Celtic Heroes

This has to be changed imo. Having lock disadvantage for edl and down is okay, but definitely not for eg bosses. Seems silly because of the penalty we are forced to lock with locker toons instead of mains with dg.

This has to be changed imo. Having lock disadvantage for edl and down is okay, but definitely not for eg bosses. Seems silly because of the penalty we are forced to lock with locker toons instead of mains with dg.

How will this be fair for non dominant clan that doesn't have dg? Dominant clan will get ALL the lower lvl EG bosses with all the dgs that had gotten practically for free without any competition for years.

Level lock is working as intended, it gives new players a chance to win against 230+ dg players. If we take this away, the game Will die.
WHO among you are willing to level up from 1 to 230 Andi get full dg before you can even have a chance ON bosses 60 levels below like hrung+.
Same thing with level 215 outlocking 230s ON an edl boss, If there is no lock level, those 230s dg clans can control who can get edl And who wont.

The solution is, make a level 220 boss that drops upgraded hrung mordy necro.

Only one world in ch Solved the lock level problem.

I think it's a mistake to have made Doch gul so strong AND so slow to obtain if it could some how have been made with the time expectancy as say edl, it wouldn't make future boss winning so heavily skewed in a long reign of uncontested server dominance (Assuming 2 clans were edl equipped some what evenly prior to dg). It's too late to fix dg now imo without throwing off a "balance". Making all quest armors only have a level req would fix level lock punishing players who should be past lower quest armor bosses but not fix level lock punishing players who should be past lower raid bosses which I would argue is more important. This is unique to celtic heroes. Instances could fix that to a degree but it would to some extent devalue overworld bosses. Unless instance bosses were completely different but also their drops competitive to over world bosses.

Principally a game shouldn't punish higher levels imo and principally monopolization of bosses shouldn't exist imo. Assuming level lock absolution. Without level lock, monopolization will exist. With level lock, it's possible for monopolization to exist just a lot harder to achieve. With level lock higher levels and older players are punished. Without level lock, lower levels and newer players aren't even in the question. As well earned as dedicated relentless longer playing players may be. It shouldn't leave others option less (instances). I don't know what can really satisfy everyone.

If you don't want to be affected by level lock but want to be 100% damage efficient on 220 bosses. DONT put yourself in risk of leveling more. There are people who accidentally level higher than 220 whether by a ton of bossing or bounties <--(which I don't see as something that the player can't take responsibility for). You have to realize that you have more control over whether you level more than what OTM decides to change in game design. No one is 233 without bounties and floor bosses.

I tried to write all my thoughts sorry for the big wall if you are going to reply read it all though .

They shouldn’t give lower lvl players an advantage but make it equal, there was nothing wrong with the 20 lvls over no penalty system I don’t know why they had to change it

I think it's a mistake to have made Doch gul so strong AND so slow to obtain if it could some how have been made with the time expectancy as say edl, it wouldn't make future boss winning so heavily skewed in a long reign of uncontested server dominance (Assuming 2 clans were edl equipped some what evenly prior to dg). It's too late to fix dg now imo without throwing off a "balance". Making all quest armors only have a level req would fix level lock punishing players who should be past lower quest armor bosses but not fix level lock punishing players who should be past lower raid bosses which I would argue is more important. This is unique to celtic heroes. Instances could fix that to a degree but it would to some extent devalue overworld bosses. Unless instance bosses were completely different but also their drops competitive to over world bosses.

Principally a game shouldn't punish higher levels imo and principally monopolization of bosses shouldn't exist imo. Assuming level lock absolution. Without level lock, monopolization will exist. With level lock, it's possible for monopolization to exist just a lot harder to achieve. With level lock higher levels and older players are punished. Without level lock, lower levels and newer players aren't even in the question. As well earned as dedicated relentless longer playing players may be. It shouldn't leave others option less (instances). I don't know what can really satisfy everyone.

If you don't want to be affected by level lock but want to be 100% damage efficient on 220 bosses. DONT put yourself in risk of leveling more. There are people who accidentally level higher than 220 whether by a ton of bossing or bounties <--(which I don't see as something that the player can't take responsibility for). You have to realize that you have more control over whether you level more than what OTM decides to change in game design. No one is 233 without bounties and floor bosses.

I tried to write all my thoughts sorry for the big wall if you are going to reply read it all though .

230 is best for 220 bosses

I've covered this topic many times in the past so I'll keep my reply brief.

First I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to provide their feedback and opinions on the topic, always good to view the topic again with a fresh perspective.

While there are many reasons for and against target lock one of the biggest topics we want to cover going forward is progression. With updates such as Corrupted Gardens (and beyond) we hope to address these concerns and divert the flow of clans away from older zone bosses and towards the new expansion bosses.

Naturally this may take a little time but we will be open and responsive to player feedback during this process, so be sure to sign up for testing when you can.

Thanks

I've covered this topic many times in the past so I'll keep my reply brief.

First I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to provide their feedback and opinions on the topic, always good to view the topic again with a fresh perspective.

While there are many reasons for and against target lock one of the biggest topics we want to cover going forward is progression. With updates such as Corrupted Gardens (and beyond) we hope to address these concerns and divert the flow of clans away from older zone bosses and towards the new expansion bosses.

Naturally this may take a little time but we will be open and responsive to player feedback during this process, so be sure to sign up for testing when you can.

Thanks

Just make lvl lock stay the same after 220

I've covered this topic many times in the past so I'll keep my reply brief.

First I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to provide their feedback and opinions on the topic, always good to view the topic again with a fresh perspective.

While there are many reasons for and against target lock one of the biggest topics we want to cover going forward is progression. With updates such as Corrupted Gardens (and beyond) we hope to address these concerns and divert the flow of clans away from older zone bosses and towards the new expansion bosses.

Naturally this may take a little time but we will be open and responsive to player feedback during this process, so be sure to sign up for testing when you can.

Thanks

Just make lvl lock stay the same after 220

If you mean that a 234 can lock a mob that is 220 without any disadvantage to someone that is 220 then +1

I've covered this topic many times in the past so I'll keep my reply brief.

First I would like to thank everyone for taking the time to provide their feedback and opinions on the topic, always good to view the topic again with a fresh perspective.

While there are many reasons for and against target lock one of the biggest topics we want to cover going forward is progression. With updates such as Corrupted Gardens (and beyond) we hope to address these concerns and divert the flow of clans away from older zone bosses and towards the new expansion bosses.

Naturally this may take a little time but we will be open and responsive to player feedback during this process, so be sure to sign up for testing when you can.

Thanks

Just make lvl lock stay the same after 220

If you mean that a 234 can lock a mob that is 220 without any disadvantage to someone that is 220 then +1

Holy crap +1