Regardless the opinion one might have on FTE, the amount of mis-representation of facts people are posting regarding the potential impacts of this moving to live servers is staggering. Live servers have great communities. The higher population ones are probably even among the best. Camps are respected. People are generally kind to eachother. 99.9% of the time the group who is camping an area is the first to engage a mob, and the first to kill them - named and trash alike. There aren't groups DPS racing against each other over named spawns. In the rare times there is ambiguity or miscommunication - its usually discussed and corrected via tells immediately. FTE changes none of this on live. The worst thing I see about this on live servers is that it might not allow for spontaneous "out of group" helping. Groups will need to raid form to work together, which could be a problem if mercs are involved. Maybe they can come up with a workaround for this. But for some to infer that this is somehow going to bring a level of toxicity from TLP to live servers? - I just don't see that.
It's quite common for casual guilds to bring multiple groups in a non raid format for progression task. Yet another reason FTE is garbage.
FTE legitimizes no camps. The only thing that typically keeps people from doing this is typicality guild politics. Going to be impossible to prevent it since DP gave the green light.
You're talking about how it stands now. The RMT money is not on live to the same extent. People get what they want with help of guild or just being max level and able to compete in DPS race. FTE on live allows RMTers to start charging for 'encounter rights'. That's what Encounter Locking means. See? What was proposed entirely stops trains, that is all. It does not stop kill stealing. Does not stop power leveling, only shifts viable strategies. [Jedi mind trick] these are not the solutions you're looking for.
Wonder if they will retune the mobs designed for more than 1 group, Chelsith had serveral which needed more than 1 average group to kill, but with this design there is no way to do 2 groups if you have a mercs.
Yep there would have to be a way to deal with this. Add a /ally command. When you target the leader of another group and /ally Bob then Bobs group can deal out damage to the mob, technically could kill steal the mob). As long as al Ally group does not out damage the group camping the mob they get no exp but the encounter locking has no effect on them. You could also have a setting similar to corpse retrieval that would let anyone in the same guild do DPS to locked encounters. Seems to me there are ways to deal with some of the issues folks have and thinking up solutions might be better then complaining how it won't work. DB would still have to come down hard on automated attacks being able to always engage a mob first (assuming this would be the case which some here seem very sure of). I don't see an easy fix for this part. BUT DB could create some tools to collect data on camps to aid in a GM figuring this out. Don't know how the game would handle it though. Keeping a running list of who killed a PH for the last hour and how long the PH have stayed up? (that could deal with arguments over who has been camping a named or if someone is sitting there but not actually killing the PH but still trying to claim a camp.
They added /yell targetname on test. To make it like EQ2 handles it. I'd predict that's the closest we get.
If that is part of the FTE system that is just to support the launch of the server next month and it doesn't mean anything about bringing the system to all servers. As that TLP will be using the same code as every other server and code changes needed to support FTE will also be pushed to test and later all servers.
I'm hoping instead of needing to do /ally or /yell all the time I can just have a checkbox to turn it off for anything I aggro. I'm fine for keeping the game fun.
No problem is solved by creating a new one. Now instead of being griefed by a whole group, a single character can tag a mob and lock it into combat. I've had instances where I was camping a roaming multiple PH named in ToV GD for 3 hours. Someone just so happened to be passing through the zone when my mob finally popped. They engaged first because I was in combat with another PH. You better believe I got to that mob and burned it to the ground on got my checkbox. I told the person I had been camping the named for 3 hours and they should have done a Camp Check, they agreed, apologized, we buffed each other, all was well. Adding locking doesn't solve the problem. It makes trackers and poachers much, much more powerful. Yeah yeah, I might not know how the system is going to work, but it certainly seems like this mechanic will simply replace race to kill with race to engage. Hey guys I'm slogging through this HP, come over and give me a hand.
We don't know what the conditions for an encounter to get locked are and with all these concerns about instant click abilities/items with no cooldown period it is very possible that they got considered in the design of the system.
Seriously? Is it SO ill defined we can't even like or dislike it AS STATED? Do you really think the devs threw this out there without thinking a bit about it? Is this what happens now, and you CHAMPION this behavior?
I am simply pointing out that they say when a target is engaged which can mean something besides getting agro on it which can be done via proximity and not doing anything to the mob itself.
Again, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. AS STATED you're wrong. When they make a change from the initial statement, you will still have been wrong now. They might consider "something" and CHANGE from the initial statement. We are discussing the current statement before changes. And you're wrong RIGHT NOW.
No, I am not wrong about the fact that they haven't said exactly what they mean by engaging a mob and I have provided plenty of examples including "agro" as how encounter locking could work. Until they provide more details on the system we are just speculating on how it will work.
Please stop accusing me of being wrong when we don't know how the encounter locking will work, you are making an assumption that it will just be first to agro but we can't confirm that or not.
