On Death and Encounters - Page 12

Swordmage · 08-26-2005, 08:08 PM

It seems clear to me that something more than a per-fight /lock command is needed for this.

An option in the group options to make locked the default would, I assume, satisfy most of the objections related to people being targets to griefers or those who just like the status quo. An /unlock command on top of the option would provide full flexibility (if only to allow group adds after engagement, eg., someone else needing Bloodtalon comes along after the battle begins and the battle was never in doubt anyway).

Zyphius · 08-26-2005, 08:12 PM

I agree...

STLBluesN · 08-26-2005, 09:40 PM

putergod wrote:

And you know it was the majority how? Do you have the numbers? DO YOU?Did you go around and ask every single player on the beta server their opinion? DID YOU? And if you did... how do you know some of them didn't lie to you to get you to leave them alone since their true opinion differed from your own? I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker. ARE YOU THE MAJORITY SPEAKER? Also, this forum does not reflect anywhere near the majority of the player base. AND HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS FORUM REFLECTS? AND I SUPPOSE YOU KNOW THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF THIS FORUM TO QUALIFY YOUR STATEMENT RIGHT? It appears to me that more people on this forum are for the change than against it. HEHE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO GO BACK THRU FROM PAGE 1 AND DO A TALLY. Furthermore, those who are against it can always revert back to locking them, if they so desire. RRRRR, AGAIN, GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS AGAIN. THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THIS ISNT GREIFING. A /LOCK WILL NOT SOLVE THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THIS. While those of us that are for it can do nothing at the moment but wait. YOU CAN LOBBY FOR IT ON YOUR OWN SERVER, SO YOU DONT EFFECT OUR SERVERS. Plus, I am very curious as to just how many who are "against" this change will do exactly what they are against allowing... I.E. healing a struggling player, etc...

i am sure the other posters do not have THE numbers, for that matter neither do you. if it appears to you that more ppl are for than against, we must be reading different forums. you are right this forum is only a small cross section of the amount of ppl that play. that is the same for the forums where ppl requested this also. so which is the majority opinion? i am confident you dont know the answer to that. your opinion does not make you the majority either. now you can have your own opinions, but your reasoning for your above rebuttle is logically flawed. the arguments you use to discredit the person you were replying to also discredit your statements. however, a person can read this topic and factually count that the anti-unlock posts very much outnumber the pro-lock posts. so after discrediting your own statements you are still down one point. my only point being that if you are going to make statements like that, make sure your reasoning is sound and you dont nullify your own points.

i am against it, i would like the benefits of it, however, the detrimental side effects outweigh the good in my opinion. i posted on page 2 that i was for unlocking, however, after reading more on the subject i have now changed my mind. yes all we can do is wait. this change alone will not make me quit as far as i can see. however, i will have to deal with the consequences of these chages and will make certain aspects of this game more frustrating. i look forward to the time someone dumps a train of mobs on me.

i am NOT against helping a struggling player, i AM against those who will use the system to a detrimental end. if this were implemented in a different way which would eliminate power leveling and loot farming i would be for it. so in response to your last comment, i WILL help those in need, which i am not against. however, i WILL NOT use it to power level and loot farm, which i am against. i will simply have to take the good with the bad if/when this goes thru. i will take the opportunities to help those in need if unlocked. i will not use the system to gain unfairly.

it just gives those who will use the system unfairly a legitimate way to do it, and an easy one at that. just have a problem with some people that want their 'freedom' no matter what the consequences are, even when its going to screw them in the end also. who would rather have thier one good thing at the cost of many bad things. if you wanna help a guy out, group up with him and mentor down if needed.

Message Edited by STLBluesNut on 08-26-2005 02:39 PM

Message Edited by STLBluesNut on 08-26-2005 02:41 PM

ginfress · 08-26-2005, 10:05 PM

Eileah wrote:

Sauryah wrote:
Wow, I won't even bother to explain what I meant, apprently you lack the right equipment to understand.

Just ignore him, that's what we all do.

Be happy he is flaming you, it means you made sense and had a point, and he can't handle that =)

Hehehe...sorry but that just cost my keyboard, coffee doesnt work together with it i just learned

Sauryah · 08-27-2005, 12:44 AM

putergod wrote:

Sauryah wrote:

Sauryah wrote:

In fact, I think they made an official announcement to try to avoid too many complaints and bad feedback in the beta, and in the public forums since the NDA was lifted...

By making this official post, they clearly state that this change will go on live and that people against it are gonna have to accept it or leave.

As it has been said, they asked our opinions on beta forums, and most posts were against that change. The day after, they made the official announcement... If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made.

Just my 2cp anyway...

And you know it was the majority how? Do you have the numbers? Did you go around and ask every single player on the beta server their opinion? And if you did... how do you know some of them didn't lie to you to get you to leave them alone since their true opinion differed from your own? I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker. Also, this forum does not reflect anywhere near the majority of the player base. It appears to me that more people on this forum are for the change than against it. Furthermore, those who are against it can always revert back to locking them, if they so desire. While those of us that are for it can do nothing at the moment but wait. Plus, I am very curious as to just how many who are "against" this change will do exactly what they are against allowing... I.E. healing a struggling player, etc...

Wow, I won't even bother to explain what I meant, apprently you lack the right equipment to understand.

Awwwwwww... Did I bruise your ego? I sowwie... Want a tissue?

What ego ? Jeez, what is it with you people that have to insult or make fun of other people when they don't think like you?

Did I say I was superior? Did I say I was the majority?

When there's 30 replies to a given question and 25 replies say NO then the majority of the players that replied is against, now maybe it's too hard to understand for you, for as I said you're lacking the right equipment : a brain.

Thanks again for flaming me, it makes me feel the love of the community (or more likely the lack of...) and removing the locked encounters won't change that.

STLBluesN · 08-27-2005, 01:55 AM

dreadfang wrote:

Apart from that (minor) worry i'm all for the change, it lets me help those who need it and it will probably end with a closer community of players, and that's always a good thing.

how is this going to help community and making friends? most ppl in here are talking about being able to drive by heal and kill to help a guy out. are you going to stay and play with him? most likely not, you are gonna continue on your way with a 'thanks a lot' or a /bow from the rescued. that didnt form anything. what would form community now is you see a guy in BB sruggling and ask 'can i mentor down and give you a hand? you look a little outmatched.' /invite.

KSers will quickly get what they deserve once they grief the wrong person, say a guy in a raiding guild over and over who calls his friends to teach the little schmuck a lesson he won't soon forget lol

how is that? a KSer can be /lock-ed out. and what greif is he gonna catch? you guys gonna follow him around and taunt him as he /lock-s his encounters? so how are you gonna teach that 'little schmuck a lesson'? and if you complain what are they gonna do? boot the guy from the game? i doubt it. the reason they are doing this is in the hopes of drawing ppl in, not to kick ppl out and lose money. i can see it now. /report while i was fight this mobe for a quest i was finishing up for a weapon i really wanted, this guy came along and killed the mob. i didnt get all the xp. he did this like three times and his name was Sir KSaLot.' reply ' sorry for that experience sir. we have added a /lock command for your encounters and if you activate that then this cannot happen. i am afraid we cannot give you any xp you may have lost. we have no intentions of changing the system back since SO many people like it this way. we will send an in game message to the offender and let him know that this wasnt the reason we unlocked encounter for'

dreadfa · 08-27-2005, 01:58 PM

are you gonna be totally silent while you driveby heal?? a thanking, maybe a little more conversation, a return of the favour in the future, and you know the guy rather than just seeing his name on a toon, you're actually INTERACTING with him, hence the closer community.

As for the griefer getting a lesson in civility, griefer does it to guy in raiding guild a few times, guy gets annoyed, sends a tell to a few friends, they get together, and return the favour, until griefer either gets the message or runs off crying, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the griefer griefs too often, he will also get a bad reputation as a griefer and not many top class guilds will defile their name with a griefing tool, and word does get around rather quickly, that's what server boards are for, and qeynos_crafting on kithicor a kinda unofficial qeynos chat lol.

So in summary unlocking encounters gives us a choice, if ya don't like it don't do it. It's really that simple. We always have choices, but a few more choices is always a good thing.

