Cont Lock finally?

[Illtempered]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

I agree completely. So much so I made a flow chart.

Do you play video games? -> Yes -> You are a real gamer.



Why it would be great to have a user's guide, most new players would never look at it.



Every veteran started as a noob. And if veterans mop the floor with noobs, why would they stay?

Ok ok, yeah farmville players are real gamers. Give me a ***%#in break. I'm talking about real FPS gamers, yeah the master race. Go back to your farmville, console, and phone games if you don't get it.

Why would nubs stick around after getting mopped by vets? Um, because they're not pussies? That's the simple answer. Maybe you can't relate. That's how many of the dev decisions in this game seem to be made.

1) Nub(dev) logs in.
2) Nub gets owned.
3) Nub nerfs weapon/playstyle that owned him.

What got me so addicted to online gaming was getting my ass handed to me in Counterstrike.

[BlaxicanX]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

Ok ok, yeah farmville players are real gamers. Give me a ***%#in break. I'm talking about real FPS gamers, yeah the master race. Go back to your farmville, console, and phone games if you don't get it.

Why would nubs stick around after getting mopped by vets? Um, because they're not pussies? That's the simple answer. Maybe you can't relate. That's how many of the dev decisions in this game seem to be made.

1) Nub(dev) logs in.
2) Nub gets owned.
3) Nub nerfs weapon/playstyle that owned him.

What got me so addicted to online gaming was getting my ass handed to me in Counterstrike.

I'm really glad you're not a game designer. Your fratboy "alpha male" bullshit would never go anywhere in a game development environment. Counterstrike is renown for having one of the shittiest gaming communities to have ever existed, and the only reason it's survived is because its lobbies have a relatively small amount of players in them; you don't need very many players to get a Counterstrike match going, and only a hundred or so people per server is enough to ensure that you continuously get matches. By comparison, you need THOUSANDS of players *per server* AT ALL TIMES in order for Planetside 2 to function. It needs a larger community than ANY other game that has ever existed in order to function. So it can't afford to have this macho-man dudebro mentality of "fuck da noobs the MLG pro-players will stay!" It has to cater to "casuals" because whether you like it or not, "casual" gamers vastly outnumber "no-lifers" like you and I.

So cool, you want the game to cater to the "hardcore master race alpha" nerd? Alright, then what you basically want is for the game to be empty, with only a couple hundred playing it per server. Kudos.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

Ok ok, yeah farmville players are real gamers. Give me a ***%#in break. I'm talking about real FPS gamers, yeah the master race. Go back to your farmville, console, and phone games if you don't get it.

Why would nubs stick around after getting mopped by vets? Um, because they're not pussies? That's the simple answer. Maybe you can't relate. That's how many of the dev decisions in this game seem to be made.

1) Nub(dev) logs in.
2) Nub gets owned.
3) Nub nerfs weapon/playstyle that owned him.

What got me so addicted to online gaming was getting my ass handed to me in Counterstrike.

Take it someplace else if you find yourself unable to handle a disagreement in a constructive manner.
Nothing Muldoon wrote warranted such a reply.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

*stuff*

Oi, that's uncalled for.


Just state your prefered design argument and provide some alternatives. Don't simply insult or suggest only the elite is allowed to play the game.


Why not suggest some ways to let devs help players learn the game, rather than take the easy route and insult a dev for not doing as you want without being constructive about it?

Even though I disagree with the solution taken by the dev team, he's got a point on the new player thing. However, while I disagree with the solution provided.

Currently the game provides and applies a "bandaid" or "cure" for the player (to a minor extend). Personally I'd prefer "prevention" and teaching "self-medication" through tutorials and hints in game.

Possibly players that die frequently getting some suggestions on changing their behaviour through loading screen texts or some such.

Raging about it is not the solution.

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Illtempered

Of course we need to get new players into the game. Let's do that by making an amazing game that retains its veteran population with it's incredibly fun game-play. Build it and the nubs will come. Stop pandering to their every whim.

Not necessarily true. EVE has incredible fun gameplay, for those that like it, yet has a very poor player retention rate. About half of the new players leave within the first month.

If you don't offer a really good new player experience then chances are many of them won't stick around, also taking into account how frustrating PS2 gameplay can be for them.

[Blynd]

Slightly off topic but maybe relevant would be the return of the underground vpads with doors at the end (or shields if you can't do doors) these in ps were awesome and we had alot of great infantry fights down them as another access point like the back doors and main doors.

As for the noob vs vet argument we have to remember with out noobs the game would die quickly because the vets would start to leave because pops would be low and so making pops lower so without new players and giving them some hand holding to an extent if it helps make them into a long term player then it's sacrifice we should make.
It's not like we can't drop mines a little bit away from the pad. And as has been said they are such a cheap kill and very annoying to loose your sundie as you spawn it wasting your resources. I don't mind dieing to a tank or even c4 but a mine on a vpad is just lame in my eyes.

As for contacting locking I'm all for it as long as hossin is in place then we can start a simplified version adding battle islands and more conts as time goes on. But hossin has been sat on test for what must be a year and that's ridiculous, just release it now and get searhus out ASAP too. We need more continents not guns.

[Muldoon]

Here's a tiny update on continent locking.

[Sarloh]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Here's a tiny update on continent locking.

