Content Lockouts Need to Change (Odyssey / Sortie etc.)

[Tarquine]

Hello

I pay a monthly sub, as does everyone else. Lockouts are bad and feel bad in general being told who/what/how I can play to content I pay for, but I can see from a game design the need to stop bots and burnout from current end-tier content.

Such lockouts really punish players, especially new/returning and casual players.

Are you new/returner? This content is hard for new people, especially to solo and catch up, or even just to learn some mechanics. "Just join a group" - well, if you don't know the mechanics, its hard to start/join a group, as people are reluctant want to waste a 20 hour lockout on a noob run, or failed run. Or in other cases, where I have just burned access, but a noob comes along and asks "Help me in Sortie/Odyssey" - sorry, even if I want to, I can't!

Casual gamer? Say goodbye to statics, as they probably don't fit into your casual play style. Only have 1-2 hours to play a day - suddenly a tension between cramming in 60 + 90 minutes of runs (plus any prep time) each day, or doing the other things you want to to for progress. It feels bad missing out on being able to access content I pay for, when I want to access it, and it feels bad being forced when i don't want to. FOMO!

PUGS ... Given the 20 hour lockout, PUGs are very unfriendly to 'noobs' and anything but an efficient run. (See noobs/returners above).

However, there are two far more player friendly ways to improve this, both of which remove the daily lockout:

(1) Timed charges for entry that stack.
(2) Capped weekly/daily rewards.

1 - in the same way as voidstones and Traverser stones, or even Omen charges. Let Odyssey and Sortie stack [more] charges. Keep them at the 20 hour charge, but let them accumulate to a figure. Don't even cap it (and uncap Omen too).

This content is years old now. If I unlock this, but don't approach it for 6 months - then let me sit on 180+ "Entry stones" and grind it out. I still have to put the time in, but I have the same level of opportunity of access as someone who does it daily for 6 months.

This really helps new/returners who just want to enter and learn (from making mistakes and dying) and not feel bad from simply making a mistake after 10 mins and warping out.

2 - Capped daily/weekly rewards. Why not have unlimited entry, but limits rewards? That way new/returners can enter as much as they like, to learn and practice, but can't bot/spam to get more rewards than the current rate.

Both of these approaches are far more friendly to the community and to individual players. Allowing more access, encourages people to work together and support and help others - rather than currently saving or waiting on 'efficient access'. At the same time, they protect what the devs intended to stop people from cheating/botting/spamming access and creating "Primes" or speed-running content and leaving. You want us to grind and stay subbed, this doesn't threaten that. It protects it, buy keeping us engaged and removing the 'feels bad' part.

This should be a win-win.

[Uroah]

They aren't interested in win/win they're interested in you logging in daily

As long as you continue to give them money, they don't care about anything else

[Alhanelem]

Hello

I pay a monthly sub, as does everyone else. Lockouts are bad and feel bad in general being told who/what/how I can play to content I pay for, but I can see from a game design the need to stop bots and burnout from current end-tier content.


Yes, they do limit the impact of bots and ensure that content is playable at the time you choose to do it because popular contents would develop lines at various times because of people repeatedly doing the content and it would negatively impact the exxperience.

But it's not just that. ALL MMOs have timed lockouts on key contents, to control the pace at which that content can be consumed. While less of an issue with XI as the game is in a semi-stable state with new stuff only happening here and there, these lockouts serve functional purposes- they aren't SE going "how can we ruin people's fun today?"

As for some of the other stuff... People are going to do things the most efficient way they can whether there's a lockout or not. So... it doesn't solve anything.

While only locking rewards instead of entry is a common practice (XIV does it for raids) it only works for content with a fixed reward (either specific drops, or a treasure chest or similar). It's not going to work for content where rewards are earned as you go.

[Catmato]

That's always been a huge problem with this game. You use your BCNM orb and fail, you're done until you can get more seals, which are time-gated drops. Dyna had a 3 day lockout. Salvage had a lockout AND needed assault points which came from a different time-gated event. ENMs were one attempt per week. It's always discouraged people from bringing inexperienced players and trying alternate strategies.

Ambuscade finally got it right because you're never locked out and that only ever caused significant queues on one server. It's spammable, you can pick your difficulty, there's no real penalty for failure so people are willing to pick players with any amount of experience and try novel approaches.

And they never went back to it. SE made all this content but doesn't want people to play it.

[Tarquine]

They aren't interested in win/win they're interested in you logging in daily

As long as you continue to give them money, they don't care about anything else

My account is 23 years old. I do log in daily, bar the 5 year break I took because of feels bad mechanics. If you want a monthly sub, make it feel better. Bad is compounded because after 23 years I have a family and a career. I know many LS mates are in a similar position.



Yes, they do limit the impact of bots and ensure that content is playable at the time you choose to do it because popular contents would develop lines at various times because of people repeatedly doing the content and it would negatively impact the exxperience.