What would be cool (but I know it aint gonna happen) would be wanted posters outside Qeynos/Freeport saying wanted dead or alive for the crime of repeated inteferance with the queen/overlords duties reward 1p. hehe make them targets of a raid bwa haa haaaa

Message Edited by dreadfang on 08-27-2005 03:00 AM

Warpax · 08-27-2005, 06:52 PM

I have a request/Suggestion. How about finally showing EXP amounts. You receive 200 experience. Also if you choose to /lock your encounter why do you still lose exp if you yell for help? It seems kinda wrong. If you have locked an encounter and then yell for help how about instead of losing all exp you instead get the deminished exp you would have got if you had help form the start. This way you can lock an encounter and be sure you get the 50% damage you need before allowing someone to help you.

Message Edited by Warpax on 08-27-2005 11:36 AM

radlih · 08-28-2005, 06:17 AM

Oh great. Now you are taking probably stupidest tack yho can do with this game. Congradulations you will now unleash the two most distructive elements that caused me to stop playing EQ Live. This was KILL STEALING and POWER LEVELING. By having the default for encounters as not locked, you are only going to get folks all horked off at you. Try having the default set to locked.

The stated purpose of encounter locking was to prevent these activities from happening. How can locked encounters subtract from the game experience when they are fulfilling the designed function???????

What you should be doing instead of spending your time doing wierd stuff to wreck the game, how about FIX problems... Is this really to much to ask? Oh right, you are SOE... This means ignore game problems, do something to distract players away from the problems so you can call the problems 'taken care of'.

Well, given the direction you all starting to take, I doubt I will be playing this game much longer.

dawy · 08-28-2005, 06:27 AM

Woodcrafter wrote:

How about a button, like YELL, but that breaks the combat only enough to allow others to help, but instead of not getting any experience, you get 50% experience. This will prevent people from being powerleveled. I dislike the concept of twinking and powerleveling.

We need an icon to indicate that the person initiating a fight will be getting 50% less exp due to someone else out damaging him/her. This will allow easy Ks reporting to GMs. Cause if they go live with this, these reports will start up once again.

If we are allowed a choice to allow this unlocking/interference, then the game will not change for those who enjoy it as it is. That is to say, this
innovation should be an option, not the rule. Just like you are allowed to /yell to break the encounter, though very few people do so. They probably do not /yell in fear of losing all exp and loot. But if they could have a lessening like i described above, then it may be used more. The original /yell should be retained, which resets regen of health and power and sets loot and exp to 0%.

Sensible that..

radlih · 08-28-2005, 06:30 AM

You must not have played EQ Live very long. The KSing game was not about getting exp, it was solely about getting folks so horked off they leave the because there was little if any action taken by the GM's and Guides.

The designed purpose of the locked encounters in this game was to prevent this from happening.

As to powerleveling, for the first couple months in this game it was possible to heal someone that was in a locked encounter. I got caught doing this with my main and was warned not to do it again as this was considered an expliot. This ability was removed a day or so later along with rezing outside of your group.

daneeq · 08-28-2005, 02:12 PM

I can't believe everyone is still getting their panties in a twist...Relax...Take a valium...It's just a game....It will be ok....

You can have a discussion of the pros and cons without getting so personal.

vorek · 08-28-2005, 02:24 PM

dawy wrote:

Woodcrafter wrote:

How about a button, like YELL, but that breaks the combat only enough to allow others to help, but instead of not getting any experience, you get 50% experience. This will prevent people from being powerleveled. I dislike the concept of twinking and powerleveling.

We need an icon to indicate that the person initiating a fight will be getting 50% less exp due to someone else out damaging him/her. This will allow easy Ks reporting to GMs. Cause if they go live with this, these reports will start up once again.

If we are allowed a choice to allow this unlocking/interference, then the game will not change for those who enjoy it as it is. That is to say, this
innovation should be an option, not the rule. Just like you are allowed to /yell to break the encounter, though very few people do so. They probably do not /yell in fear of losing all exp and loot. But if they could have a lessening like i described above, then it may be used more. The original /yell should be retained, which resets regen of health and power and sets loot and exp to 0%.

Sensible that..

I agree 150%. This would be a good choice.

Lets not jump all the way off the cliff with this unlocking thing. Maybe setting it up so that ONE yell allows others to helps and TWO yells breaks it for zero experience and non-combat run/regen? That is a MUCH more intelligent solution that will allow all of the things that you want the unlock system to do AND prevent what the rest of us don't want.

xenaphobia · 08-29-2005, 12:04 AM

My initial thought on this is it can be a good idea. But what I don't get is alot of people think this will effect how people go after a mob when there are more than one person or grp wanting the same spawn (for quest trigger or loot). If you stop and think in both cases, locked and unlocked encounters it still boils down to "Who hits it first". I run into this type of thing all the time and a locked encounter or unlock wouldn't change the fact whoever starts the encounter first gets the rewards. The only thing that it changes is the amount of exp a person gets and strangers or even friends helping out with heals.

Now there are some things that weren't explained and possibly haven't been thought of as of yet but I would like to throw this out there.

1. When it comes to quest triggers for killing a mob will the person out side the grp that started the encounter get quest credit for the kill? (I think they should, and I know what the initial arguement is going to be, "This will cause people of much lower lvl of the quest to complete it than intended". I disagree since 90% of the quests in EQ2 have level requirements to meet before they are even given the quest)

2. Faction.....Now I personaly hate it when a person in your grp kills a mob that you wanted to keep good faction with. But what I did like about the locked encounter bit and /yell is that if you want to keep the faction with a mob another grp member has started a fight with you can /yell and kill the mob without getting a faction hit. I don't know if SOE intended it to be this way but I love it. Now my concern is if we join a grp that doesn't use the lock encounter feature will /yell still work for the faction hit thing I just mentioned?

As for the part about power leveling, I find this a small issue with this game even after the change. The reasons I find it so is because in this game hitting a mob WAAy above your lvl is nearly impossible and to acualy kill the mob would take FOREVER makeing it not worth the time no matter what the exp gain is. The only thing in EQ1 that made it worth the time was damage shields. When it comes to the ubber loot thing most ubber loot is from raid encounter which this unlocked encounters doesn't apply too. So it would make more sense to have your high lvl friend mentor you for the bonus exp rather than stand out side your grp just healing you. It seems to me this would give you more exp at a faster pace (granted I do not have the exsact numbers to support this theory). Keep in mind if that same high lvl friend was to enter combat out side your grp to help kill the mob you lose 50% exp so even then it might make more sense to mentor than to not for faster exp which would nigate the idea of power leveling.

Message Edited by xenaphobia on 08-28-2005 01:30 PM

Twoleftfe · 08-29-2005, 01:34 AM

Gonna make this short and to the point. SOE if you unlock the encounters, me and my wife are going to cancel. I have seen first hand what PL'ing and KS can do. It is the very reason we quit our last MMO. Ok. Flame away. At this point I don't really care. It is truly sad to see this great game ruined :smileysad:

salerene · 08-29-2005, 05:52 AM

exp is bad enough without someone else stealing it. whether they are trying to help or not. If an option isnt given to have all encounters locked all the time. Then my exping will take forever.

Also how does a person control an encounter if they are in a group? what if I don't want help, but the other group members do? I have to lose 50% exp because they can't handle it?

Sorry, but I only see this as a bad thing in the long run. If you wanted to give people the capabilitys to help others then give them other ways to help while the encounter is locked. I don't know how many times I've seen people running with barely any life and a locked encounter. I just shake my head and continue on my way. No reason to help someone when they have no clue or are just to greedy to hit one little button.

justright · 08-29-2005, 11:26 AM

Twoleftfeet wrote:

Gonna make this short and to the point. SOE if you unlock the encounters, me and my wife are going to cancel. I have seen first hand what PL'ing and KS can do. It is the very reason we quit our last MMO. Ok. Flame away. At this point I don't really care. It is truly sad to see this great game ruined :smileysad:

Can I have your stuff?

Geldo · 08-29-2005, 08:58 PM

Look an MMORGP has a big advantage over other games. It has a society. A group of real people that must interact with one another and share a persistent world and its resources. Because we must share this world (like any other society) and its resources, conflicts of course do arise. Unfair things happen, and some people just suck. However, the only way to eliminate these conflicts, or to ensure that nothing “bad” will ever happen, is to completely prevent us from interacting with one another. That wouldn’t make much sense in an MMORPG. Obviously some degree of control is necessary (unless an open hardcore world is your thing – but I don’t think anyone is expecting SOE to ever make a game like that).

