Raid Format Lockout vs Loot Lockout

[ComputerNerd]

Since there are repeated discussions over the shared lockout and how having seperate lockouts which penalised smaller guilds was somehow a fair and better system than what we have now, then I would like to offer the idea of an alternative system which offers the best of both.

How about instead of a format lockout instead having a loot lockout.
You could do both formats of a raid in a given week, but you will prior to starting either choose which of the two you will be eligable to gain loot from.
You would then be able to only gain loot from that format.

What would be your opinion on the subject, and would a loot lockout be prefered to the current raid format lockout.
Both having the same consequence on your gear.

[doerksen]

first vote and post

Please don't spam.

[Hegrud]

Id rather be able to do one format Hc and one non Hc..

[ComputerNerd]

Id rather be able to do one format Hc and one non Hc..

And for what purpose.
Part of the problem with the pre-shared lockout was guilds running two difficulites due to extra gear opportunities from drops/currency.
The shared lockout meant that providing you were able to progress similarly to another guild in numbers of bosses you had similar odds on loot.
The "lootship" farce is a good reason why you should have only a single difficulty available to provide loot on any given encounter.

[Sildor]

I don't really see how that proposed system does much to change the current system. People won't do the other raid size if there's no reward in it.

[ambident]

this makes no sense at all...

i'm gonna run 10 for loot and then 25 for no reason? or the other way around?

i feel like you are leaving something out, otherwise this is the dumbest idea i've heard in a while.

[Harsesis]

Please explain what loot lockout means. Is it like how the LFR tool is where you can only see loot once per week. If that's the case how is that any different than a normal lockout where you only kill a boss once a week.

[vesseblah]

Both having the same consequence on your gear.

It does not work, because both options do not have the same consequence on your gear. I'll do extreme example here which will illustrate the point of why any kind of loot lockouts are broken concept using your model as an example:

25-man raid guild with 20 decent alts want to powerlevel their gear, so how they do it is this:

1) you run two 10-man groups with full loot rights on the alts, making all 20 alts ineligible for further loot but getting some upgrades.
2) you run five 25-man groups with 20 alts + 5 mains. Only the mains will be eligible for loot, and alts are there as a filler.

It means mains will potentially gain loot five times faster than single lock out system, at least when it comes to things like tier tokens, rings, trinkets, necklaces and cloaks.

[Deleted]

Please explain what loot lockout means. Is it like how the LFR tool is where you can only see loot once per week. If that's the case how is that any different than a normal lockout where you only kill a boss once a week.

I believe the difference is that you can do the raid an endless amount of times, but you'll only get loot for one kill per week. Not sure about Valor Points in that model.

Edit: this does NOT mean YOU can get loot for every boss, it only means that you'll see the loot the boss drops once per week.
Edit #2: this is about the LFR model, not the OP's model. I don't have the time to go through his model thoroughly, I just hope what he said is about the same as what I said. >_<

[vesseblah]

I believe the difference is that you can do the raid an endless amount of times, but you'll only get loot for one kill per week. Not sure about Valor Points in that model.

You can press need/greed/disenchant buttons only during the first run of the week, and then get 250VP after killing endboss of the half you ran.

On second and subsequent runs you will automatically pass all boss loot (but not random trash drops) and get 250VP at the end.

[Deleted]

It does not work, because both options do not have the same consequence on your gear. I'll do extreme example here which will illustrate the point of why any kind of loot lockouts are broken concept using your model as an example:

25-man raid guild with 20 decent alts want to powerlevel their gear, so how they do it is this:

1) you run two 10-man groups with full loot rights on the alts, making all 20 alts ineligible for further loot but getting some upgrades.
2) you run five 25-man groups with 20 alts + 5 mains. Only the mains will be eligible for loot, and alts are there as a filler.

It means mains will potentially gain loot five times faster than single lock out system, at least when it comes to things like tier tokens, rings, trinkets, necklaces and cloaks.

this
just keep the current system, even tho that's broken as well (cuz loot is too random for 10man teams, we need more bosses so bosses have smaller loottables!)

[Nobleshield]

Please explain what loot lockout means. Is it like how the LFR tool is where you can only see loot once per week. If that's the case how is that any different than a normal lockout where you only kill a boss once a week.

In LFR can't you kill the boss multiple times but just don't get loot/points after the first kill? That's infinitely better than not being able to kill the boss at all; it means that my raid team could clear Firelands during our normal raid, and then go back and clear it for an alt, or I could still go and help another group that needs a tank for Rag, even though I already killed him.

The only problem with a system like that is it would enable you to have your top players clear the place and then swap out one person for an undergeared alt and carry them through, letting them get every upgrade (as they'd be the only one eligible).

[ComputerNerd]

I don't really see how that proposed system does much to change the current system. People won't do the other raid size if there's no reward in it.

