Old topic rant: Lockouts

Today’s blog post pinged because I was listening to the Outlandish
podcast and one of the guys was chatting about the lockouts. The lockouts
in place now strike me as odd.

This is potentially because I’ve not
read the meta-theory enough to buy into the reasoning. Instead I’d
prefer to reflect on experience had as a consumer…

Heroic vs normal raids both can’t be done in a single lockout. ¬†Also
can’t do both 10s and 25s. So we have a deliberate game experience set
limit exposure to the same content in different modes. Why?

  • So that people don’t burn out?
  • So that characters don’t gear up as quickly?
  • To have players subscribe for longer?
  • To limit the availability of specials like patterns and BoEs?

Sure, some of these make sense for controlling rarity and economy. The
first two do not.

After thinking about this again it’s an artificial barrier which makes
no commercial sense.

  • Let the players play and burn at their own rate.
  • Add content regularly, and in all likelihood you’ll get continued subscriptions.
  • At the very least you’ll get a playerbase who respects the choices.
  • You’ll never control the gear drop rates enough to make everyone happy, so give players the power.

Then add back in the requirement to be attuned for hard modes. Folks who do them
generally want challenges. It adds a point of difference, and
difference like ego counts.

Likewise if the reason to prohibit 10s 25s normals and heroics is to
limit gear, then allow the same character to be played, but limit the
rewards to once or twice maximum per lockout. This lets the player
choose, not the designer’s assumptions.

Stopping a player from participating on a toon because of gear is
ignoring that their motivation might not be gear. Doesn’t it?

Perhaps I’ve been away from raiding too long to understand the meta-aspects of the balance the lockouts introduce. Hmm.