The issue then is, how much you limit the freedoms of everyone, to prevent the possible behavior of a few bad people (this incidentally is the big question for all societies and is a timeless issue, as old as mankind itself), it’s a question of balance, proportion and effectiveness. This locking encounter solution is just too much “restriction” for too little “prevention”. If we are to be segregated artificially, then instanced shards for all hunting zones (like GuildWars) is a superior solution. While I certainly don’t want to see this in EQ2, it does provide the same benefits of encounter locking, however the world still feels “wild” and “consistent”. I think this is a more honest and less limiting (combat wise) solution. If we are to avoid any problems that arise from interacting with one another in the wild, then we should stop pretending it’s an MMORPG and just let everyone hunt in instances with their friends.

Zyphius · 08-30-2005, 12:08 AM

Sauryah wrote:

What ego ? Jeez, what is it with you people that have to insult or make fun of other people when they don't think like you?

Did I say I was superior? Did I say I was the majority?

When there's 30 replies to a given question and 25 replies say NO then the majority of the players that replied is against, now maybe it's too hard to understand for you, for as I said you're lacking the right equipment : a brain.

Thanks again for flaming me, it makes me feel the love of the community (or more likely the lack of...) and removing the locked encounters won't change that.

I wasn't flaming... Just pointing out the flaws in logic... However, you math is also flawed. I took the time to find out, in this thread alone, what the numbers actually were.

About encounter unlocking (ONLY, as I am aslo totaly agaisnt the removal of shared debt):
162 people posted in this thread.
61 people posted that they are for this change, for the most part.
56 people posted that they are agaisnt this change, for the most part.
45 people have posted questions, concerns, or otherwise just "waiting for it to hit live" (or made no mention whatsoever of the encounter unlocking) before making a decision.

This does not include the Devs.

I have a spreadsheet... I dont feel like manually typing all the names (copying and pasted just made ony long continuos name). If it interests you that much, I will email it.

justright · 08-30-2005, 11:31 AM

putergod wrote:

Sauryah wrote:

What ego ? Jeez, what is it with you people that have to insult or make fun of other people when they don't think like you?

Did I say I was superior? Did I say I was the majority?

When there's 30 replies to a given question and 25 replies say NO then the majority of the players that replied is against, now maybe it's too hard to understand for you, for as I said you're lacking the right equipment : a brain.

Thanks again for flaming me, it makes me feel the love of the community (or more likely the lack of...) and removing the locked encounters won't change that.

I wasn't flaming... Just pointing out the flaws in logic... However, you math is also flawed. I took the time to find out, in this thread alone, what the numbers actually were.

About encounter unlocking (ONLY, as I am aslo totaly agaisnt the removal of shared debt):162 people posted in this thread.61 people posted that they are for this change, for the most part.56 people posted that they are agaisnt this change, for the most part.45 people have posted questions, concerns, or otherwise just "waiting for it to hit live" (or made no mention whatsoever of the encounter unlocking) before making a decision.

This does not include the Devs.

I have a spreadsheet... I dont feel like manually typing all the names (copying and pasted just made ony long continuos name). If it interests you that much, I will email it.

Thank you for the post! This information is golden. There are always a few loudmouths claim to represent a majority when they are just speaking for themselves. Now how about a consolidated thread for all "i will quit this game, me and my wife have cancelled our subscribtions yadda yadda"-drama queens to see how many of you that keep on playing and posting after this change hits live? My guess is we will see quite a few of you around in the future. :smileywink:

WinterHotfoot · 08-30-2005, 02:03 PM

justright wrote:

Thank you for the post! This information is golden. There are always a few loudmouths claim to represent a majority when they are just speaking for themselves.

Now how about a consolidated thread for all "i will quit this game, me and my wife have cancelled our subscribtions yadda yadda"-drama queens to see how many of you that keep on playing and posting after this change hits live?

My guess is we will see quite a few of you around in the future. :smileywink:

The information could, potentially, be considered golden, in a certain context, if it weren't for one tiny, but amazingly glaring flaw: it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion between Sauryah and putergod. For anyone who bothers to read posts in their entirety, rather than just skimming to find if they agree or disagree and then picking skimmed points to respond to, this should be obvious. For the rest of you, here's a summary:

A post by Sauryah referenced a majority of complaints in the beta forum. putergod then proceeded to attack Sauryah claiming that Suaryah was claiming an untrue majority. Childish bickering ensued. When Sauryah identified the numbers witnessed, putergod then proceeded to count this thread's responses (using criteria that may or may not be skewed, especially where conditional support is concerned) to manufacture support for his earlier attack.

The fact is, Sauryah was specifically talking about beta responses, and relating them to the timing of this announcement. putergod's information has absolutely zero impact on this relationship. It does not discredit the Sauryah's claim of a majority in the beta forum. It does not excuse the childish taunting. It does not show that your insults directed at Sauryah and like-minded posters are justified. And ultimately, (assuming for argument's sake that the numbers are accurate) if you include the neutral posts from putergod's count in the calculation, it DOES show that the people who support this change are not a majority either, just the largest of the three identified categories in this particular thread.

Zyphius · 08-30-2005, 07:31 PM

WinterHotfoot wrote:

The information could, potentially, be considered golden, in a certain context, if it weren't for one tiny, but amazingly glaring flaw: it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion between Sauryah and putergod. For anyone who bothers to read posts in their entirety, rather than just skimming to find if they agree or disagree and then picking skimmed points to respond to, this should be obvious. For the rest of you, here's a summary:

A post by Sauryah referenced a majority of complaints in the beta forum. putergod then proceeded to attack Sauryah claiming that Suaryah was claiming an untrue majority. Childish bickering ensued. When Sauryah identified the numbers witnessed, putergod then proceeded to count this thread's responses (using criteria that may or may not be skewed, especially where conditional support is concerned) to manufacture support for his earlier attack.

The fact is, Sauryah was specifically talking about beta responses, and relating them to the timing of this announcement. putergod's information has absolutely zero impact on this relationship. It does not discredit the Sauryah's claim of a majority in the beta forum. It does not excuse the childish taunting. It does not show that your insults directed at Sauryah and like-minded posters are justified. And ultimately, (assuming for argument's sake that the numbers are accurate) if you include the neutral posts from putergod's count in the calculation, it DOES show that the people who support this change are not a majority either, just the largest of the three identified categories in this particular thread.

Actually, this post is completely relevant. For one, I never attacked anyone. I simply stated, in a defensive manor (that I apologize for) that these people, claiming majority, are simply claiming their own opinion which in no way reflects majority, anymore than my own. I never once claimed my opinion reflected the majority, and I would appreciate it if others would not do so either. She did, however, flat out state that the majority of the posters in this thread are against the change, and that is completely false. Beta was never questioned, and no numbers were ever posted, until I took the time to do it myself. The fact is, the population is pretty much split. I have made no claims, she has. Her claims were false and were made only in a lame attempt to bolster her stance. We all have the right to an opinion, however, some people need to quite insinuating (well, actually stating flat out is more like it) that their opinion is majority rule, because, in fact, none are. SOE needs to do a poll in game, and needs to make the encounter unlocking and the shared debt to separate ones. My opinions differ on both, some don’t, and none can claim majority until all have voted and true numbers ran.

Sauryah · 08-30-2005, 08:42 PM

putergod wrote:
Actually, this post is completely relevant. For one, I never attacked anyone. I simply stated, in a defensive manor (that I apologize for) that these people, claiming majority, are simply claiming their own opinion which in no way reflects majority, anymore than my own. I never once claimed my opinion reflected the majority, and I would appreciate it if others would not do so either. She did, however, flat out state that the majority of the posters in this thread are against the change, and that is completely false. Beta was never questioned, and no numbers were ever posted, until I took the time to do it myself. The fact is, the population is pretty much split. I have made no claims, she has. Her claims were false and were made only in a lame attempt to bolster her stance. We all have the right to an opinion, however, some people need to quite insinuating (well, actually stating flat out is more like it) that their opinion is majority rule, because, in fact, none are. SOE needs to do a poll in game, and needs to make the encounter unlocking and the shared debt to separate ones. My opinions differ on both, some don’t, and none can claim majority until all have voted and true numbers ran.