Which is exactly the point I was trying to prove.
Despite calls for the return to seperate lockouts, I have seen demonstrated by the results in this thread and others that two seperate ones serve only to penalise smaller guilds by offering a gearing advantage which larger guilds would and did take full advantage of.

In LFR can't you kill the boss multiple times but just don't get loot/points after the first kill? That's infinitely better than not being able to kill the boss at all; it means that my raid team could clear Firelands during our normal raid, and then go back and clear it for an alt, or I could still go and help another group that needs a tank for Rag, even though I already killed him.

The only problem with a system like that is it would enable you to have your top players clear the place and then swap out one person for an undergeared alt and carry them through, letting them get every upgrade (as they'd be the only one eligible).

Yes I can see your point there.
The idea of this thread was to prove a bias in the criticisms of the current system, something which it has done very well.
If players are not willing to run both for any reason other than it being extra loot, then there is no reason whatsoever to return to seperate lockouts.

[vesseblah]

If players are not willing to run both for any reason other than it being extra loot, then there is no reason whatsoever to return to seperate lockouts.

The reason why I ran ToC and ICC multiple times on the character mentioned in signature was mainly loot. To be specific loot being available through VP. Also during ToC times I often ran the instance with guild group during our scheduled raid times for the heroic progress and then on weekends in casual raiding community in normal mode to help friends and just have fun and kill time.

Sadly because Blizzard wants (for a good reason) to make 10 and 25 man raiding more equal and there's no longer 3-4 levels of gear, they can not allow running same instances multiple times. In ToC many classes could do the normal mode and 10-man even for loot while doing 25-man heroic raiding (like I did) because of totally separate loot tables. If you had bad luck and didn't get some item from 25-man heroic mode, you could get one tier lower item from 10-man normal mode. Not the same, but still an upgrade to something you got from Ulduar.

Only way you could allow multiple lock-outs on multiple difficulties again would be having clearly separate progress paths in 10/25 man raiding, as well as separate loot and VP gained only once per week no matter what lockouts you do. Problem is that people who scaled back to 10-mans would riot when they will be again treated as second class citizens.

[abovebeyond]

IMO, remove all lockouts on normal mode bosses, or set it to a 3 day reset instead of 7 day.

Rules:
You can kill normal mode bosses as many times as you want (more than once a week at least..) This means no lockouts on normal mode (or maybe 3day reset instead of 7).
You can only receive loot from any boss (heroic or nonheroic) once per reset
Rename 'normal mode' to 'easy mode'.
All bosses award Valor Pts when killed.
If you are VP capped or ineligible from loot from a boss, you receive bag of gold, gems, or enchanting mats instead.
10mans now drop 3 items from the boss's loot table, and has a small chance of dropping a second tier token each boss kill.

I don't understand why Blizzard continues to control how much raiding we can do. The company could do a lot more to create an environment that encourages people to raid. Sure, to us oldies, the introduction level of raiding seems simple enough, but for someone who just picked this game up, the mechanics involved in entry-level raiding are way more difficult compared to abilities seen in MC.. Either make entry level fights even easier for the new players or remove lockouts on normal mode raids so people can get more easily acquainted with it...

The way I see it, there is no cap on the amount of RBGs or Arenas you can run. You can always find a group. For those that want to be a fulltime raider, there should be constant raids available on your server (not just at night on Tuesdays...) Wish this game was more raid friendly

[Firebert]

Format Lockout BY FAR.
Week 1, go to LFR and farm all the gear possibly from it until I don't need anything else from there, then never set foot in there again until 5.0 or 4.4.

[yjmark]

Honestly, I don't think it really matters either way. There are pros and cons to both way of doing it. I don't really see one having an advantage over the other for all styles of play.

[Sinnermighty]

It does not work, because both options do not have the same consequence on your gear. I'll do extreme example here which will illustrate the point of why any kind of loot lockouts are broken concept using your model as an example:

25-man raid guild with 20 decent alts want to powerlevel their gear, so how they do it is this:

1) you run two 10-man groups with full loot rights on the alts, making all 20 alts ineligible for further loot but getting some upgrades.
2) you run five 25-man groups with 20 alts + 5 mains. Only the mains will be eligible for loot, and alts are there as a filler.

It means mains will potentially gain loot five times faster than single lock out system, at least when it comes to things like tier tokens, rings, trinkets, necklaces and cloaks.

Its what most guilds are doing in the first week of Dragon Soul, Yay running LFR like 5 times in the first week =/

[vesseblah]

Its what most guilds are doing in the first week of Dragon Soul, Yay running LFR like 5 times in the first week =/

You get loot only on first time around. So you can do LFR once and then normal instance once to maximize your loot.

VP's don't matter since you'll cap it anyway with full regular clear of the instance, and nothing else dropping in LFR (lv384) will matter anyway at this point except tier tokens because 6/7 heroic Firelands is doable by most raiding guilds by now, and people are decked in lv391 gear.