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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

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.

Quote:

---

so you're essentially arguing all MMOs are terribly designed

---

Your words, not mine.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

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

---

Show me where I said that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.



Show me where I said that.

---

OK, it wasn't you, it was the OP.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alhanelem

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catmato

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.