Oh...so when I write : "As it has been said, they asked our opinions on beta forums, and most posts were against that change. The day after, they made the official announcement... If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made."

You read : "I am god, I am THE majority, I am everyone, EVERYONE is against that change I KNOW it cause I'm just the best"

and you reply : "I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker."

Now say again how you never attacked anyone.

I won't post here anymore, I'm sick of beeing attacked for no reasons, if that is what the EQ2 community is, I don't need to be a part of it.

Zyphius · 08-30-2005, 10:37 PM

Sauryah wrote:

Oh...so when I write : "As it has been said, they asked our opinions on beta forums, and most posts were against that change. The day after, they made the official announcement... If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made."

You read : "I am god, I am THE majority, I am everyone, EVERYONE is against that change I KNOW it cause I'm just the best"

and you reply : "I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker."

Now say again how you never attacked anyone.

I won't post here anymore, I'm sick of beeing attacked for no reasons, if that is what the EQ2 community is, I don't need to be a part of it.

That was not meant as an attack. If you consider that an attack... well.. I don't know what to tell you. The fact of the matter is that I read that post after reading all of the posts before it, and, quit frankly, saw nothing revealing "the majority don't like this change", but yet you post "If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made". Another thing... don't look at "most posts" (as evident here... most posts agaisnt it are repeats), and, instead, look at posters. In my analysis, I only counted each individual poster once, not the multitude of posts by any (for or agaisnt). Again, I apologize if you took that as an "attack".

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.

Warpax · 08-30-2005, 11:43 PM

this type of bickering would be best done through pms. As it is the thread has gone so far off topic that i doubt the devs would bother to sift through it to see anyones concerns.

Daehron · 08-31-2005, 12:29 AM

** Disclaimer **

The following is my opinion, and my opinion only. It is based on my perceptions, experiences, and reflections on the matter at hand. It does not purport to the the ObjectiveTruth, it is quite likely to be incorrect / ill-informed / wildly sarcastic.

If however, you wish to interpret it as a statement of Objective Truth, please forward your Tithe to {Faarbot says your sarcasm has gone to far... back to the post plz}

EQ2 experimented with the concepts of shared XP debt and locked encounters. They attempted for 9+ months to make it work. In the meantime, no other game has implemented locked encounters and group debt (to my knowledge).

In my experience, group debt is a failure. It discourages grouping, and leads to petty bickering. I never understood the purpose, I always felt it was a "BAD" idea. To see it leave the game brings me satisfaction.

Locked encounters were an interesting concept. There have been several proposed rationales for its existence. Tuning encounters for solo/group/epic content; 'Powerleveling Prevention'; KS prevention; others I do not recall.

I beleive the only thing it succeeded in was KS prevention.

Encounter tuning is relevant for Epic encounters, not group/solo encounters, imho.

Preventing outside help takes away more from the than it gives. Powerlevelers will always find means to powerlevel. People will race to 50 with or without outside help. If someone wants to level up a frog monk with a lvl 50 fury, let them. They pay a price in doing it, but it is their decision to make, not mine, not the game developers. The mentoring system *IS* powerleveling. 5 mentors on 1 mentee == 25% xp bonus... that is powerleveling, not as 'easy' as a healing / debuff bot, but it is powerleveling.

The locked encounter system dispelled immersion, and detracted from the game for me. i did not like it, though I am glad to see it on Epic encoutners where it belongs. I understand the rationale for it, but it just does not make sense in implementation.

Ornota · 08-31-2005, 06:31 AM

Pardon me if this has been posted before but, Why are u guys moaning and groaning for goodness sake? just make a macro to /lock for god sake, let people do what they please, and just cause you have to press 1 more button than before to lock encounters its stupid to complain so, quit ur whining.... I tho it may seem, dont mean to be rude but, its ridiculous, for those who are lookign forward to this, I am too hehe, but please just stop whining, I bet all you guys whining will complain when someone else whines, well what are you doing? ( I am whining I know, =P), if you don't liek the changes, it onyl takes 1 simple button to lock the encounter.. lvls 1-20 are ridiculously stupid, especialyl with how long they can take and sometimes difficult becuase of lack of decent gear, I'm happy w/ changes, and if you not remember.. press 1 button ( Btw I am very disapointed at some other changes being made, but this I like!) and if your whining cause u won't be a gettin pl .. well ya....

G · 08-31-2005, 06:59 AM

Warpax wrote:

naeldayyan wrote:

Warpax wrote:

* The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.
So, If I attack something first and a stranger comes along an uninvitedly does more than 50% damage to the creature I attacked first then I will receive less than full exp?

Let's say worse case scenario. SOE decides not to give you the ability to lock your encounters.

Yes, then it could be possible for what you are saying to happen. But, I'd atleast hope the majority of eq2 players have better things to do than play
the kid chasing ants with the magnifying glass, those people have a WHOLE other mmorpg for that. We tried the locked encounter, padded walls and rubber hammers,
it isn't working, and we need something to breath life back into this game, and that is just what this move is aimed at accomplishing.

I have NO doubt whatsoever that this type of person plays eq2 and would love to grief others in this manner. All other reasons aside I love eq2s locked encounters just for this reason alone. If i wanted to have to deal with thugs, bullys and griefers I would be playing another game...or go to the park or something

Message Edited by Warpax on 08-21-2005 08:37 PM

If that is a concern of yours you can still lock the encounter... locking is not gone in any way, so what is your point?

Warpax · 08-31-2005, 08:43 AM

Gin wrote:

Warpax wrote:

naeldayyan wrote:

Warpax wrote:
* The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.So, If I attack something first and a stranger comes along an uninvitedly does more than 50% damage to the creature I attacked first then I will receive less than full exp?

Let's say worse case scenario. SOE decides not to give you the ability to lock your encounters.Yes, then it could be possible for what you are saying to happen. But, I'd atleast hope the majority of eq2 players have better things to do than playthe kid chasing ants with the magnifying glass, those people have a WHOLE other mmorpg for that. We tried the locked encounter, padded walls and rubber hammers,it isn't working, and we need something to breath life back into this game, and that is just what this move is aimed at accomplishing.

I have NO doubt whatsoever that this type of person plays eq2 and would love to grief others in this manner. All other reasons aside I love eq2s locked encounters just for this reason alone. If i wanted to have to deal with thugs, bullys and griefers I would be playing another game...or go to the park or something
Message Edited by Warpax on 08-21-2005 08:37 PM

If that is a concern of yours you can still lock the encounter... locking is not gone in any way, so what is your point?

At the time of that post it was still unclear wether /lock woul be in at the time these changes were made. It was also unclear due to poor wording of the patch notes wether this would be for groups only or also available to solo players. My remaining concerns are... if you choose to /lock your encounter why do you still lose exp if you yell for help? It seems kinda wrong. If you have locked an encounter and then yell for help how about instead of losing all exp you instead get the deminished exp you would have got if you had help form the start. This way you can lock an encounter and be sure you get the 50% damage you need before allowing someone to help you.

mcat · 08-31-2005, 12:41 PM

Well i've never posted a message on here, but can i just say thank god for this change. This is the only thing i ever really had a problem with in the game, and that is because it restricts your free-will to the utmost. Which is not what a mmorpg should be about, free-will is one of the most important things about these games. The ability to do good or bad, help toss a heal to someone or powerlevel someone. Either way it feels more real, then a little lock above some creatures head. Anyway im rambling now and just wanted to say about time this was fixed.

