PDA

View Full Version : Could we please consider removing hard lockouts and making all lockouts into persistent zones?


Wirewhisker
10-30-2011, 12:57 PM
<p>It's about time that ham-handed Red lockout was removed, and the flexibility of persistent zones put in its place.</p><p>There are few things more annoying than getting together an alt night or leading some younger folks through the old raid zones and getting a raid call, a request to bring a main to a group, or even a hot auction and know that you have to blow a lockout and spoil a perfectly good zone to do so. Also, any possible harm could be mitigated simply by making the minimum reset times long enough to make the prospect unappealing.</p><p>A simple fix that's long overdue and shouldn't be that complicated to implement...right?</p>

Rijacki
10-30-2011, 01:01 PM
<p>Actually it is complicated to change. Several of the original type of lock outs have been changed to persistant and it took developement effort to do so.</p>

Wirewhisker
10-30-2011, 01:04 PM
<p>I'm not a programmer but I can't imagine it would need world-shattering effort to reorient something like this...and I'd imagine the playerbase would say the gain is certainly more than the drawback.</p>

Gaealiege
10-30-2011, 01:52 PM
<p>Yeah this has already been done once with a few dungeons.  I don't see any reason they cannot go ahead and make all zones persistent now.  It's really quite absurd that the first change didn't do this.</p>

Jrral
10-30-2011, 02:01 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm not a programmer but I can't imagine it would need world-shattering effort to reorient something like this...and I'd imagine the playerbase would say the gain is certainly more than the drawback.</p></blockquote><p>OK, if you make it a persistent lock-out, where do you store the state of the instance? The code behind those zones is written so that once the last person leaves the instance it evaporates (since nobody who was in it can get back in). There's code for newer types of zones that supports persistence, but it can't be used with older types of zones without re-coding those zones for the newer implementation. And without being able to persist the zone itself the rest won't work: you'll either zone back in to an empty zone, or everything will be back as if you'd never been in at all (which'd be exploited to death in an instant, causing the devs to have to disable the zone entirely until they'd made it non-persistent again).</p><p>It'd be like trying to throw the engine from a 2011 Ford Mustang into a 1965 Ford Mustang: you can do it, but you have to replace/rebuild the transmission, driveline, rear axle, intake and exhaust systems and the entire suspension before it's going to work, and that's an awful lot more work than just throwing a new engine in.</p>

Felshades
10-31-2011, 03:55 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm not a programmer but I can't imagine it would need world-shattering effort to reorient something like this...and I'd imagine the playerbase would say the gain is certainly more than the drawback.</p></blockquote><p>OK, if you make it a persistent lock-out, where do you store the state of the instance? The code behind those zones is written so that once the last person leaves the instance it evaporates (since nobody who was in it can get back in). There's code for newer types of zones that supports persistence, but it can't be used with older types of zones without re-coding those zones for the newer implementation. And without being able to persist the zone itself the rest won't work: you'll either zone back in to an empty zone, or everything will be back as if you'd never been in at all (which'd be exploited to death in an instant, causing the devs to have to disable the zone entirely until they'd made it non-persistent again).</p><p>It'd be like trying to throw the engine from a 2011 Ford Mustang into a 1965 Ford Mustang: you can do it, but you have to replace/rebuild the transmission, driveline, rear axle, intake and exhaust systems and the entire suspension before it's going to work, and that's an awful lot more work than just throwing a new engine in.</p></blockquote><p>I like you.</p><p>and yeah, thats a main problem with persistent zones. They eat up resources when there's no one  in the zone. Resources are one of the reasons that if you're the only one in your house or guild hall or an instance, after about an hour they toss you offline. So it can shut the zone down.</p><p>Theres probably similar concerns with leaving the data around in order to reopen the zone later(as in a persistent instance).</p>

Wirewhisker
10-31-2011, 06:40 AM
<p>That being the case Nadirah, why have any persistent zones at all, other than guildhalls?</p><p>The Court of Al'Afaz is hard locked out, but the Execution Throne Room is persistent. Why?</p><p>Perhaps it's complexity -- Court of Al'Afaz has a fairly larger amount of trash than Pawbuster, and more named mobs. However;</p><p>The Pedestal of Sky (4 mobs - 2 named) is hard locked out, yet Protector's Realm (approx 20 mobs, 10 named) is persistent. Wow, how come?</p><p>Then again, maybe it's age. After all, persistent zones were a more recent introduction, and red lockouts aren't used anymore.  But if green lockouts are seen by the actions of the devs as superior to reds...why not retrofit the old zones to create one standard?</p><p>Thus, my thread was born.</p>

Finora
10-31-2011, 09:59 AM
<p>While I'd LOVE to have all the old instances persistant, Jraal's comparison with the engine's is spot on.  It'd be truly awesome if they could get the time to do it, however I think there are a lot of more pressing and annoying problems with the game at this time that need the attention more.</p><p>It has everything to do with age of the zones. I think it was EOF or KOS that introduced the persistant zones so zones in the original game and  Desert of Flames (where the zones you cited are) didn't have that.</p>

