Raid Loot Lockouts, Expedition lockouts.

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by Lisard, Jan 21, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Smokezz Augur

    Yeah, no. Most of us aren't raiding these on alts. Don't even suggest doing this, as it would completely screw most guilds. It would end the summer time raiding, people wouldn't bother to show up for rotting loot week after week. This is the absolute worst idea posted here.
  2. Jonasin Lorekeeper

    How is this any different than taking a group of players into plane of smoke group mission and beating trial of three and getting loot. Then swapping one person that does not have a lockout and requesting plane of smoke again. Then going back in and completing trial of three with basically the exact same people?

    In the raid format, you cannot participate in beating the event with a lockout unless you are exploiting. In the group mission you can participate in an event that you have a lockout in.

    Additionally, and it's been said before. I can take a group of people into raid plane of fire and clear all the trash and receive a loot lockout. Later that same day, someone else can request the raid and kill one trash mob and receive loot lockout and then invite my group into the event and I can get augs again. I won't say every guild did this, but I would safely assume that MANY people/guilds did this.
  3. MasterMagnus Augur

    I don't raid, and don't join anything in progress, beat but not looted, or which I have a personal lock out for.

    I freely admit I was not aware of all the ways (to use a neutral word) you could do these kinds of things. But all that I've posted here stands, as my singular opinion.

    In my EQ experience there are plenty of things that you can do, that have later been ruled exploits. And I've seen behaviors that are just so ingrained (by the time I encountered them) that people don't even talk about it, or think of it as an exploit.

    Ironically, in the world of Norrath, I never inhaled.
  4. Ravanta Suffer Augur

    I understand what you are saying. I can't speak for everyone obviously, but there have been several adjustments to how expedition lockouts work on live over the years for a variety of reasons. It's really hard to use the analogy you are applying to the game, especially because in a lot of respects (not just this one) the actual rules in the game are not clear at all. As I am sure you are aware, Dreamweaver did post that the answer to the questions posed early in this thread will be responded to. I am hoping this happens soon, because this entire situation has been blown way out of hand.

    I'm running on only a few hours of sleep because I'm for some reason obsessed with earning those pixels for the 7th earring so bear with me...but this whole scenario is actually very laughable if you think about it. I think we would all agree that guild rosters are built in a way to hopefully have about 54 people (of an appropriate class mixture) able to be online whenever the guild raids.

    The raids being as easy as they are, that roster of approximately 54 people could simply divide into 2, 3, 4, or possibly even more smaller forces, and fill out the rest of each individual raid with their alts if they had enough. Every single character starting the raid from the very beginning to even after looting the chest could be different in every single expedition. But what people are so up in arms about, is the ability for the same character to be able to loot from multiple chests in the same 5 day period of time since the expedition lockout has nothing to do with the chest, but only with the raid target.

    But this is forumquest, and the actual motivations behind some of the hooplah can vary wildly from every person or every guild. Those reasons can vary, but hopefully we will get a response from DP soon to the original questions on this topic. I'm looking forward to that, and to the memes that will follow!
    Allayna, Remien and MasterMagnus like this.
  5. Cicelee Augur

    Forget about loot lockouts.

    A main character goes on a raid event. They win. That character has a chance at loot from the chest. After loot distribution, that character now has a 4 1/2 day lockout on that specific raid dropping that specific loot table. That specific character, therefore, is unable to participate in that raid for 4 1/2 days and, subsequently, not able to have a chance at that specific chest loot table for 4 1/2 days.

    So if the alt of the character does that raid the next day, the ,main is still on a 3 1/2 day lockout from the raid event. That main should not be able to have a chance at any of that specific raid chest loot. Period

    People are trying to separate the raid from the chest, saying that the raid lockout applies to attempting the raid and the loot lockout only applies to the base population, not the chest. Then where is the chest lockout?

    IT IS PART OF THE RAID LOCKOUT.

    Forum Quest is trying to speak in lawyer tongues about the wording and semantics, whereas if they used common sense they would understand right from wrong. They are trying to manipulate and work around the situation because maybe two words are missing out of a 45 word paragraph...
    Mithra, Sancus, MasterMagnus and 2 others like this.
  6. Ashian Augur

    I disagree Cicelee. I think the purpose of the lockout is to ensure that the particular character cannot contribute to multiple raid successes in a single 4.5 day period, regardless of how loot is distributed. The idea is to prevent Uber Warrior X from tanking for both the main raid force AND the alt raid force in one night, as well as limit him to 10 currency every cycle. I don’t think the devs have a problem with concentrating the loot on certain characters, they just want to limit character participation from once per 4.5 days.
    Allayna and Remien like this.
  7. Mintalie Augur