Jonboy

The Chosen Clan

Crushbone

08-26-2005, 08:08 PM	#331
Swordmage Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 343	It seems clear to me that something more than a per-fight /lock command is needed for this. An option in the group options to make locked the default would, I assume, satisfy most of the objections related to people being targets to griefers or those who just like the status quo. An /unlock command on top of the option would provide full flexibility (if only to allow group adds after engagement, eg., someone else needing Bloodtalon comes along after the battle begins and the battle was never in doubt anyway). __________________ The Armstrong Clan of Unrest Old Timers Guild

08-26-2005, 08:12 PM	#332
Zyphius Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 544	I agree... __________________ Exalted Zyphius Most'Dieus, Destroyer of Fairies, 80 Wizard/80 Sage of Unrest Arion Cessation, 26 Necro of Unrest Twilight Raiders

08-26-2005, 09:40 PM	#333
STLBluesN General Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 39	putergod wrote: And you know it was the majority how? Do you have the numbers? DO YOU?Did you go around and ask every single player on the beta server their opinion? DID YOU? And if you did... how do you know some of them didn't lie to you to get you to leave them alone since their true opinion differed from your own? I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker. ARE YOU THE MAJORITY SPEAKER? Also, this forum does not reflect anywhere near the majority of the player base. AND HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS FORUM REFLECTS? AND I SUPPOSE YOU KNOW THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF THIS FORUM TO QUALIFY YOUR STATEMENT RIGHT? It appears to me that more people on this forum are for the change than against it. HEHE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO GO BACK THRU FROM PAGE 1 AND DO A TALLY. Furthermore, those who are against it can always revert back to locking them, if they so desire. RRRRR, AGAIN, GO BACK AND READ THE POSTS AGAIN. THE MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THIS ISNT GREIFING. A /LOCK WILL NOT SOLVE THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THIS. While those of us that are for it can do nothing at the moment but wait. YOU CAN LOBBY FOR IT ON YOUR OWN SERVER, SO YOU DONT EFFECT OUR SERVERS. Plus, I am very curious as to just how many who are "against" this change will do exactly what they are against allowing... I.E. healing a struggling player, etc... i am sure the other posters do not have THE numbers, for that matter neither do you. if it appears to you that more ppl are for than against, we must be reading different forums. you are right this forum is only a small cross section of the amount of ppl that play. that is the same for the forums where ppl requested this also. so which is the majority opinion? i am confident you dont know the answer to that. your opinion does not make you the majority either. now you can have your own opinions, but your reasoning for your above rebuttle is logically flawed. the arguments you use to discredit the person you were replying to also discredit your statements. however, a person can read this topic and factually count that the anti-unlock posts very much outnumber the pro-lock posts. so after discrediting your own statements you are still down one point. my only point being that if you are going to make statements like that, make sure your reasoning is sound and you dont nullify your own points. i am against it, i would like the benefits of it, however, the detrimental side effects outweigh the good in my opinion. i posted on page 2 that i was for unlocking, however, after reading more on the subject i have now changed my mind. yes all we can do is wait. this change alone will not make me quit as far as i can see. however, i will have to deal with the consequences of these chages and will make certain aspects of this game more frustrating. i look forward to the time someone dumps a train of mobs on me. i am NOT against helping a struggling player, i AM against those who will use the system to a detrimental end. if this were implemented in a different way which would eliminate power leveling and loot farming i would be for it. so in response to your last comment, i WILL help those in need, which i am not against. however, i WILL NOT use it to power level and loot farm, which i am against. i will simply have to take the good with the bad if/when this goes thru. i will take the opportunities to help those in need if unlocked. i will not use the system to gain unfairly. it just gives those who will use the system unfairly a legitimate way to do it, and an easy one at that. just have a problem with some people that want their 'freedom' no matter what the consequences are, even when its going to screw them in the end also. who would rather have thier one good thing at the cost of many bad things. if you wanna help a guy out, group up with him and mentor down if needed. Message Edited by STLBluesNut on 08-26-2005 02:39 PM Message Edited by STLBluesNut on 08-26-2005 02:41 PM __________________

08-26-2005, 10:05 PM	#334
ginfress Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 105	Eileah wrote: Sauryah wrote: Wow, I won't even bother to explain what I meant, apprently you lack the right equipment to understand. Just ignore him, that's what we all do. Be happy he is flaming you, it means you made sense and had a point, and he can't handle that =) Hehehe...sorry but that just cost my keyboard, coffee doesnt work together with it i just learned

08-27-2005, 12:44 AM	#335
Sauryah Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Felwithe (or Paris, France) Posts: 43	putergod wrote: Sauryah wrote: Sauryah wrote: In fact, I think they made an official announcement to try to avoid too many complaints and bad feedback in the beta, and in the public forums since the NDA was lifted... By making this official post, they clearly state that this change will go on live and that people against it are gonna have to accept it or leave. As it has been said, they asked our opinions on beta forums, and most posts were against that change. The day after, they made the official announcement... If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made. Just my 2cp anyway... And you know it was the majority how? Do you have the numbers? Did you go around and ask every single player on the beta server their opinion? And if you did... how do you know some of them didn't lie to you to get you to leave them alone since their true opinion differed from your own? I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker. Also, this forum does not reflect anywhere near the majority of the player base. It appears to me that more people on this forum are for the change than against it. Furthermore, those who are against it can always revert back to locking them, if they so desire. While those of us that are for it can do nothing at the moment but wait. Plus, I am very curious as to just how many who are "against" this change will do exactly what they are against allowing... I.E. healing a struggling player, etc... Wow, I won't even bother to explain what I meant, apprently you lack the right equipment to understand. Awwwwwww... Did I bruise your ego? I sowwie... Want a tissue? What ego ? Jeez, what is it with you people that have to insult or make fun of other people when they don't think like you? Did I say I was superior? Did I say I was the majority? When there's 30 replies to a given question and 25 replies say NO then the majority of the players that replied is against, now maybe it's too hard to understand for you, for as I said you're lacking the right equipment : a brain. Thanks again for flaming me, it makes me feel the love of the community (or more likely the lack of...) and removing the locked encounters won't change that.

08-27-2005, 01:55 AM	#336
STLBluesN General Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 39	dreadfang wrote: Apart from that (minor) worry i'm all for the change, it lets me help those who need it and it will probably end with a closer community of players, and that's always a good thing. how is this going to help community and making friends? most ppl in here are talking about being able to drive by heal and kill to help a guy out. are you going to stay and play with him? most likely not, you are gonna continue on your way with a 'thanks a lot' or a /bow from the rescued. that didnt form anything. what would form community now is you see a guy in BB sruggling and ask 'can i mentor down and give you a hand? you look a little outmatched.' /invite. KSers will quickly get what they deserve once they grief the wrong person, say a guy in a raiding guild over and over who calls his friends to teach the little schmuck a lesson he won't soon forget lol how is that? a KSer can be /lock-ed out. and what greif is he gonna catch? you guys gonna follow him around and taunt him as he /lock-s his encounters? so how are you gonna teach that 'little schmuck a lesson'? and if you complain what are they gonna do? boot the guy from the game? i doubt it. the reason they are doing this is in the hopes of drawing ppl in, not to kick ppl out and lose money. i can see it now. /report while i was fight this mobe for a quest i was finishing up for a weapon i really wanted, this guy came along and killed the mob. i didnt get all the xp. he did this like three times and his name was Sir KSaLot.' reply ' sorry for that experience sir. we have added a /lock command for your encounters and if you activate that then this cannot happen. i am afraid we cannot give you any xp you may have lost. we have no intentions of changing the system back since SO many people like it this way. we will send an in game message to the offender and let him know that this wasnt the reason we unlocked encounter for' __________________

08-27-2005, 01:58 PM	#337
dreadfa Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 26	are you gonna be totally silent while you driveby heal?? a thanking, maybe a little more conversation, a return of the favour in the future, and you know the guy rather than just seeing his name on a toon, you're actually INTERACTING with him, hence the closer community. As for the griefer getting a lesson in civility, griefer does it to guy in raiding guild a few times, guy gets annoyed, sends a tell to a few friends, they get together, and return the favour, until griefer either gets the message or runs off crying, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If the griefer griefs too often, he will also get a bad reputation as a griefer and not many top class guilds will defile their name with a griefing tool, and word does get around rather quickly, that's what server boards are for, and qeynos_crafting on kithicor a kinda unofficial qeynos chat lol. So in summary unlocking encounters gives us a choice, if ya don't like it don't do it. It's really that simple. We always have choices, but a few more choices is always a good thing. What would be cool (but I know it aint gonna happen) would be wanted posters outside Qeynos/Freeport saying wanted dead or alive for the crime of repeated inteferance with the queen/overlords duties reward 1p. hehe make them targets of a raid bwa haa haaaa Message Edited by dreadfang on 08-27-2005 03:00 AM

08-27-2005, 06:52 PM	#338
Warpax Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 298	I have a request/Suggestion. How about finally showing EXP amounts. You receive 200 experience. Also if you choose to /lock your encounter why do you still lose exp if you yell for help? It seems kinda wrong. If you have locked an encounter and then yell for help how about instead of losing all exp you instead get the deminished exp you would have got if you had help form the start. This way you can lock an encounter and be sure you get the 50% damage you need before allowing someone to help you. Message Edited by Warpax on 08-27-2005 11:36 AM

08-28-2005, 06:17 AM	#339
radlih Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 25	Oh great. Now you are taking probably stupidest tack yho can do with this game. Congradulations you will now unleash the two most distructive elements that caused me to stop playing EQ Live. This was KILL STEALING and POWER LEVELING. By having the default for encounters as not locked, you are only going to get folks all horked off at you. Try having the default set to locked. The stated purpose of encounter locking was to prevent these activities from happening. How can locked encounters subtract from the game experience when they are fulfilling the designed function??????? What you should be doing instead of spending your time doing wierd stuff to wreck the game, how about FIX problems... Is this really to much to ask? Oh right, you are SOE... This means ignore game problems, do something to distract players away from the problems so you can call the problems 'taken care of'. Well, given the direction you all starting to take, I doubt I will be playing this game much longer.

