Character Lockouts vs Account-Wide Lockouts

No, they realize how lucky they have it, that's why they play the early eras.

Surely those are exactly the group of people that constantly keep asking and pushing for TLPs with unrestricted boxing?

Surely the people already boxing/botting are 100% not the ones that need/ask for anything....

They already are boxing. The last thing in the world they would care about is relaxing truebox.

Or the forums.. Like, at all. The people PUG'n their wizard and half-tabbed out are the ones on the forum.

You do understand they don't give a fig about the population of previous TLPs as soon as new TLPs come out, right? New TLPs are where a big part of their income comes from. Older TLPs are more on the expense side of the equation. They have zero reason to incentivize people to stay on Oakwynd.

They may not have any incentive, but they do still want to try to preserve the populations of past TLPs. They did the same with Mischief by waiting to have a clone. Not pulling over any of Oakwynd's special rulesets suggests they wish to do the same there. They also understand folks have only so many repetitions of the old content before they have had their fill. Getting people to stay and move on to later expansions does benefit them. Each TLP more people make it to live. Ragefire won't, but the rest of them will all make it with a small but scrappy population.

You are not making any sense.

The ones asking for unlimited boxing are 100% the people that are running boxed/botted groups/armies, since regardless of what setup they have had to make to be able to run their boxed/botted groups/armies then they would much rather run as many of their boxed/botted chars as possible from as few PCs as possible.

Also, why would someone that enjoys participating in PUGs (or even guild groups for that matter) be asking for unlimited boxing? If anything then unlimited boxing would only reduce their chance of ever finding a PUG (or even a regular guild group) - especially as a wizard (I love wizards and a well played wizard can 100% pull their weight in a group, but it is not the common consensus).

Sure, many people would like to see relaxed boxing (up to 3 chars per PC) be available from the start, but they are just not the same people that are repeatedly campaigning for unlimited boxing.

So you are pointing the blame of lack of raiding on alts at the developers not being able to isolate and remove memory leaks?

Most of the memory leaks were addressed back on Phinny (or whatever clone was right after Phinny) when pick zones were changed from being indefinitely up to closing when x many people weren't in them to keep them open.

I think you are talking out of your kazoo here, brother. Character specific lockouts worked just fine on Oakwynd without brining down the servers.

Not only did they work just fine, they were a fantastic edition that let people raid on multiple characters when they wanted. Not every guild needs to do this, but those that wanted to had the option to.

It has nothing to do with memory leaks.

Oakwynd does not have character-specific lockouts on instanced content. Pickzones are not instanced content. People who have never played the game far enough to see instanced content are the ones who don't know what they're talking about. Your chances of getting 30 min lockout timers on instanced raids is approx. -1000%.

Who is talking about 30 minute lockout timers? Lol...

This post is requesting Character specific lockouts, which OAKWYND HAS, AND HAS BEEN GREAT.

Let me spell this out for you...

Oakwynd.
Account 1
65 Warrior
65 Warrior
65 Cleric

Account 1 can raid instanced raids like Plane of Time 3 times a week, once on each character.
Account 1 can raid AoC raids, like Hate/ToV/Sky/ETC, 3 times a week, once on each character.

This is already in game, working great, on Oakwynd. People are asking for this to become more common / standard ruleset.

People requesting 30minute REPLAY Timers, are just looking to spin up DZ's to see if specific rare mobs are up, like Karnors Pawbuster or Eldrich the Old in Skyfire, etc.
No-one is asking for loot lockout timers of 30minutes, that would be ridiculous , and it's ridiculous you assumed that.

Let me spell this out for you. You're talking about AoCs, not instanced raids in general. AoC lockout behavior is different on Oakwynd because of the FTE rule. FTE will never happen on Live servers or be retro-fitted to any other TLPs. The upcoming TLPs will not have FTE. Once you get to GoD and beyond, you'll be seeing instanced raids that don't use AoCs, and for all of those the lockouts will go back to being account-wide, just like they are on every other server.

Time is not an AoC.

Since you also seem to enjoy splitting hairs, I don't think the FTE Mechanic is what made them say 'lets make lockouts be character specific.
It was most likely the Legacy Character (Heirloom+Bonus EXP) mechanic.

Being the first to tag a monster and having it lock to you, makes no sense why that would cause them to say 'hey, lets make lockouts go to a character specific'

Where, being able to take your raid loot and put it on another character and raid with them again, makes a lot more sense for them to say 'lets make lockouts go to a specific character, not account'.

Source: https://www.everquest.com/news/eq-oakwynd-now-live
Account Wide Lockouts under Legacy Character -- also no comment on restrictions of AoC vs Instances, which is already proving your theory incorrect since Time and LDON's don't use agent's of change, and are character specific.

This is 100% the reason, has nothing to do with FTE. When they originally introduced the legacy exp feature people threw a fit because "what is the point of leveling an alt when raid lockouts are account wide, I am better off with a box." So they changed it to character lockouts to make the feature more appealing. They added Heirloom at the same time.

I really enjoyed the legacy trifecta package (Bonus XP, Heirloom / or tradeable , character specific lockouts), and would like to see it on more servers going forward.
Only feedback on the trifecta would be the bonus XP needed to be more per character, as AA's were a bit of a slog.

