date_text>11-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:39 AM</span>

[Geekyone]

<P>I'm all for locking encounters, that never really bothered me.</P> <P>What i missed though was being able to help players out with beneficial spells during those fights.</P> <P>I never had any complain that I cast Bramble shield or a reactive heal on them while they were fighting.</P> <P>That was one of the best things in EQ1 was the ability to buff other characters for their benefit, not mine.</P>

[SnowKnight]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chefren wrote:<BR>Whats this talk about killstealing? The one to engage the mob first gets the looting rights. Locking or unlocking wont change that in any way.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What he said...

[Rambling Diatri]

<P> There actually is a simple little fix that could be dropped in here. First, make it so that anyone dropping group or zoning locks the encounter(ie no loot or exp) and resets it to its spawnlocation . Second, make it so the group or individual who initially engauged the encounter must do no less than 50% damage to to the mob.</P> <P> At this point there is now way for someone to cause the damage with there high toon and then drop group or zone out so the mob goes green again. </P> <DIV> Someone could still manage to twink their lowbie by way of managing 50% of the damage while being healed and then have  others finish off the mob all quick like for 'em. But it would be a huge time consuming pain in the butt, that would be most easily done with an entourage . The kind of pain in the butt that would greatly discourage people from doing it. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> Some might say that dropping group or zoning causing an encounter to lock and reset  would be a problem, most likely the same people who are utilizing the current system to twink their nooblets.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Soveroo]

They'll wind up doing something similiar to what was done in Clefts of Rujark. The chest loot that used to sell to a vendor for several gold now only sells for 1 silver, so the farmers who farm to sell directly to NPCs to make coin will now be out of said coin. The other thing I can see them doing is making more of the loot No-Trade. Basically it'll be ruined for all because of the few. <div></div>

[Yimway]

<div></div><span>I believe you are mistaken.  If initiater does less than 50% they get 50% xp and 100% of the loot.  In this way it is possible to PL people with a high dammage class out of group.  *message edited to pacify the grammer police =P<blockquote><hr>Purgle wrote:they have coding in place that means if the initiater does less than 50% damge he gets no xp, just add in that he gets no Loot either, That would help with the mentor unmentor trick. Stop people leaving groups whilst they are engaged too would help. The problem with the first suggetion is that could be abused, my lv 3x+ what ever could sit in oakmyst and kill ANY mob that any engages meaning they go no xp and loot, that is untill the noobs, encounter locks it. Other way is add in a limited encounter lock meaning a person more than X levels above you would see the encounter as locked where as people nearer  you level could join in, perhaps make it twice the group range. <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Yimway on <span class=date_text>11-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:34 PM</span>

[Dischord]

How do you get 50% loot?  cut the baby in half?

[Joos]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> SnowKnight wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Chefren wrote:<BR>Whats this talk about killstealing? The one to engage the mob first gets the looting rights. Locking or unlocking wont change that in any way.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>What he said... <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>What he said said :smileyindifferent:<BR>

[Yimway]

<div></div>This isn't about 'kill stealing'.   Once you have an encounter, you have an encounter. This is about using an exploit to move freely around grey mobs, right past a group clearing the room to pull a name and killing the grey named while the xp group works away in vein.  That is killing the grey mob, and looting its master chest for yourself.    Then performing this same action on 5 other 'camped' nameds in the same zone.  Stealing the drops from the level appropriate people having to deal with such inconveninces as agro con mobs. Its Camp Stealing, Named Poaching, whatever you want to call it.  Its happening litterally hundreds of times a day in RE or CT these days.  Its an exploit enabled by the unlocking of encounters, and it needs the attention of the devs as it encourages and enables behavior that is undesirable and fosters conflict between players rather than cooperation (the orriginal intent of unlocking). <p>Message Edited by Yimway on <span class=date_text>11-30-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:33 PM</span>

[RoadkillUSA]

On the issue of a high level player(s) droping from group to make the mob con non-grey so as to allow chest drop ,wouldnt it be best for them to make it so the mob stays at the same con level through the whole encounter even if the high level player(s) drop from the group during encounter? As long as the mob is grey it will not drop chest.

