Oakwynd Feedback

Discussion in 'Time Locked Progression Servers' started by coltongrundy, Mar 18, 2023.

  1. 6BoxerOnCoirnav Lorekeeper

    Every pick is now more of a "shared instance" where the bad man chasing the other people cant hurt you until it slowly walks back home and mentally prepares itself for another fight first.
  2. Goomba New Member

    36000 views and no posts by the Devs?

    I think given the interest in the subject perhaps Darkpaw or Enad 7 will consider a second server or changes to Oakwynd ruleset

    Granted a few users are over posting and spamming their points, the overall interest in the ruleset when you consider all threads is vast

    Either way looking forward to the next producer/devs monthly letter and TLP server
    Go Take A Nap likes this.
  3. KobalWR Lorekeeper

    That sounds awful.
  4. Familycat23 New Member

    Daybreak Games: please, please, PLEASE reconsider implementing FTE on Oakwynd. Or create another server alongside it, without FTE.

    The mechanic is the antithesis of Everquest. If implemented, FTE will cause my little group (who always does 6 mo- a year of each TLP release) to sit out a year. Yea, that's only 10-15 paid accounts, and bags, and Krono..hey wait, that's a decent chunk of change. Especially if hundreds of others feel that way. Hope Daybreak sees the amount of $ they will leave on the table with this ruleset.

    Please, Daybreak, don't change the game we've loved and played for decades. Give us a standard server and take my money.
    6BoxerOnCoirnav likes this.
  5. Zrender Augur

    No. This is just for people that heal or buff the person that has the encounter lock. They still can't harm the mob or get loot. This prevents someone from standing oog and healing people in encounters with no risk to themselves. OOG helpers need to be added to the aggro list to prevent this from being the new form of mass PLing. Without this you could just replace your pile of enchanters with clerics and chain heal a couple wizzies in the group until they aoe the mobs down.

    Edit: Of course the other option is to prevent anyone in a locked encounter from being healed. Maybe they'll go that route. They will need to be careful of people being dropped healed and re-added to groups though of course. Tricky stuff. My guess is you personally will be locked to the encounter the instant it starts, regardless of if you leave the group, until the encounter terminates. That's how I would do it.
    Ragnoruk likes this.
  6. Zrender Augur

    Because OOG removing all danger is everywhere. Ever been in a group and had someone bring their alt in and either PL directly or start mezzing, stunning, healing, etc so there's no risk to the group? Everyone knows this scenario so I think that's enough detail. That's how it currently is in many groups after the first few weeks of a TLP. FTE reduces the amount that OOG can do. They can still buff and heal out of combat (I assume) which I think is plenty.
  7. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    I would guess that the claim is it lowers the ability to assist with outside forces and makes the group kill everything on their own.
  8. Kazzuk Elder

    Aggro drop classes or later COTH will basically make this pretty easy to manipulate regardless of how they lock the loot or not. I also agree it will likely be the least changes to the engine/encounter code that is implemented so more than likely character to character interaction will not be affected (out of group healing, buffs, etc), it is just a guess but an educated one.
  9. Knifen Augur

    Excellent lets see how many threads we can start about something that hasnt even come to fruition yet.
    Kaenneth likes this.
  10. Kazzuk Elder



    Folks that think this will kill AOE PLing do not understand how it works, it will make it less efficient in the earlier game, by the time raid zones with great xp mods are out it will not affect it much at all.

    Do not get me wrong, it will absolutely make it less efficient, but it will still be MORE efficient than solo xp.

    Now,. if they prevent character to character interaction for locked encounters then it will limit it to raid only AOE PL, which as I said, early game will likely be fairly bad, but I seriously doubt they will do that simply due to the amount of changes it would require and the huge potential for causing other issues.
  11. Typhus Lorekeeper

    All I am saying is, Oakwynd needs to have a free trade component too it if you want me to test this FTE mechanic otherwise I am not wasting my time or money on this server. Options to spice up this server

    1. Free Trade
    2. Random Loot
    3. Bst/Bers start
    4. Increased xp modifier on the legacy characters

    Add to the list if you want. But I won't be touching unless it has at a minimum Free Trade.
    Appren likes this.
  12. Arclyte Augur

    free trade felt good for some things like group loot, quested items etc

    but stuff like raid loot and epic pieces was too much imo
    Zrender likes this.
  13. Typhus Lorekeeper

    Read my post I posted on Pros cons of free Trade. Specifically number 5
  14. Nessirfiti Augur

    Tell me again how you don't just want private XP instances for everyone? Because now not only are you advocating for encounter locking, but you're advocating for not being able to heal from out of group. I am absolutely baffled, If you hate interacting with players this much, just advocate for making the game singleplayer?