But it's not just that. ALL MMOs have timed lockouts on key contents, to control the pace at which that content can be consumed. While less of an issue with XI as the game is in a semi-stable state with new stuff only happening here and there, these lockouts serve functional purposes- they aren't SE going "how can we ruin people's fun today?"

As for some of the other stuff... People are going to do things the most efficient way they can whether there's a lockout or not. So... it doesn't solve anything.

While only locking rewards instead of entry is a common practice (XIV does it for raids) it only works for content with a fixed reward (either specific drops, or a treasure chest or similar). It's not going to work for content where rewards are earned as you go.

Access as an issue is a terrible excuse for not implementing something. Also, players will naturally find ways around queue bottlenecks - or complain until its solved.

Limbus new system allows you to go in, but caps weekly progress. Sparks to sell capped each week. Ambuscade rewards capped. Galli/RP can be capped, and other ways can definitely be implemented.

My proposed solutions maintain the pace progress through capping it, but enhances the player experience by allowing (at least) the opportunity to experience and practice / support others. For example, i could cap out on a week, but still support others in runs. Why is that bad?

No - its not SE saying "How can we ruin people's fun", but that does not mean they are not terribly designed management mechanics.


That's always been a huge problem with this game. You use your BCNM orb and fail, you're done until you can get more seals, which are time-gated drops. Dyna had a 3 day lockout. Salvage had a lockout AND needed assault points which came from a different time-gated event. ENMs were one attempt per week. It's always discouraged people from bringing inexperienced players and trying alternate strategies.

Ambuscade finally got it right because you're never locked out and that only ever caused significant queues on one server. It's spammable, you can pick your difficulty, there's no real penalty for failure so people are willing to pick players with any amount of experience and try novel approaches.

And they never went back to it. SE made all this content but doesn't want people to play it.

Indeed. At least you could farm various seals. Takes time, but feels like you are 'earning' the entry, so you take an active part. Vs sat on thumbs, or be bored and logout until the next day. But yeah... make content, but don't let us play it. WTF.

Also, i don't get people's attitude to supporting gatekeeping, instead of supporting opening up and letting people play the content!

[Alhanelem]

Access as an issue is a terrible excuse for not implementing something. Also, players will naturally find ways around queue bottlenecks - or complain until its solved. Your comment about circumvention only reinforces what I said before- People gravitate to doing things as efficiently as they can. Changing this system isn't going to suddenly create oppertunities for underused jobs to participate in content or anything like that, people will still use the most optimal setups among the players they can find. So changing this isn't really going to improve things in any material way.



but that does not mean they are not terribly designed management mechanics. You not liking a mechanic doesn't mean it's a terrible design. It's designed the way it is for a reason, even if it isn't necesarily the best for the user experience in the moment- these lockouts are in part for the long term health of the game, even if they're annoying when we run up against them.

[Catmato]

Your comment about circumvention only reinforces what I said before- People gravitate to doing things as efficiently as they can. Changing this system isn't going to suddenly create oppertunities for underused jobs to participate in content or anything like that, people will still use the most optimal setups among the players they can find. So changing this isn't really going to improve things in any material way.

Who cares about the people who are already doing it? They're already doing it, they have the groups and the experience to make progress every day, assuming they aren't already done with it. Lowering/eliminating lockouts helps new players, returners, and people who just missed the boat when content was first released.

Since some people like to bring examples from other MMOs, imagine if you could only queue up for one dungeon per day in XIV, and if people died, you were just done for the day. I would assume you'd call that terrible design, but that's pretty close to what happens here.

[Alhanelem]

Lowering/eliminating lockouts helps new players, returners, and people who just missed the boat when content was first released.It really doesn't, though, for all the reasons I stated. It doesn't help new players or oddball jobs or anything because people are just going to do things the same way they always have- meaning these people will still be excluded much of the time.

Again, you not liking something doesn't equate to terrible design. It can't be that terrible becuase literally every MMO has timed lockouts, so you're essentially arguing all MMOs are terribly designed.



Also, i don't get people's attitude to supporting gatekeeping, instead of supporting opening up and letting people play the content! There's tons of content to play. These mechanics also encourage you to play different content instead of spamming one content 24 7 til it's done.

It's not about "supporting gatekeeping," as that implies I "like" it. I don't, but I accept and recognize that it has reasons to exist.

[Dragoy]

Always liked the things that allow for more entry item stock (or that's not a part of the requirement at all), and indeed, disliked when I'm not even allowed to enter to test things out and get familiar with it (3 or more needed for entry), or when there's a 1-5 day wait for re-entry.

I would definitely not have ignored Odyssey for this long if I could test it out more easy-like.

That is, the Gaol part specifically.

For A, B, C, being such a short time in there, I don't see why we can't have more of the key items stocked.

(I do still to this day get awful latency in there sometimes though, having the run often end due to it, so maybe it would break completely if they touched anything related to it.)

Gaol though, 3000 moogle bits is a byte much at least for smaller parties / solo.