    I respectfully disagree. The whole point of a raid is to get loot. Therefore, what happens to the loot is of most import.
    Mithra, MasterMagnus and Tolzol like this.
  8. Ravanta Suffer Augur

    Fair enough. I just hope that DP's response to this comes soon, and it is something that everyone likes.
    MasterMagnus likes this.
  9. Funky Augur

    who are you?
    Sithsonn and MasterMagnus like this.
  10. Scornfire Augur

    No more raid chests. All loot now purchased from vendor. Halve vendor prices. Each raid /Ach gives 10 extra coins. Need to add more fluff to keep people raiding. Wtb ornaments back on raid vendor, a high priced illusion/mount and a gd reusable heat pack that cures that annoying restless ice garbage

    #DownWithDKP
    Szilent, Sithsonn, Zvenn and 2 others like this.
  11. Elkar Headhunter Journeyman

    So far all I have seen are a whole lot of “opinions” as to what the rule on this is. None of you can cite anything to back up those opinions. Ngreth’s comment that has already been quoted twice and it says what it says. You can try to mold it into what you like but it does not change it. It’s the closest thing we have to go by that I have seen.

    When the devs respond if they say they don’t like it then I know it will not happen again within Machin Shin and you can all go back to pouting about shadow knights or something.
  12. svann Augur

    I dont think its right, but otoh its hard to imagine why they would have restricted locked out player from joining a dz only up until the chest drops.
  13. Kontra Augur

    You guys can fight all you want, blur the facts all you want, cloudy the original question all you want...the fact is no one should be able to loot an item from a chest if they already have an event and loot lockout for the event where that chest spawns. Taking loot from a 2nd raid/2nd chest (when you full well know you shouldn't be able to due to your lockouts) is unintended gameplay. There's no question of this. I'm not a GM, I'm not a developer, but I won't argue with anyone trying to say otherwise, as I know I'm right. I don't need anyone's confirmation on this. Whether or not they choose to penalize those involved is a different subject altogether, and only time will tell.
  14. Ravanta Suffer Augur

    You guys can fight all you want, blur the facts all you want, cloudy the original question all you want...the fact is no one should be able to eat Lay's Kettle Cooked Mesquite BBQ Potato Chips out of a bag that they did not buy if they already have eaten a bag from the store that sells them. Taking chips from a 2nd bag (when you full well know you shouldn't be able to due to your daily calorie goals) is unintended snacking. There's no question of this. I'm not with the FDA, I'm not a flavor creator, but I won't argue with anyone trying to say otherwise, as I know I'm right. I don't need anyone's confirmation on this. Whether or not those involved gain weight is a different subject altogether, and only time will tell.
    Astral64 and Funky like this.
  15. feeltheburn Augur

  16. Funky Augur


    so you just make all the rules then? but since you seem to know the answers.. why are we even waiting on GM/Dev's to respond??... oh thats right... because they are the ones with the actual answers and you're just another one of us playing the game..

    so calm down Karen
    Celephane, Eyezing, Allayna and 2 others like this.
  17. MasterMagnus Augur

    Doesn't take a gm or dev to know Right from Wrong, have superior reading comprehension, and know the spirit and intention of this particular game mechanic.
    Mintalie, Kontra and Cicelee like this.
  18. Funky Augur


    to a degree yes. but when you have 1/2 the population perceiving the statements from Ngreth 1 way and the other half another way... that blatantly shows there is some grey area... which is why i just find this whole thread hilarious... sadly the memes stopped tho.

    so until dev's flat out say what we did was wrong or not.. it is what it is. not the first time it's happened throughout EQ (tho so many claims that they've never done anything wrong) and im willing to bet it wont be the last time something similar happens.
    MasterMagnus likes this.
  19. MasterMagnus Augur

    I'll basically agree with ya there.

    There are two sides, and what ultimately happens will be dev's choice. It is certainly likely it is easier to do nothing to code, and officially state it's ok to alt-raid-main-lockedout-loot.

    That doesn't make doing it when it was a gray area right.

    That means you were using something that might have been wrong, you all just made the choice that 'gray area' was enough to feel entitled to do it.
    Cicelee likes this.
  20. kizant Augur

    What i would do is make the DZ keep track of who was included when you made the initial request. Only those people could be added back later if they somehow got disconnected. Then never allow you to add additional players at any other point. This would also solve the problem of me having to wait for alt loot to be given out on regular raids. The group gear is more than enough for alts!! :mad:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page