[Magic]

<DIV>I totally approve of encounter locking, and I have that option enabled on all of my alts.  What the OP stated is quite disturbing to me.  Unfortunately, all good things can be abused by anyone who figures out a way to do so.  EQ! had the problem of power leveling.  EQ2 has the problem of power farming.  Being a loot farmer myself, I do it the old fashioned way.  Each alt works alone killing the mobs that it can and collects all loot after the kills.  I don't multi-box, mentor, or group during my farming sessions.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>My priest enjoys helping others.  If their encounters are locked, I can't do anything to help them.  I'm fine with that since it was their choice to lock me out.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I never did like the mentoring or group thing where the mob con color readjusted.  If a mob is red or grey to me, it should remain that way regardless of with whom I'm grouped.  But that's my opininon and why I don't group or mentor.</DIV>

[Yimway]

<P>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT**</FONT></P><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class=date_text>12-01-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:34 AM</span>

[Yimway]

<span>If they hit /y you could help them to your hearts content.  It just meant they weren't going to get any reward for being helped thru an encounter.  Makes perfect sense to me that if I can't handle the encounter myself, I shouldn't receive the rewards for it.  Right? <blockquote><hr>Aljola wrote: <div>My priest enjoys helping others.  If their encounters are locked, I can't do anything to help them.  I'm fine with that since it was their choice to lock me out.</div> <div> </div> <hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Yimway]

Um, there wasn't anything inapproriate in that message other than identifying an exploit. I'ld sure like to know what justified this removal. <span><blockquote><hr>Yimway wrote:<p>**REMOVED DUE TO INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT**</p><p>Message Edited by Raijinn Thunderguard on <span class="date_text">12-01-2005</span> <span class="time_text">10:34 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Cuz]

Maybe they don't want that exploit known?

[TheDragon]

<DIV><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Dischordio wrote:<BR> one short term fix would be to go back to the system that disallowed disbanding a group while engaged.  Won't adress all your issues, but will remove the one specific exploit you named.  Also, TLC should be determined by the lowest member of the group.   And, loot should not drop simply because the party that initiated combat coned XP, but by the level of the party that does 50% or more of the damage.  You can always lock your encounters to prevent getting KSed, and you can even PL under the new rules, you just can't farm. <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This is a good solution to the problem as stated by the OP.  Encounters can remain unlocked for all those that enjoy that kind of thing and the loot farming exploit is twarted.  Another poster points out that you could still get loot if someone stands outside group and just heals the lower level.... yes.  But this will take MUCH more time to kill said mob and is a much better situation than the current rules.</DIV>

[Finora]

<P>And all of this doesn't even mention the fact that you can train people now. Someone camping a mob you want? Train 'em. Had that happen to me several times. And yes, I know you can report them but if you are fighting a mob, and someone comes and trains a ton of other stuff on you it is entirely possible you will die long before you see the name of the person that did it.</P> <P>I love being able to heal/rez out of group with my priest, but the poaching and trains and all the negative stuff that came with, I'd rather go back to not being able to heal or rez or anything else out of group.</P> <P>And just so you know, my having combat auto lock on does NOTHING for other people training. </P> <P> </P> <P> </P>

[abstrac]

<DIV>I disagree. Part of the challenge of these types of games are contested spawns. The solution is not to create an aritifical bubble of protection around the spawns you want (they're not yours exclusively), the solution is to create a lot more zones to spread out the population and add a lot of useful loot in a lot of different places. (After all, most people play for loot. That's what drives the replay value of the game.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>On a personal level, if this game went back to locked encounters, I'd probably never play my healer types again. Thus I'd most likely quit playing. I did not care for being unable to heal others on the fly in DaoC, and I did not like the way CoH handled locked encounters. While it does open up oneself to griefing, being able to randomly help strangers is about the only true reason I play healers and buffers. I don't have more then 20-40 minutes at any given time to play, and these MMOGs are my only option since I do not feel any sense of accomplishment at all in single player games. (Most buffs is this game are already seriously reduced in their fun factor by being group only, as are many heals.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Non-healers also should not be punished by being unable to help strangers in need at random. So it's not only an issue with being able to heal others on the fly.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Ask for more content in the form of massive land additions. Spread out the population. Forced grouping on people who for one reason or another can only solo just causes them to leave the game. People who like to group are already doing so, you won't change those who do not.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As for options such as "powerleveling" or "bottom feeding", that's just not an issue. It's enjoyable to some, so let them have fun with the game. The only curb to greed in this situation, is to enforce single copy drops. Where a player can only loot one and only one copy of that item. If they want more, then they have to leave, dispose of the item and return, opening up the spawn to others.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Farmers for game companies should be aggressively sought out, purged, and actively fought out of the game through legal actions. Since SOE has the exchange servers, selling game items outside of this system can be easily presented as lost revenue on SOE's part, and no other third party can legally sell SOE's virtual property without signing on to a legal contract. SOE has plenty of money to throw at lawyers to break these game farmer companies in half and kill them from existence. I encourage them to do so for the benefit of all games, present and future. Out of country farmers can simply be IP banned through the banning of the entire country of origin, that prevents other systems of law from contesting SOE's right to enforce their legal contracts. (If people in those countries get upset over this, then it's up to them to change their legal system and force those game farming companies to cease operations.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Original EQ had it right on a lot of things that this game tried to change. Those changes have reduced the fun factor and tactical options. Unlocked encounters, and the 50% damage rule is the right way to go.</DIV>