08-28-2005, 06:27 AM	#340
dawy Loremaster Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 1,373	Woodcrafter wrote: How about a button, like YELL, but that breaks the combat only enough to allow others to help, but instead of not getting any experience, you get 50% experience. This will prevent people from being powerleveled. I dislike the concept of twinking and powerleveling. We need an icon to indicate that the person initiating a fight will be getting 50% less exp due to someone else out damaging him/her. This will allow easy Ks reporting to GMs. Cause if they go live with this, these reports will start up once again. If we are allowed a choice to allow this unlocking/interference, then the game will not change for those who enjoy it as it is. That is to say, this innovation should be an option, not the rule. Just like you are allowed to /yell to break the encounter, though very few people do so. They probably do not /yell in fear of losing all exp and loot. But if they could have a lessening like i described above, then it may be used more. The original /yell should be retained, which resets regen of health and power and sets loot and exp to 0%. Sensible that..

08-28-2005, 06:30 AM	#341
radlih Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 25	You must not have played EQ Live very long. The KSing game was not about getting exp, it was solely about getting folks so horked off they leave the because there was little if any action taken by the GM's and Guides. The designed purpose of the locked encounters in this game was to prevent this from happening. As to powerleveling, for the first couple months in this game it was possible to heal someone that was in a locked encounter. I got caught doing this with my main and was warned not to do it again as this was considered an expliot. This ability was removed a day or so later along with rezing outside of your group.

08-28-2005, 02:12 PM	#342
daneeq Loremaster Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 35	I can't believe everyone is still getting their panties in a twist...Relax...Take a valium...It's just a game....It will be ok.... You can have a discussion of the pros and cons without getting so personal. __________________

08-28-2005, 02:24 PM	#343
vorek Lord Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 124	dawy wrote: Woodcrafter wrote: How about a button, like YELL, but that breaks the combat only enough to allow others to help, but instead of not getting any experience, you get 50% experience. This will prevent people from being powerleveled. I dislike the concept of twinking and powerleveling. We need an icon to indicate that the person initiating a fight will be getting 50% less exp due to someone else out damaging him/her. This will allow easy Ks reporting to GMs. Cause if they go live with this, these reports will start up once again. If we are allowed a choice to allow this unlocking/interference, then the game will not change for those who enjoy it as it is. That is to say, this innovation should be an option, not the rule. Just like you are allowed to /yell to break the encounter, though very few people do so. They probably do not /yell in fear of losing all exp and loot. But if they could have a lessening like i described above, then it may be used more. The original /yell should be retained, which resets regen of health and power and sets loot and exp to 0%. Sensible that.. I agree 150%. This would be a good choice. Lets not jump all the way off the cliff with this unlocking thing. Maybe setting it up so that ONE yell allows others to helps and TWO yells breaks it for zero experience and non-combat run/regen? That is a MUCH more intelligent solution that will allow all of the things that you want the unlock system to do AND prevent what the rest of us don't want. __________________ 65 Ogre Bruiser/ 63 Alchemist PM me if you wanna make me a spiffy sig!

08-29-2005, 12:04 AM	#344
xenaphobia Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 48	My initial thought on this is it can be a good idea. But what I don't get is alot of people think this will effect how people go after a mob when there are more than one person or grp wanting the same spawn (for quest trigger or loot). If you stop and think in both cases, locked and unlocked encounters it still boils down to "Who hits it first". I run into this type of thing all the time and a locked encounter or unlock wouldn't change the fact whoever starts the encounter first gets the rewards. The only thing that it changes is the amount of exp a person gets and strangers or even friends helping out with heals. Now there are some things that weren't explained and possibly haven't been thought of as of yet but I would like to throw this out there. 1. When it comes to quest triggers for killing a mob will the person out side the grp that started the encounter get quest credit for the kill? (I think they should, and I know what the initial arguement is going to be, "This will cause people of much lower lvl of the quest to complete it than intended". I disagree since 90% of the quests in EQ2 have level requirements to meet before they are even given the quest) 2. Faction.....Now I personaly hate it when a person in your grp kills a mob that you wanted to keep good faction with. But what I did like about the locked encounter bit and /yell is that if you want to keep the faction with a mob another grp member has started a fight with you can /yell and kill the mob without getting a faction hit. I don't know if SOE intended it to be this way but I love it. Now my concern is if we join a grp that doesn't use the lock encounter feature will /yell still work for the faction hit thing I just mentioned? As for the part about power leveling, I find this a small issue with this game even after the change. The reasons I find it so is because in this game hitting a mob WAAy above your lvl is nearly impossible and to acualy kill the mob would take FOREVER makeing it not worth the time no matter what the exp gain is. The only thing in EQ1 that made it worth the time was damage shields. When it comes to the ubber loot thing most ubber loot is from raid encounter which this unlocked encounters doesn't apply too. So it would make more sense to have your high lvl friend mentor you for the bonus exp rather than stand out side your grp just healing you. It seems to me this would give you more exp at a faster pace (granted I do not have the exsact numbers to support this theory). Keep in mind if that same high lvl friend was to enter combat out side your grp to help kill the mob you lose 50% exp so even then it might make more sense to mentor than to not for faster exp which would nigate the idea of power leveling. Message Edited by xenaphobia on 08-28-2005 01:30 PM

08-29-2005, 01:34 AM	#345
Twoleftfe Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 5	Gonna make this short and to the point. SOE if you unlock the encounters, me and my wife are going to cancel. I have seen first hand what PL'ing and KS can do. It is the very reason we quit our last MMO. Ok. Flame away. At this point I don't really care. It is truly sad to see this great game ruined :smileysad:

08-29-2005, 05:52 AM	#346
salerene Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 72	exp is bad enough without someone else stealing it. whether they are trying to help or not. If an option isnt given to have all encounters locked all the time. Then my exping will take forever. Also how does a person control an encounter if they are in a group? what if I don't want help, but the other group members do? I have to lose 50% exp because they can't handle it? Sorry, but I only see this as a bad thing in the long run. If you wanted to give people the capabilitys to help others then give them other ways to help while the encounter is locked. I don't know how many times I've seen people running with barely any life and a locked encounter. I just shake my head and continue on my way. No reason to help someone when they have no clue or are just to greedy to hit one little button. __________________ *To Err is Human, To really Screw Up* You Need A Computer.**

08-29-2005, 11:26 AM	#347
justright Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 94	Twoleftfeet wrote: Gonna make this short and to the point. SOE if you unlock the encounters, me and my wife are going to cancel. I have seen first hand what PL'ing and KS can do. It is the very reason we quit our last MMO. Ok. Flame away. At this point I don't really care. It is truly sad to see this great game ruined :smileysad: Can I have your stuff?

