I don't care how guides interpreted things two goddamn decades ago. There's a million things GMs and guides used to do that they don't anymore. Raw game mechanics can't determine what constitutes a "serious attempt" at a mob in a game that is played the way Everquest is, where spamming damage from the first second of the encounter is absolutely not the norm unless you are specifically attempting to steal a mob from someone else. Even if we imagine you're right, it'll just play out like this: Group A starts out with the tank tagging the mob with a snap-aggro spell/disc, the enchanter tashing it, the shaman slowing it, and the rogue waiting for the tank to get in position. Lone KSer B starts by clicking his Wand of Conflagration however many times it takes to lock the encounter. Once this has been established as the new meta of Everquest, groups will have to forgo all of that and just start playing the game like Diablo. Insert "And Then I Started Blasting" meme here. Does anyone think that's an appealing compromise for the sake of this bizarre feature? And anyone who has been around the block on TLPs knows that this will become the case. If we pretend that the developers had put in some criterion* where a mob only locks once someone has dealt enough damage to where it would start summoning if it were a summoning mob, they've now completely changed the way people have to play the game in order to not get KSed. All this for what? To deal with people PLing in The Deep? Can anyone seriously say, without just lying in order to stick to their guns, that PLing is such a big problem in this game that a feature as intrusive and game-altering as this is worth implementing in order to deal with it? I'm calling B.S. ahead of time if anyone does. *in which case, why on Earth would they have said nothing about that in the announcement, let alone after a hundred pages of vehement backlash? Look how carefully they explained the other features of the TLP. They didn't just go "you'll get more XP the more max-level characters you have." They phrased the Encounter Locking mechanic the way they did because it says all that needed to be said about it. There are no nuances beyond that. There is no basis whatsoever for the assumption that they had more in mind for the definition of "engage an NPC" than simply aggroing it.