On my latest test in the C area, I got about 1500 pieces (one Agon Halo and its friends cleared, two groups of enemies cleared, and one chest opened).

Just adding 15 minutes to the timer would help some with that side of things.

Then there's the amount of RP needed for actually augmenting the items...

For Sortie, it would definitely also be nice to be able to stock up on the entry items. Just 11 minutes more in there would also be nice.

As a not full party, tend to be able to clear the Esurient Flan friends, Ghatjot, the A, B, C, D lesser notorious monsters, and F and G Bitzers. Often run out of time before finding the DD.

(More than anything with Sortie, I'd probably like them relaxing the requirements with regards to the Prime weapons... like, actually make it possible to work towards them without it taking about 1500 days doing the same thing every day... and then would still need item from Aminon, which seems impossible.)

I also only very recently, last year 2025, or maybe it was 2024, entered Vagary for the first time.

That's almost 11 year old content (sure, I suppose I didn't have big enough incentive to try it before, but still).

Delve was more or less the same, though it is far less relevant now than Vagary.

Limbus does have a heavy feel of grind, but at least /it can be done/ with much freedom.

[Voidstorm]

I would absolutely LOVE SE to give in and replace the odyssey & sortie systems with Assault/Campaign Ops/Coalition/Omen KI method.

PLEASE SE, We'll still login daily for other things while going hard at the content on days where we can team up more.

[Catmato]

It really doesn't, though, for all the reasons I stated. It doesn't help new players or oddball jobs or anything because people are just going to do things the same way they always have- meaning these people will still be excluded much of the time.

You're completely avoiding the point that it lets people who aren't doing the content try to do the content with each other. Many inexperienced people won't team up with other inexperienced people if they only have one chance.


so you're essentially arguing all MMOs are terribly designed
Your words, not mine.

[Alhanelem]

You're completely avoiding the point that it lets people who aren't doing the content try to do the content with each other. I completely and directly addressed that point. It doesn't change anything in that regard. The most it might do is help people who play at oddball times find people. Which is fine, but still must be weighed against the intended purpose of the restrictions. Remember that not all such mechanics are designed to benefit the player but still must exist even if we don't like them. Certain contents can potentially be changed to be based on reward, but as I noted, that only works when all the rewards come at the end.



Your words, not mine. Not my words- Your logic.
You called timed lockouts "bad game design." Therefore, any game with timed lockouts is designed badly.

As I explained before, due to various factors, the developer (or even the publisher in some cases) may determine a feature or mechanic may be needed for the health of the game even if it isn't necessarily fun for players. That doesn't equate to bad game design.

[Catmato]

Okay, well I completely disagree with your position that no lockouts or entry restrictions should be adjusted. We're at an impasse and I don't think reiterating and rephrasing our points over and over is productive.



You called timed lockouts "bad game design." Therefore, any game with timed lockouts is designed badly.

Show me where I said that.

[Alhanelem]

Okay, well I completely disagree with your position that no lockouts or entry restrictions should be adjusted. We're at an impasse and I don't think reiterating and rephrasing our points over and over is productive.



Show me where I said that.
OK, it wasn't you, it was the OP.



Okay, well I completely disagree with your position that no lockouts or entry restrictions should be adjusted.I didn't say that none should be looked at. I did however say that one of the proposed solutions, making restrictions based on recieving rewards, only works when the reward is given at the end of the content.

I said that those lockouts exist for multiple reasons and they shouldn't just be up and removed because we don't like them. That doesn't mean we can't evaluate specific pain points, but it does mean there needs to be a really good reason that outweighs the systemic reasons why they exist. Sometimes alternative solutions are available- They didn't want to lower the participation limit on Dynamis-D because it would increase the chances of the area being unavailable when a group wants to run it. So they created a duplicate area specifically for farming instead, and its limitations are seperate from the main area. This solved a major complaint about needing 3 people to enter without compromising the system reasons for having the time and player restrictions.

You're mischaractarizing my resistance as outright opposition. I'm not opposed to making legitimate improvements to the game (obviously) but as someone who's worked in the field and understands that sometimes you need things that aren't going to be loved by players, I will speak against arguments that don't seem to be cognizant of the reasons why these things exist.

[Catmato]

I said that those lockouts exist for multiple reasons and they shouldn't just be up and removed because we don't like them. That doesn't mean we can't evaluate specific pain points, but it does mean there needs to be a really good reason that outweighs the systemic reasons why they exist.

Is there a reason that you waited until now to post a reasonable stance instead of your previous extreme resistance to any change?

[Alhanelem]

Is there a reason that you waited until now to post a reasonable stance instead of your previous extreme resistance to any change?
It's been my stance the entire time. Quote where I said that under no circumstances should we even consider evaluating or changing any lockout mechanic.

I've only been saying that these mechanics have a good reason to exist, not that they are 100% infallible, and that so far, the arguments presented for changing them haven't been very strong.

This thread would have turned out better if it was about a specific event and its restrictions, but the thread seems to be collectively about all lockout mechanics.