Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,040
- 19,501
Everquest - Phinigel server
- Thread starter krysanth
- Start date
Falstaff
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 8,313
- 3,169
Are the servers located in Kirksville? If so then about 15 countries seem to be attacking it right now.
Norse - IPViking Live
Norse - IPViking Live
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
Make a "eqgame.exe patchme" shortcut. Wasn't flawless last night but doing work today.
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
It's only softcrashing, Enough to kick everyone off and let the mobs kill them but not give you extra raid loot.
Crone
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 9,709
- 3,211
They were probably gonna do something like double exp for the new years weekend. Now they can spin as they weren't, but are now as a gift to us!
Vaclav
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 12,650
- 877
I'll be posting a critique of the Loot Lockout concept to EQLive once the forums there aren't screwed up anymore - my rough draft is as follows:
-------
Contrary to information provided by those on Test/devs beforehand - <In Virtue> found out on Tuesday that the Loot Lockout DOES apply to the boss mob of the instance as well if the instance is requested during the "Loot Lockout". For those that are unaware, the Loot Lockout which is intended to be a 6.5 day term as the main mob is, can multiply many times over - I've experienced a 19.5 day one, I know there's a pic on the EQLive forums well over 20 days in length. So unlike the intended version that might add only an hour or two onto the timer to function properly, in this case it's multiplying it to two, three, fourfold - or perhaps even more as more people try these DZs and get the "Loot Lockout" bug.
Which obviously should be fixed - but the question I have, is would the more complicated route of fixing Loot Lockout and preventing such bugs in the future be the correct answer or would REMOVING the Loot Lockout be the correct answer.
My thoughts lead me to believe that the most proper answer is REMOVING the Loot Lockout. My reasoning falls to this: The explanation that was given for the "Loot Lockout" was to prevent popping freebie instances to farm trash loot. However due to the "request limit" lockout of 2.5 days that exists over a third of the "loot lockout" already exists by default when you request the instance - especially with the current method of zero respawns that exist in the zone to prevent continued farming.
Running some math on some of the places this would apply:
1) Plane of Hate/Fear - assuming one /pick of Hate/Fear there are FIFTEEN respawns of Hate to every 2.5 days - it doesn't seem unreasonable that one would be able to get one guaranteed unshared copy at 1:15 the rate of either when there isn't a /pick. (And there's often 2-3 /pick's in Hate -making it more like 1:30-45!) [Note: I'm presuming Hate minis will be treated like Fear minis when the Hate instance is unborked - if not, treat them the same as]
2) Permafrost/Nagafen's Lair/Kedge Keep/Ruins of Old Paineel - ~20 min respawn on all of the stuff in the normal versions, multiple /picks potentially. That's approximately 175 chances of getting the named in a regular instance at their chance versus ONE chance to get them every 2.5 days without farming them by popping an instance.
Again, I see no benefit and potential trouble with continuing the "Loot Lockout" - it seems to add no real benefit with loads of potential trouble/player distress that the 2.5 days "request limit" and lack of respawn doesn't already accomplish.
Additionally, as per what happened to a guildee - it seems like requesting the DZ from the Agent of Change should give a prompt asking you if you want to join or not instead of FORCING YOU into it unwillingly. A guildee was unable to attend our Nagafen raid because someone thought it would be cute to take their group into the Nagafen's Lair instance without discussing it with a group - seems like a large discouragement to people to join non-guild groups if such trolling isn't prevented by a Yes/No agreement window, should such trolling become prevalent.
Thanks for your time and consideration in adjusting this broken mechanic - that again, to me, seems only detrimental and easier to fix by removing it.
-----
Thoughts/feelings from Phinigel people?
-------
Contrary to information provided by those on Test/devs beforehand - <In Virtue> found out on Tuesday that the Loot Lockout DOES apply to the boss mob of the instance as well if the instance is requested during the "Loot Lockout". For those that are unaware, the Loot Lockout which is intended to be a 6.5 day term as the main mob is, can multiply many times over - I've experienced a 19.5 day one, I know there's a pic on the EQLive forums well over 20 days in length. So unlike the intended version that might add only an hour or two onto the timer to function properly, in this case it's multiplying it to two, three, fourfold - or perhaps even more as more people try these DZs and get the "Loot Lockout" bug.
Which obviously should be fixed - but the question I have, is would the more complicated route of fixing Loot Lockout and preventing such bugs in the future be the correct answer or would REMOVING the Loot Lockout be the correct answer.
My thoughts lead me to believe that the most proper answer is REMOVING the Loot Lockout. My reasoning falls to this: The explanation that was given for the "Loot Lockout" was to prevent popping freebie instances to farm trash loot. However due to the "request limit" lockout of 2.5 days that exists over a third of the "loot lockout" already exists by default when you request the instance - especially with the current method of zero respawns that exist in the zone to prevent continued farming.
Running some math on some of the places this would apply:
1) Plane of Hate/Fear - assuming one /pick of Hate/Fear there are FIFTEEN respawns of Hate to every 2.5 days - it doesn't seem unreasonable that one would be able to get one guaranteed unshared copy at 1:15 the rate of either when there isn't a /pick. (And there's often 2-3 /pick's in Hate -making it more like 1:30-45!) [Note: I'm presuming Hate minis will be treated like Fear minis when the Hate instance is unborked - if not, treat them the same as]
2) Permafrost/Nagafen's Lair/Kedge Keep/Ruins of Old Paineel - ~20 min respawn on all of the stuff in the normal versions, multiple /picks potentially. That's approximately 175 chances of getting the named in a regular instance at their chance versus ONE chance to get them every 2.5 days without farming them by popping an instance.
Again, I see no benefit and potential trouble with continuing the "Loot Lockout" - it seems to add no real benefit with loads of potential trouble/player distress that the 2.5 days "request limit" and lack of respawn doesn't already accomplish.
Additionally, as per what happened to a guildee - it seems like requesting the DZ from the Agent of Change should give a prompt asking you if you want to join or not instead of FORCING YOU into it unwillingly. A guildee was unable to attend our Nagafen raid because someone thought it would be cute to take their group into the Nagafen's Lair instance without discussing it with a group - seems like a large discouragement to people to join non-guild groups if such trolling isn't prevented by a Yes/No agreement window, should such trolling become prevalent.
Thanks for your time and consideration in adjusting this broken mechanic - that again, to me, seems only detrimental and easier to fix by removing it.
-----
Thoughts/feelings from Phinigel people?
Siddar
Bronze Baronet of the Realm
- 6,356
- 5,898
Loot on a mob is set when the mob is spawned. It makes complete sense that if you spawn a Naggy with a lockout for him that he wont have loot. They would have to change to a chest system where naggy spawns a chest when he dies to fix the issue. Not sure why they would do that just so guild can raid a few hours earlier then intended.