[Krelfeari]

<P>I think that a solution could be reached pretty easily.</P> <P>I suggest making mobs give no exp, loot, or quest reward if attacked as a gray con.</P> <P>For instance, the 35 shaman and 57 swashy. 35 shaman casts spell does 11 damage, swashy attacks with ambus. Mob has been attacked by a player that the mob itself cons gray to and thus will no longer drop any rewards for anyone killing it whatsoever.</P> <P>I realize this could let a level 50 player accidentally walk up and attack that rare quest mob that a group of 25's are fighting and poof its worthless! Well, thats the level 25 groups fault for not locking the encounter if it was a really important fight.</P> <P>For little every day stuff this would still allow someone to save ur life, but then u don't get credit, who cares they saved ur life, forget the mob credit, right?</P> <P>But this also works so that those farming gray nameds can't do it anymore. Simply put, if anything coming from a player that the mob cons gray to even TOUCHES the mob, I don't care if its a debuff or a darn fun spell then the mob instantly and immediately becomes worthless!</P> <P>Allow the heals from higher level players to lower level guys that are ungrouped but just like every stat, mitigation, and everything else has a cap, give heals a cap. This heal cap can also be a neat way to toughen up encounters without having to tweak all day. All you gotta do now is design around a constant variable instead of all the static differences.</P> <P>Make the heal cap raise as they level ofcourse, but crunch some numbers, see what % of heals a healer on the same level as a tank can put out to their HP total and then basically set that as the benchmark. This way, a level 60 fury with a level 10 warrior doesnt make the warrior any better than if he had a level 10 fury with him....except that the level 60 can keep it up much longer, but with a cap on the heal amount the character being healed will prolly die if he is fighting something he couldnt duo with a level 10-15 fury anyway.</P> <P>Pretty simple, 2 fundamental rules to set up, and I think these would leave in place the social aspects and drop the abuse.</P> <P>If anyone sees a flaw in these ideas of mine here, then feel free to comment on it, it wouldnt be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last.</P>

[Goozman]

<DIV>We all had ways of doing the same thing before. ~Mentoring</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Find named, mentor, kill, unmentor, find named. It was only slightly slower</DIV>

[Krelfeari]

<P>the mentoring system is no where near as unbalanced as a level 60 practically one shotting named mobs after a level 35 does 4 damage imo.</P> <P>sure it does allow players to do some things that are a little out of their league, but I think its procs actually weigh up to the cons and that there is time to work on it where as this locking trick is really really bad right now and imo needs immediate fix.</P>

[Goozman]

<DIV>It was pretty much the same, and not much slower. When I'd mentor, my stats would be incredibly high for that level and I could solo most everything.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also have done the thing where u invite someone much lower to green out some grey stuff and then solo it. That one isn't quite as effective, but still worked pretty well.</DIV><p>Message Edited by Goozman on <span class=date_text>12-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>02:19 PM</span>

[Krelfeari]

<P>well I know as a 31 coercer when I mentored my brothers level 14 necro I got my butt kicked by a level 16 mob.</P> <P>All my gear was pretty darn good and I was easily at the INT cap while mentoring, but I still got beat, even with all adept1 spells and int capped out.</P> <P>maybe I shouldnt use coercer as a benchmark tho :smileyindifferent:</P>

[Crim001]

<P>In my opinion the only people that would be dumb enough to do this would be pretty obsessive compulsive. I mean, come on, if you have a high level toon in the first place, how hard is it to buy a few pieces of good armor/weps for it and quit pestering lowbie zones farming. Personally, the whole point of making an alt is to "relive" the lower levels again...</P>