Rijacki
10-31-2011, 11:41 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] Bayle wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Then again, maybe it's age. After all, persistent zones were a more recent introduction, and red lockouts aren't used anymore.  But if green lockouts are seen by the actions of the devs as superior to reds...why not retrofit the old zones to create one standard?</p></blockquote><p>It is exactly 'age'. Persistant zones were added long after <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">RoK</span> DoF (typing in the morning before coffee can be bad m'kay). After their release, they went back and retro-fitted some of the bigger, longer dungeons which were still semi-viable for the level cap at the time (i.e. zones which were still actively being run). They said then that they would like to go back to do the rest, but the development effort to do so would take away resources from producing new content.</p><p>Re-doing or retro-fitting old content with anything new takes time. Development time spent on old adventure content can't be spent on new adventure content.</p>

Jrral
10-31-2011, 01:57 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>and yeah, thats a main problem with persistent zones. They eat up resources when there's no one  in the zone. Resources are one of the reasons that if you're the only one in your house or guild hall or an instance, after about an hour they toss you offline. So it can shut the zone down.</p></blockquote><p>I don't think it's resources. Main difference: when you're sitting in your guild hall that instance is spun up and active on a server in the cluster. It's eating up CPU and RAM resources because it has to be active for when you do something. With a persistent instance, though, my guess is that when the last person leaves it's state (what mobs are alive and not, which clickable items have been consumed, etc.) gets saved off to disk or a database somewhere and the instance spun down. It's occupying space on a disk somewhere, but it's not using active CPU and memory in the cluster while it's empty. And disk is (relatively, and modulo the recent flooding) fairly cheap.</p>

Oxie
10-31-2011, 02:05 PM
<p>I don't see why there has to be any timers on any zone.</p><p>If a group of 6 people want to run the same instance 3 hours in a row every night for weeks on end, let them. If a raiding guild wants to clear the same instance 2-3 times a night, 3 times in a week, let them.</p><p>The way that fighter loot drops all the time over the other 3 classes, all they'll end up doing is gearing up their tanks and every tank alt in their guild...and eventually the server before all the "mains" in the guild get their pieces of gear.</p>

Rijacki
10-31-2011, 04:23 PM
<p><cite>[email protected]_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't see why there has to be any timers on any zone.</p><p>If a group of 6 people want to run the same instance 3 hours in a row every night for weeks on end, let them. If a raiding guild wants to clear the same instance 2-3 times a night, 3 times in a week, let them.</p><p>The way that fighter loot drops all the time over the other 3 classes, all they'll end up doing is gearing up their tanks and every tank alt in their guild...and eventually the server before all the "mains" in the guild get their pieces of gear.</p></blockquote><p>Timers are on zones to throttle the amount of loot entering the game.</p>

kdmorse
10-31-2011, 04:27 PM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Timers are on zones to throttle the amount of loot entering the game.</p></blockquote><p>And plat, don't forget plat....</p><p>Take the timer off of PR and OOA, and watch the economy really go to heck....</p>

Gladiolus
10-31-2011, 04:38 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Take the timer off of PR and OOA, and watch the economy really go to heck....</p></blockquote><p>How? Those who want to go there several times a day already do, with an assortment of characters.</p>

Kincaid
11-01-2011, 06:36 AM
<p>My friend and I had to cut short our visit to Deathfist Citadel last night due to the lateness, but as it was a perma lockout as opposed to a persistant zone, we can;t revisit our old zone and wrap up the quests we want to do in there, but will have to start anew, which I am sure we wont mind as it will mean more xp <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Lockouts, whether permanent or persistent, are in place to protect against farming, and making the loot gained from that place more of a challenge and timesink to get.</p>

flay_wind
11-01-2011, 07:27 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Timers are on zones to throttle the amount of loot entering the game.</p></blockquote><p>And plat, don't forget plat....</p><p>Take the timer off of PR and OOA, and watch the economy really go to heck....</p></blockquote><p>As if the economy is not there already?</p><p>I spent ~700 plat for my alt to fully buy all masters from 81 to 90 and that only halved my total plat. And i didn't feel like that was "OMGWTFBBQ that's a lot of plat i'm totally broke now and i have to farm for months to get it back" You can duo PR which gets you 42 plat at absolute minimun to 84 at absolute maximum. And you can duo PR with both decently geared healer and dps in ~30 minutes.</p>

Eugam
11-02-2011, 05:14 AM
<p><cite>Rijacki wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected]_old wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I don't see why there has to be any timers on any zone.</p><p>If a group of 6 people want to run the same instance 3 hours in a row every night for weeks on end, let them. If a raiding guild wants to clear the same instance 2-3 times a night, 3 times in a week, let them.</p><p>The way that fighter loot drops all the time over the other 3 classes, all they'll end up doing is gearing up their tanks and every tank alt in their guild...and eventually the server before all the "mains" in the guild get their pieces of gear.</p></blockquote><p>Timers are on zones to throttle the amount of loot entering the game.</p></blockquote><p>They have been there to throttle the progression and in 1-50 content to add penalty. Reviving in some zones (Condemned Catacombs) kicked you out of the zone and locked you out.</p><p>Loot was on a different prioroty level then it is today. The progression towards expansion boss was basically all and loot just happened on the way to it. Adept and later master spells and crafter recipes often have been donated to the guild bank and the guild leader gave them to the classes who could use them.</p>

Notsovilepriest
11-02-2011, 05:24 AM
Remember EH before presistant zones? EH is the reason we have them!

Crismorn
11-02-2011, 07:15 AM
<p>Watching Wuoshi do laps was good times : P</p>