    I think this is what is frustrating me about the people who are super-pro encounter locking.

    You're seemingly so anti-PLing, and some are so afraid of being KS-ed that you seem to be willing to throw out a significant chunk of the Multiplayer part of the game. If it's that worrying to you, convince Darkpaw to do like Elite dangerous did and let you spawn off private instances. But there are a significant chunk of players, I'd wager a significant majority that aren't so bothered by the thought of adversity that we demand the game change to fit our narrow definitions of what's acceptable play.
  15. Thatoneguy666 Elder

    Yeah you see this is what us folks with a fully functional frontal cortex have realized since day one after putting a tiny bit of thought into this ruleset.

    Certain posters here are clearly incapable of logical deconstruction so they have to stumble to this conclusion in much the same way the Daybreak developers do when they start to actually think about the game they're paid to work on. The ONLY possible way you can implement this system as currently designed is to ALSO eliminate the ability for any out of group players to buff or heal or generate any aggro on any mobs who are out of their lock.

    Anything else leads to massive and obvious abuse in one direction or another.

    So the absolute best case scenario is you say goodbye to any oog spells landing on other people. Every other scenario is obviously worse.

    I'm not okay with that change and many other tangential changes that will take place if this is implemented. I'm also not okay with the basic premise that we should encounter lock mobs.

    I'm just asking for containment at this point. Go ahead and screw around with Oakwynd, just please scrap the plans to bring this to Everquest as a whole. It does not belong.
  16. magikarp Elder

    I don't see anyone who is super pro encounter locking.

    Just seems like there's people who love the game enough to try and defend DBG in whatever decision they go with. I for one hope there's a glimmer of wisdom in that sentiment, and that there really is some reason for implementing FTE that the design team knows, but is not yet obvious to us as players. It's just hard for me to imagine at this time.

    But it's not any more fair or equitable or less competitive to get mobs and bosses. It's not going to reduce cs requirements (or wants). And it's not going to bring the players closer together

    It kind of just seems like a poorly thought out experiment for S n Gs by the team leads. Like hey, other games have this, wanna try it? But in the end I can understand the reflex to defend it, and I hope there ends up being some 'I told you so' against my expectations in the end... I really do
  17. Nessirfiti Augur

    I wish I could be cautiously optimistic, or even give the benefit of the doubt. But what's in the producers letter feels honestly like they had this idea to "reduce toxicity and CS requirements" and then decided to try the worst possible way to do so.
  18. Zrender Augur

    I've stated exactly what I'd like to see. Apparently you're unable to understand. I want reduced or eliminated afk ae pl and completely eliminated intentional training. Those are horrible for the game and already against the tos, maybe you should read that again, they are already against the tos. I don't care how they implement it. FTE is not how I would have done it (have stated that as well) but that's what we have. How did you take the leap from those two items, assuming you even bothered to read them, to all the leaps and judgements in your post? Grouping is great, raiding is great, social aspect is great. RMT afk aoe PLing and intentional training are very bad for the game and generate not only CS volume but greatly reduce the appeal of EQ. Is it Intentional training or afk AE PLing that you can't live without? I really don't care what they do with other servers but I'd like 1 server that eliminates those things so I'm making suggestions, in the uh, suggestion thread, to try to help that happen.
    Ragnoruk and code-zero like this.
  19. Dalyrina Elder

    This is purely speculation on my part as the details released are pretty limited, so poke holes in this at will.

    I believe they will lock the player, group, raid from adding additional group members once the fight begins. Additionally I think they may try locking the corpse to the players involved when it locked.

    This would dissuade players from holding a mob and stalling until reinforcements logon/arrive (no mexican standoffs and pushes guilds t start a fight as soon as they think they have the proper force without worry of a zerg coming through after and crushing them bc they didnt wait for 72)

    Kills a portion of the market that sells loot rights.

    And lastly, persuades healers to be in group/raid and not just avoid aggro completely to cheese the kill.

    If free trade was included it would undermine these restrictions.

    Just turning outside healing off completely seems too extreme. Not really sure how they prevent keeping one cleric out of raid, who has no intention on getting loot, who would end up giving you a permanent get out jail free card any time a raid wipes.

    There's still lots of what ifs and what about such and such even with this, but its the best I can personally come up with when attempting to fit this square peg in our round hole.
  20. KobalWR Lorekeeper

    Ok, that's a fair point.
    But how does it weight against the end of trains? Let's say you're in a zone where (accidental) trains are quite common (Unrest, Sebilis, Guk, Velketor, usual leveling zones). Getting rid of trains makes the environnement MUCH safer both for groups and for pullers since we don't have to anticipate others dangerous behaviours.
    Since it doest change anything for raids, all in all I think the game won't be more challenging.