[Aienaa]

<HR> <DIV> <P><FONT color=#ffff00>In my opinion the only people that would be dumb enough to do this would be pretty obsessive compulsive. I mean, come on, if you have a high level toon in the first place, how hard is it to buy a few pieces of good armor/weps for it and quit pestering lowbie zones farming. Personally, the whole point of making an alt is to "relive" the lower levels again...</FONT></P> <P></P> <HR> <P>Why would someone spend thier cash on low level gear they could easily go farm, but that is not the point of farming...  The #1 reason for farming is to make MONEY...  They farm the named sell the fabled/legendary items and Master Spells to make money....  Now, you have 2 types of farmers....  First is the kind of person that is just out to make in-game plat to sell for real world cash.....  The second kind is the people that farm lower tier named in order to sell the items so they can earn enough money to buy thier own tier equipment and spells.... </P> <P>I'll not go into the first kind of farmer, but for the second kind, let's look at what drives them....  It's the game economy......  I Know that I usually have between 5-10 plat at any given time....  Yesterday I found one of my 51+ spells on the broker for 22 plat....   Hmmmm, I only have 6 plat right now, so where can I get more plat so I can buy my spell (if I was willing to spend that much on a spell)....  Easy answer.... Go farming lower lever content and sell for cash... It's quick, and easy...  You can easily make alot of money between Fabled gear, Master Spells and Rares that drop from the chests.... </P> <P>All you need right now is 2 people and you can farm every named in the lower tier zones...   It's a vicious circle.... </P> <P>Player A Farms Runnyeye and makes alot of cash.... He then turns around and spends an exorbinant amount on a single spell....  Seeing that Player A will spend that much, more people list items for higher cost...  More people have to go farm in order to afford the new quota on prices</P> <P>It's much easier to outlevel, then go back and farm it than it is to farm stuff of your current tier (Thanks Botters)</P> <P> </P> <P>Gwern - 60 Assassin  /  Parody - 54 Troubador</P> <P> </P></DIV><p>Message Edited by Aienaa on <span class=date_text>12-04-2005</span> <span class=time_text>10:28 PM</span>

[Lysanthir Ahmquissar]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Yimway wrote:<BR>Level 57 Swash groups with a 35 Warden and heads to RE.  We run the entire zone greyed.  Swash can clear 7 named PH's before the first respawns.  I can camp 7 master chest dropping nameds, and pull down 2-3 an hour easy.  I farmed it a couple of nights to gear up people in my guild, I wont lie.   However there was no one else in the zone when I did it, or no groups working in there.  The one time a group showed up I quit farming that area. <BR><BR>Its all grey, how do I get the reward?  Well, I just clear a safe spot, disband group, warden casts one spell on named and does 11pts of dammage.  I then ambush, and murder the mob with my out of group swash.  Master chest drops, Party begins.<BR><BR>Greed motivates all...<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What disturbs me about this thread is that this is considered ok by all the posters and what it says about the ethicality of large proportions of the EQ2 playerbase if this is considered ok.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One exploiter complaining about a kill stealer and everyone tacitly approves?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This isn't plain camping a mob here it is using an exploit of game mechanics to farm a named.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, to farm SEVEN named from his comments!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Krelfeari]

<DIV>KS'ing is bad, mmkay?</DIV>

[Jai1]

<DIV>I think its an exploit.  The game isn't supposed to award chest loot for grey mobs. I hope they fix it.</DIV>

[Aeroslin]