08-29-2005, 08:58 PM	#348
Geldo Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 61	Look an MMORGP has a big advantage over other games. It has a society. A group of real people that must interact with one another and share a persistent world and its resources. Because we must share this world (like any other society) and its resources, conflicts of course do arise. Unfair things happen, and some people just suck. However, the only way to eliminate these conflicts, or to ensure that nothing “bad” will ever happen, is to completely prevent us from interacting with one another. That wouldn’t make much sense in an MMORPG. Obviously some degree of control is necessary (unless an open hardcore world is your thing – but I don’t think anyone is expecting SOE to ever make a game like that). The issue then is, how much you limit the freedoms of everyone, to prevent the possible behavior of a few bad people (this incidentally is the big question for all societies and is a timeless issue, as old as mankind itself), it’s a question of balance, proportion and effectiveness. This locking encounter solution is just too much “restriction” for too little “prevention”. If we are to be segregated artificially, then instanced shards for all hunting zones (like GuildWars) is a superior solution. While I certainly don’t want to see this in EQ2, it does provide the same benefits of encounter locking, however the world still feels “wild” and “consistent”. I think this is a more honest and less limiting (combat wise) solution. If we are to avoid any problems that arise from interacting with one another in the wild, then we should stop pretending it’s an MMORPG and just let everyone hunt in instances with their friends. __________________

08-30-2005, 12:08 AM	#349
Zyphius Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 544	Sauryah wrote: What ego ? Jeez, what is it with you people that have to insult or make fun of other people when they don't think like you? Did I say I was superior? Did I say I was the majority? When there's 30 replies to a given question and 25 replies say NO then the majority of the players that replied is against, now maybe it's too hard to understand for you, for as I said you're lacking the right equipment : a brain. Thanks again for flaming me, it makes me feel the love of the community (or more likely the lack of...) and removing the locked encounters won't change that. I wasn't flaming... Just pointing out the flaws in logic... However, you math is also flawed. I took the time to find out, in this thread alone, what the numbers actually were. About encounter unlocking (ONLY, as I am aslo totaly agaisnt the removal of shared debt): 162 people posted in this thread. 61 people posted that they are for this change, for the most part. 56 people posted that they are agaisnt this change, for the most part. 45 people have posted questions, concerns, or otherwise just "waiting for it to hit live" (or made no mention whatsoever of the encounter unlocking) before making a decision. This does not include the Devs. I have a spreadsheet... I dont feel like manually typing all the names (copying and pasted just made ony long continuos name). If it interests you that much, I will email it. __________________ Exalted Zyphius Most'Dieus, Destroyer of Fairies, 80 Wizard/80 Sage of Unrest Arion Cessation, 26 Necro of Unrest Twilight Raiders

08-30-2005, 11:31 AM	#350
justright Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 94	putergod wrote: Sauryah wrote: What ego ? Jeez, what is it with you people that have to insult or make fun of other people when they don't think like you? Did I say I was superior? Did I say I was the majority? When there's 30 replies to a given question and 25 replies say NO then the majority of the players that replied is against, now maybe it's too hard to understand for you, for as I said you're lacking the right equipment : a brain. Thanks again for flaming me, it makes me feel the love of the community (or more likely the lack of...) and removing the locked encounters won't change that. I wasn't flaming... Just pointing out the flaws in logic... However, you math is also flawed. I took the time to find out, in this thread alone, what the numbers actually were. About encounter unlocking (ONLY, as I am aslo totaly agaisnt the removal of shared debt):162 people posted in this thread.61 people posted that they are for this change, for the most part.56 people posted that they are agaisnt this change, for the most part.45 people have posted questions, concerns, or otherwise just "waiting for it to hit live" (or made no mention whatsoever of the encounter unlocking) before making a decision. This does not include the Devs. I have a spreadsheet... I dont feel like manually typing all the names (copying and pasted just made ony long continuos name). If it interests you that much, I will email it. Thank you for the post! This information is golden. There are always a few loudmouths claim to represent a majority when they are just speaking for themselves. Now how about a consolidated thread for all "i will quit this game, me and my wife have cancelled our subscribtions yadda yadda"-drama queens to see how many of you that keep on playing and posting after this change hits live? My guess is we will see quite a few of you around in the future. :smileywink:

08-30-2005, 02:03 PM	#351
WinterHotfoot Loremaster Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4	justright wrote: Thank you for the post! This information is golden. There are always a few loudmouths claim to represent a majority when they are just speaking for themselves. Now how about a consolidated thread for all "i will quit this game, me and my wife have cancelled our subscribtions yadda yadda"-drama queens to see how many of you that keep on playing and posting after this change hits live? My guess is we will see quite a few of you around in the future. :smileywink: The information could, potentially, be considered golden, in a certain context, if it weren't for one tiny, but amazingly glaring flaw: it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion between Sauryah and putergod. For anyone who bothers to read posts in their entirety, rather than just skimming to find if they agree or disagree and then picking skimmed points to respond to, this should be obvious. For the rest of you, here's a summary: A post by Sauryah referenced a majority of complaints in the beta forum. putergod then proceeded to attack Sauryah claiming that Suaryah was claiming an untrue majority. Childish bickering ensued. When Sauryah identified the numbers witnessed, putergod then proceeded to count this thread's responses (using criteria that may or may not be skewed, especially where conditional support is concerned) to manufacture support for his earlier attack. The fact is, Sauryah was specifically talking about beta responses, and relating them to the timing of this announcement. putergod's information has absolutely zero impact on this relationship. It does not discredit the Sauryah's claim of a majority in the beta forum. It does not excuse the childish taunting. It does not show that your insults directed at Sauryah and like-minded posters are justified. And ultimately, (assuming for argument's sake that the numbers are accurate) if you include the neutral posts from putergod's count in the calculation, it DOES show that the people who support this change are not a majority either, just the largest of the three identified categories in this particular thread.

08-30-2005, 07:31 PM	#352
Zyphius Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 544	WinterHotfoot wrote: The information could, potentially, be considered golden, in a certain context, if it weren't for one tiny, but amazingly glaring flaw: it is entirely irrelevent to the discussion between Sauryah and putergod. For anyone who bothers to read posts in their entirety, rather than just skimming to find if they agree or disagree and then picking skimmed points to respond to, this should be obvious. For the rest of you, here's a summary: A post by Sauryah referenced a majority of complaints in the beta forum. putergod then proceeded to attack Sauryah claiming that Suaryah was claiming an untrue majority. Childish bickering ensued. When Sauryah identified the numbers witnessed, putergod then proceeded to count this thread's responses (using criteria that may or may not be skewed, especially where conditional support is concerned) to manufacture support for his earlier attack. The fact is, Sauryah was specifically talking about beta responses, and relating them to the timing of this announcement. putergod's information has absolutely zero impact on this relationship. It does not discredit the Sauryah's claim of a majority in the beta forum. It does not excuse the childish taunting. It does not show that your insults directed at Sauryah and like-minded posters are justified. And ultimately, (assuming for argument's sake that the numbers are accurate) if you include the neutral posts from putergod's count in the calculation, it DOES show that the people who support this change are not a majority either, just the largest of the three identified categories in this particular thread. Actually, this post is completely relevant. For one, I never attacked anyone. I simply stated, in a defensive manor (that I apologize for) that these people, claiming majority, are simply claiming their own opinion which in no way reflects majority, anymore than my own. I never once claimed my opinion reflected the majority, and I would appreciate it if others would not do so either. She did, however, flat out state that the majority of the posters in this thread are against the change, and that is completely false. Beta was never questioned, and no numbers were ever posted, until I took the time to do it myself. The fact is, the population is pretty much split. I have made no claims, she has. Her claims were false and were made only in a lame attempt to bolster her stance. We all have the right to an opinion, however, some people need to quite insinuating (well, actually stating flat out is more like it) that their opinion is majority rule, because, in fact, none are. SOE needs to do a poll in game, and needs to make the encounter unlocking and the shared debt to separate ones. My opinions differ on both, some don’t, and none can claim majority until all have voted and true numbers ran. __________________ Exalted Zyphius Most'Dieus, Destroyer of Fairies, 80 Wizard/80 Sage of Unrest Arion Cessation, 26 Necro of Unrest Twilight Raiders

08-30-2005, 08:42 PM	#353
Sauryah Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Felwithe (or Paris, France) Posts: 43	putergod wrote: Actually, this post is completely relevant. For one, I never attacked anyone. I simply stated, in a defensive manor (that I apologize for) that these people, claiming majority, are simply claiming their own opinion which in no way reflects majority, anymore than my own. I never once claimed my opinion reflected the majority, and I would appreciate it if others would not do so either. She did, however, flat out state that the majority of the posters in this thread are against the change, and that is completely false. Beta was never questioned, and no numbers were ever posted, until I took the time to do it myself. The fact is, the population is pretty much split. I have made no claims, she has. Her claims were false and were made only in a lame attempt to bolster her stance. We all have the right to an opinion, however, some people need to quite insinuating (well, actually stating flat out is more like it) that their opinion is majority rule, because, in fact, none are. SOE needs to do a poll in game, and needs to make the encounter unlocking and the shared debt to separate ones. My opinions differ on both, some don’t, and none can claim majority until all have voted and true numbers ran. Oh...so when I write : "As it has been said, they asked our opinions on beta forums, and most posts were against that change. The day after, they made the official announcement... If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made." You read : "I am god, I am THE majority, I am everyone, EVERYONE is against that change I KNOW it cause I'm just the best" and you reply : "I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker." Now say again how you never attacked anyone. I won't post here anymore, I'm sick of beeing attacked for no reasons, if that is what the EQ2 community is, I don't need to be a part of it.