I just really wanna be able to play an alt and raid on it when I got free time. Please don't limit us to only raiding on one characters as I wanna play the game for longer than just one character to 60 and raid log.

"We will change the account lock for Agents of Change instances to be character based instead of account based."

Source: Oakwynd Information and FAQ | EverQuest Forums (daybreakgames.com)

PoT is a special case, it is considered to be an Expedition,, not a standard raid, and it has a shorter lockout which I don't remember exactly. They could have switched PoT to be character-specific because code.

LDoN raids are also a special case, the rules they use for which you can select from the list have always been a bit fuzzy; they're run more like group missions than actual raids anyway. With a couple of exceptions in PoR, GoD will be the last expansion to use AoCs for its raids. So, it won't be too long before we can all see who's right and who's wrong.

Everything I said above about the FTE rule applies equally to the so-called "Legacy Character Ruleset". The former is considered part of the latter. They're not going to change the rulesets of pre-existing TLPs, and none of these rules are going to be in either of the new TLPs.

You can't seem to read your own sources correctly, "Note, this rule will be attached to the Legacy Characters Ruleset, so if future servers get the Legacy Characters Ruleset, they will also experience this change."

Additionally this change is directly contradicted and expanded on more in my source, (which is also a month newer than your source):
https://www.everquest.com/news/eq-oakwynd-now-live

"Q:With the focus on alts on the same account, will there be any changes to the Agents of Change account-wide lockouts?
A: Account-wide lockouts are being treated as character-specific lockouts on Oakwynd."

Account wide lockouts, not saying AoC only.

The Account lockouts are tied to the Legacy Ruleset, not FTE Ruleset.

Oakwynd has 2 rulesets applied to it, Lecgacy Character Ruleset, and FTE Rulset. Each of these carry different features so if they want to use the 'set' in future TLP's, the features are defined.

Yes, neither of these are on the new servers, that was never argued, it was asked for, but not argued. The fact you think this was an argument point, you again are not comprehending the conversation.

Nowhere in that article does it say expeditions or instances will be different from AoC's as part of the Legacy Character Ruleset.

'These are different they aren't AoC's or Instances' are also not backed up by any documentation and again are just you making claims to random things. I could see the justification for group LDON's being different since you cannot add / remove to them, but Raid LDON's follow the same style as other instances in later Era's. They don't use the AoC, you can add or remove people dynamically up until they lock, then you cannot. They also don't have zone wide loot lockouts like AoC's do, so I would lean by this evidence, that they are instances and are showing that lockouts are character specific.

Again, good job proving your lack of comprehension on this thread regarding rulesets and critical thinking.

Sorry, man.. Those flat out running the full on armies weren't playing by the rules in the first place. Those cheating openly aren't hoping the rules get relaxed, they never paid attention to rules... Now... Those already running even 3 or 6-man crews are already generally doing it within True Box standards... Believe me, those cheating don't want the smaller boxers doubling in group size.. and the single players boxing...

It's the people with 1 PC who want what boxers have asking for relaxed true box. Literally the PUG society...Those with 1 toon who want 3 but can't swing expensive pawn shop laptops to make their dreams come true.

Oddly enough, its the legit boxers who rally for another Rizolna server, so they, too can get away from the botters and the casuals alike... You see many, many posts on these forums from people claiming they box and arent Krono lords... they are *exactly* the ones who want the boxing server. They have little to no interest in depriving others of camps and grind up their sub fees just fine. I personally don't care either way if Riz ever gets a clone, i'm just trying to give you a clearer picture that the people who do want it are actually technically 'the good guys'.. The bad guys (tm) are the ones who want to sit on top of the the one-boxers, dominate GEBS, and hit black markets, preferably while automating everything. The last thing those dudes want is everyone able to box alongside them.

ps - i wasnt taking a shot at wizards, anyone playing a toon well no matter the class earns their spot in a group. I could have easily said bard or rogue or whatever. The only real point I ever try to make is the vocal forum participants are heavily weighted in the angsty anti-boxing-1999-was-lovely crowd. IE the people unhappy with TLP. Everyone happy with what DPG provides doesnt take any time whatsoever to post unless servers are down or its the stretch month before a new TLP launch.. Like now, for example.

Sorry, man ... but you continue to be just plain wrong on this.
How do I know that you are wrong? Because I have talked directly with a few such mass boxers in the past on previous TLPs and they all expressed their extreme annoynace over not being able to run as many accounts per PC as they saw fit.
They are 100% the ones that are constantly campaigning for unlimited boxing.

Yes, just as I already wrote in my previous comment then these are the people that are asking for relaxed boxing.
However, appropriating what I just wrote and trying to present it as a new insight that you just added to the conversation seems like a desperate attempt at validating your otherwise unfounded claim that these 1 PC PUG players are also the people that are asking for unlimited boxing.

And here you are just plain contradiction your previous statement that ...

At this point it is clear to me that further "debate" about this topic with you is pointless.
Also, this quote from William Shakepseare's "Hamlet" springs to mind:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"