<P>I've read through this thread with some amusment and a lot of 'i told you so attitude'.</P> <P>I am still against encounter unlocking.  I am also against plat farmers and named poaching. I like the idea of having other players being able to help each other out with heals and rez's.  I do not agree with the OP's methods of getting his/her gear, nor will I gloss it over in an attempt to justify my own point.  </P> <P>Mentoring is NOT the same thing as what the OP and many others are talking about doing.  Mentoring is a LEGITIMATE way to get the mobs you need.  In a raid situation, if the raid mob is greyed out, we just have certain players mentor the lowest level char until our average level turns the mob green.  All legitimate and within the bounds of the game mechanics and in the spirit of the mentoring feature.</P> <P>I could agree with just about every solution presented to fix the problem, however, in the engineering world there is the acronym, K.I.S.S which I think also applies to programming.  Keep it Simple, Stupid.  None of these changes will happen because they all add to the already bungled code that we're playing today.</P> <P>A lot of people don't like mentoring because it, 'messes with their hotbar' but I think a good compromise would be to allow the mentoring player to choose what level they could mentor to then scale the mentoring bonus according to the span of levels between the mentor and the student.</P> <P>Power leveling, plat farmers, kill stealers, griefers aside, I think camping just plain svcks balls.  Why not make it so that named mobs are not farmable unless you have a quest that requires their killing.  If you don't have the quest, nothing drops, sure you get exp but no chest.  I mean, really, this is Everquest after all, the game's name says it all.  If someone wants to farm then, they'd have to delete the quest and start over again. Better yet, and I've used this example before, the Bone-bladed Claymore quest is an excellent example of supplying only the mobs you need when you need them in order to get the quest done and eliminating the whole dang-blasted need for camping.</P>

[Goozman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Aeroslin wrote:<BR> <P>Mentoring is NOT the same thing as what the OP and many others are talking about doing.  Mentoring is a LEGITIMATE way to get the mobs you need.  In a raid situation, if the raid mob is greyed out, <FONT color=#ff0000>we just have certain players mentor the lowest level char until our average level turns the mob green</FONT>.  All legitimate and within the bounds of the game mechanics and in the spirit of the mentoring feature.</P> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>That is an "exploit" too, to trivialize an encounter and still get loot. And the methods people are using to farm in runnyeye are "legitimate and within the bounds of the game mechanics"</DIV>

[thomasza]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Lysanthir Ahmquissar wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Yimway wrote:<BR>Level 57 Swash groups with a 35 Warden and heads to RE.  We run the entire zone greyed.  Swash can clear 7 named PH's before the first respawns.  I can camp 7 master chest dropping nameds, and pull down 2-3 an hour easy.  I farmed it a couple of nights to gear up people in my guild, I wont lie.   However there was no one else in the zone when I did it, or no groups working in there.  The one time a group showed up I quit farming that area. <BR><BR>Its all grey, how do I get the reward?  Well, I just clear a safe spot, disband group, warden casts one spell on named and does 11pts of dammage.  I then ambush, and murder the mob with my out of group swash.  Master chest drops, Party begins.<BR><BR>Greed motivates all...<BR><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>What disturbs me about this thread is that this is considered ok by all the posters and what it says about the ethicality of large proportions of the EQ2 playerbase if this is considered ok.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>One exploiter complaining about a kill stealer and everyone tacitly approves?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>This isn't plain camping a mob here it is using an exploit of game mechanics to farm a named.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>No, to farm SEVEN named from his comments!</DIV> <DIV> </DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>The whole example Yimway gave is a prime example of exploiting and i DO hope things like that dont go unpunished because it destroys the content for those players of that levelrange.

[thomasza]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Jenoy wrote:<BR> <DIV>I just wanted to be able to help others... I wanted to be there just in the nic of time and taunt / heal / kill, whatever it took to save a player. Now others are ruining that out of sheer greed. It's down right pathetic.</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Am a 47 templar and i love going to BB when i have just 30 minutes to play to stand there and heal lower level people. The amount of smilies and thank you's make my day.

[KBern]

<P>Many people asked for this and wanted the unlocked encounters to "help" others.</P> <P>Those of us who used these types of examples were told it would never happen!  Quit being a cynic!  Quit blowing things out of proportion!</P> <P>Yep.</P> <P>If the locked system was left alone...the rampant farming like this would not be going on. </P> <P>Yeah a few people would lose a miniscule amount of exp if they needed to yell for help before someone could save them, but zones like RE, CT, and RoV would still be fun with characters of the appropriate level w/o having to dodge and compete with farmers exploiting the system.</P>

[Yimway]