08-30-2005, 10:37 PM	#354
Zyphius Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 544	Sauryah wrote: Oh...so when I write : "As it has been said, they asked our opinions on beta forums, and most posts were against that change. The day after, they made the official announcement... If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made." You read : "I am god, I am THE majority, I am everyone, EVERYONE is against that change I KNOW it cause I'm just the best" and you reply : "I am sorry to break this to you... but YOU are not the "majority". Just because YOU don't like something, does make it the majority rule. I know... it's hard to take after thinking you were this almighty majority speaker." Now say again how you never attacked anyone. I won't post here anymore, I'm sick of beeing attacked for no reasons, if that is what the EQ2 community is, I don't need to be a part of it. That was not meant as an attack. If you consider that an attack... well.. I don't know what to tell you. The fact of the matter is that I read that post after reading all of the posts before it, and, quit frankly, saw nothing revealing "the majority don't like this change", but yet you post "If they were listening to the majority of players, the change wouldn't have been made". Another thing... don't look at "most posts" (as evident here... most posts agaisnt it are repeats), and, instead, look at posters. In my analysis, I only counted each individual poster once, not the multitude of posts by any (for or agaisnt). Again, I apologize if you took that as an "attack". Anyway, back to the topic at hand. __________________ Exalted Zyphius Most'Dieus, Destroyer of Fairies, 80 Wizard/80 Sage of Unrest Arion Cessation, 26 Necro of Unrest Twilight Raiders

08-30-2005, 11:43 PM	#355
Warpax Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 298	this type of bickering would be best done through pms. As it is the thread has gone so far off topic that i doubt the devs would bother to sift through it to see anyones concerns.

08-31-2005, 12:29 AM	#356
Daehron Loremaster Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 8	Disclaimer The following is my opinion, and my opinion only. It is based on my perceptions, experiences, and reflections on the matter at hand. It does not purport to the the ObjectiveTruth, it is quite likely to be incorrect / ill-informed / wildly sarcastic. If however, you wish to interpret it as a statement of Objective Truth, please forward your Tithe to {Faarbot says your sarcasm has gone to far... back to the post plz} EQ2 experimented with the concepts of shared XP debt and locked encounters. They attempted for 9+ months to make it work. In the meantime, no other game has implemented locked encounters and group debt (to my knowledge). In my experience, group debt is a failure. It discourages grouping, and leads to petty bickering. I never understood the purpose, I always felt it was a "BAD" idea. To see it leave the game brings me satisfaction. Locked encounters were an interesting concept. There have been several proposed rationales for its existence. Tuning encounters for solo/group/epic content; 'Powerleveling Prevention'; KS prevention; others I do not recall. I beleive the only thing it succeeded in was KS prevention. Encounter tuning is relevant for Epic encounters, not group/solo encounters, imho. Preventing outside help takes away more from the than it gives. Powerlevelers will always find means to powerlevel. People will race to 50 with or without outside help. If someone wants to level up a frog monk with a lvl 50 fury, let them. They pay a price in doing it, but it is their decision to make, not mine, not the game developers. The mentoring system IS powerleveling. 5 mentors on 1 mentee == 25% xp bonus... that is powerleveling, not as 'easy' as a healing / debuff bot, but it is powerleveling. The locked encounter system dispelled immersion, and detracted from the game for me. i did not like it, though I am glad to see it on Epic encoutners where it belongs. I understand the rationale for it, but it just does not make sense in implementation.

08-31-2005, 06:31 AM	#357
Ornota Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2	Pardon me if this has been posted before but, Why are u guys moaning and groaning for goodness sake? just make a macro to /lock for god sake, let people do what they please, and just cause you have to press 1 more button than before to lock encounters its stupid to complain so, quit ur whining.... I tho it may seem, dont mean to be rude but, its ridiculous, for those who are lookign forward to this, I am too hehe, but please just stop whining, I bet all you guys whining will complain when someone else whines, well what are you doing? ( I am whining I know, =P), if you don't liek the changes, it onyl takes 1 simple button to lock the encounter.. lvls 1-20 are ridiculously stupid, especialyl with how long they can take and sometimes difficult becuase of lack of decent gear, I'm happy w/ changes, and if you not remember.. press 1 button ( Btw I am very disapointed at some other changes being made, but this I like!) and if your whining cause u won't be a gettin pl .. well ya....

08-31-2005, 06:59 AM	#358
G General Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 10	Warpax wrote: naeldayyan wrote: Warpax wrote: * The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience. So, If I attack something first and a stranger comes along an uninvitedly does more than 50% damage to the creature I attacked first then I will receive less than full exp? Let's say worse case scenario. SOE decides not to give you the ability to lock your encounters. Yes, then it could be possible for what you are saying to happen. But, I'd atleast hope the majority of eq2 players have better things to do than play the kid chasing ants with the magnifying glass, those people have a WHOLE other mmorpg for that. We tried the locked encounter, padded walls and rubber hammers, it isn't working, and we need something to breath life back into this game, and that is just what this move is aimed at accomplishing. I have NO doubt whatsoever that this type of person plays eq2 and would love to grief others in this manner. All other reasons aside I love eq2s locked encounters just for this reason alone. If i wanted to have to deal with thugs, bullys and griefers I would be playing another game...or go to the park or something Message Edited by Warpax on 08-21-2005 08:37 PM If that is a concern of yours you can still lock the encounter... locking is not gone in any way, so what is your point?

08-31-2005, 08:43 AM	#359
Warpax Loremaster Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 298	Gin wrote: Warpax wrote: naeldayyan wrote: Warpax wrote: * The first group or person to attack a creature will receive any reward it grants upon death, including loot and experience.So, If I attack something first and a stranger comes along an uninvitedly does more than 50% damage to the creature I attacked first then I will receive less than full exp? Let's say worse case scenario. SOE decides not to give you the ability to lock your encounters.Yes, then it could be possible for what you are saying to happen. But, I'd atleast hope the majority of eq2 players have better things to do than playthe kid chasing ants with the magnifying glass, those people have a WHOLE other mmorpg for that. We tried the locked encounter, padded walls and rubber hammers,it isn't working, and we need something to breath life back into this game, and that is just what this move is aimed at accomplishing. I have NO doubt whatsoever that this type of person plays eq2 and would love to grief others in this manner. All other reasons aside I love eq2s locked encounters just for this reason alone. If i wanted to have to deal with thugs, bullys and griefers I would be playing another game...or go to the park or something Message Edited by Warpax on 08-21-2005 08:37 PM If that is a concern of yours you can still lock the encounter... locking is not gone in any way, so what is your point? At the time of that post it was still unclear wether /lock woul be in at the time these changes were made. It was also unclear due to poor wording of the patch notes wether this would be for groups only or also available to solo players. My remaining concerns are... if you choose to /lock your encounter why do you still lose exp if you yell for help? It seems kinda wrong. If you have locked an encounter and then yell for help how about instead of losing all exp you instead get the deminished exp you would have got if you had help form the start. This way you can lock an encounter and be sure you get the 50% damage you need before allowing someone to help you.

08-31-2005, 12:41 PM	#360
mcat Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1	Well i've never posted a message on here, but can i just say thank god for this change. This is the only thing i ever really had a problem with in the game, and that is because it restricts your free-will to the utmost. Which is not what a mmorpg should be about, free-will is one of the most important things about these games. The ability to do good or bad, help toss a heal to someone or powerlevel someone. Either way it feels more real, then a little lock above some creatures head. Anyway im rambling now and just wanted to say about time this was fixed. Jonboy The Chosen Clan Crushbone