<span>Thanks Thomasza. That is exactly the point I was trying to make.  Did I feel dirty using this exploit to farm master spells out of an empty zone to help equip my lower level guildmates?  Yes.   Was I going to knowingly avoid the temptation after discovering it?  No.  Did I realize it was a matter of days / hours before the zone would be farmed and poached like mad? Yes.  I didn't feel great about finding or using the exploit, but I wasn't going to pass it up to help guildmates.  However, as soon as people started comming back to the zone once the word was out, I didn't use this exploit.  Instead I brought alts grouping with lower level friends to earn the rewards as they were intended.  I posted this thread, as I discovered exactly what I knew would happen.  Others discovered the same exploit, but they felt no wrong doing in stealing mobs and ganking stuff from players of appropriate level killing in the area of the nameds. My point has been, this is the exact opposite effect of that intended by encounter unlocking. I still believe making 2 changes will largely solve this problem: 1. Have the agro status of the mob be based upon the lowest member of the group, not the group average level.  If it would con green and agro to the lowest, then its a grey agro for the group (or keep it green and only give xp to people it would con green to out of group). 2. Change named targets to Epic x1.  Forcing encounter locking, making them slightly more difficult from the abilities/spells they would be immune to. I don't believe these sollutions cause TOO much additional reworking of the system.  Many of the other ideas are good in merit, but deviate significantly from existing mechanics, making the change too daunting to implement. $0.02 <blockquote><hr>thomasza wrote: The whole example Yimway gave is a prime example of exploiting and i DO hope things like that dont go unpunished because it destroys the content for those players of that levelrange. <div></div><hr></blockquote></span><div></div>

[Sell]

<P>Well I think people need to recognize the difference between exploiting and just understanding how game mechanics work.</P> <P>An easy solution would be to just lock any encounters with named or special targets.  However in this instance I think it's just up to the developers to think things through when they go making massive game changes.  "What unintended effects will this cause?"</P> <P>Is it an exploit for a level 60 to assist in killing a level 19 named for the betrayal quest?  I mean, the game mechanic allows it.  A level 19 attacks, the level 60 nuke/kills it.   This isn't anything super-tricky or complex or shady.   In fact you can probably go through the patch nodes and find where it says "non-epic encounters are no longer locked, other people outside your group can assist you in combat."  How in the world can this be an exploit, especially when you do exactly what patch notes say you can do!</P> <P>Here are the patch notes about this situation:</P> <P><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffff00>Non-raid encounters have been changed as follows:<BR> * There are no longer lock icons on you or your enemies.<BR> * The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.<BR> * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or healing you.<BR></FONT></P> <P><FONT color=#ffffff>So there you go, straight from the patch notes:<BR>The first person to attack a creature will receive any reward, including loot.  Other players can assist you by damaging your enemies.   People do this and you call it an exploit?   No way.</FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#ffff00></FONT></P>

[Yimway]

<div></div><span>No, you can engage a grey encounter, and make it con green before the kill shot.  The lowbie doesn't even have to be remotely in the area, just in the zone.  This was part of my followup message that was ganked from the boards by admins cause as they said  "</span> exploit posted, so I wanted to keep that off the boards."  Thier words not mine. I only hope that indicates it will be fixed, however not every exploit / bug reported does get attention =/<span> Regardless, it is the opposite intent of encounter unlocking.  The premise was collaboration within the community, not to make it easier to steal from each other and in general cause anger and frustration within the community. <blockquote><hr>Sell77 wrote:<div></div> <p>Well I think people need to recognize the difference between exploiting and just understanding how game mechanics work.</p> <p>An easy solution would be to just lock any encounters with named or special targets.  However in this instance I think it's just up to the developers to think things through when they go making massive game changes.  "What unintended effects will this cause?"</p> <p>Is it an exploit for a level 60 to assist in killing a level 19 named for the betrayal quest?  I mean, the game mechanic allows it.  A level 19 attacks, the level 60 nuke/kills it.   This isn't anything super-tricky or complex or shady.   In fact you can probably go through the patch nodes and find where it says "non-epic encounters are no longer locked, other people outside your group can assist you in combat."  How in the world can this be an exploit, especially when you do exactly what patch notes say you can do!</p> <p>Here are the patch notes about this situation:</p> <p><font color="#ffff00" face="Comic Sans MS">Non-raid encounters have been changed as follows: * There are no longer lock icons on you or your enemies. * The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience. * Other players can assist in your fight by damaging your enemies or healing you.</font></p> <p><font color="#ffffff">So there you go, straight from the patch notes:The first person to attack a creature will receive any reward, including loot.  Other players can assist you by damaging your enemies.   People do this and you call it an exploit?   No way.</font><font color="#ffff00" face="Comic Sans MS"></font></p><hr></blockquote></span><div></div><p>Message Edited by Yimway on <span class=date_text>12-07-2005</span> <span class=time_text>03:15 PM</span>