Sir, that post just fuelled that spark of hope that has been burning for 1.5 years now. Make it, and make it good.

[bites]

Thank you for the update sir

Really looking forward to this

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Here's a tiny update on continent locking.

I got some questions:

1. Once a continent reopens, you'll find 100% in the hands of the enemy. If you take one base, that's likely to be lost again shortly after.
   
   What treshold(s) or condition(s) needs to be reached before it can be locked again by the empire that locked it before?
   • i.e. Is it unconditionally reopened for a certain period of time allowing an invasion to gain momentum?
   • Does it require being pushed back to such an degree, you lose "dominance" over the continent?
2. Is a lock immediate after the last base is captured?
   • Or do you need to hold all warpgate borders for a certain period of time and can this lock be broken or prevented by a well timed counter-attack?
3. Will players be rewarded with (temporary) extra exp or resources for succesful invasions or last stand defense to seduce them to fight till the end?
4. Can all three/four continents be locked at the same time?
   • If so, what happens next? Is there a reward?
   • If there's a reward, is this so lucrative it would encourage players to go fourth empire and create a giant overpopulation to make it happen? (Even at the last minute.)
   • If you want to assign such a reward, I would suggest you demand a character has been on that empire for at least three hours before the final lock occured, this way, you would discourage bailing to the winning team at the last moment.
5. From what I can tell, players aren't physically thrown out of the continent? Or does it work like the caves in PS1, where you can't respawn anymore once the cave is closed (not locked, in PS1 locked is simply capturing everything and getting the cave benefits)?
6. From what I understand, you have to simply capture everything, rather than just the main bases?

Asking, because you might discourage fighting at certain points where players give up.

I would also suggest that if all continents are locked, the following occurs:

• The first two captured continents reopen, one for each zero-based empire.
• The other two captured continents reopen slightly later. At that time, the third empire is allowed back on the first two continents. This to concentrate the fighting on both sides in two-ways. Otherwise, the winning empire finds itself fighting on 8 fronts at once.
• If there's a large login queue for an empire, the warpgates one the already opened continents open early.
• All zero-based players get full resources.
• All zero-based players get a temporary resource and exp boost (for invading)

I would like to remind you that the original "Continent locking" had the following effects:

Continent lock:
- You would "lock" a continent by taking ALL the linked bases on the other side of the warpgates of that continent, thereby denying a link.
- All minor bases (towers) switched to the winner's side once all major bases were captured.
- Players weren't physically locked out of the continent.
- You could still create a new link by neutralising a base (draining it from NTU)

Continent closed:
- For certain events, empires were literally prevented from entering a continent (they would be allowed to invade only one specific home continent of a single enemy who would often concentrate their forces on either fight due to lacking manpower for both).
- As a consequence of the above, players would start ghosthacking the world if they won one of the home continent fights, since they couldn't go elsewhere.
- Players had to wait and warpgate camp till the last continent would open. This would sometimes result in a complete world domination by the winner of the home cont defense that the defender gave up on.

Cave lock:
- All cave modules actived for all linked surface bases.

Cave closed:
- No more respawns possible, whether you have a base or AMS, just revives from medics.
- Could still continue to fight and capture links if you still had a single remaining base. You could win through attrition (killing the enemies and prevent them from being revived).



The system as proposed now - as I understand it anyway - reminds me an awful lot of a combination between the closed continent and closed cave. So that's a bit different from a "locked" continent.

As stated before, the "lock" was capturing all access points on the other side of the warpgate (even a hack and therefore denying the link, would suffice to stop or stall an invasion, sometimes resulting in a counter-invasion!).

I hope everyone is aware of the differences between the Locked Continent definition between PlanetSide 1 and 2.

[Muldoon]

Originally Posted by Figment

I got some questions:

1. Once a continent reopens, you'll find 100% in the hands of the enemy. If you take one base, that's likely to be lost again shortly after.
   
   What treshold(s) or condition(s) needs to be reached before it can be locked again by the empire that locked it before?
   • i.e. Is it unconditionally reopened for a certain period of time allowing an invasion to gain momentum?
   • Does it require being pushed back to such an degree, you lose "dominance" over the continent?
2. Is a lock immediate after the last base is captured?
   • Or do you need to hold all warpgate borders for a certain period of time and can this lock be broken or prevented by a well timed counter-attack?
3. Will players be rewarded with (temporary) extra exp or resources for succesful invasions or last stand defense to seduce them to fight till the end?

Asking, because you might discourage fighting at certain points where players give up.

Disclaimer: All of this is subject to change.

When a continent lock is broken, the continent has it’s warpgates configuration incremented to the next and default territory split is set for all 3 empires, and spawning is reenabled.

Thresholds are set by designers. It will trigger an alert. When the alert is won by the conquering faction, the continent is locked.

Last stands will be subject to alert XP like normal.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Disclaimer: All of this is subject to change.

When a continent lock is broken, the continent has it’s warpgates configuration incremented to the next and default territory split is set for all 3 empires, and spawning is reenabled.

Thresholds are set by designers. It will trigger an alert. When the alert is won by the conquering faction, the continent is locked.

Last stands will be subject to alert XP like normal.

/raises hand

Is there any whisper of a chance we are going to get sanctuaries back? Even if they're just carbon copies of the 3D training environments stuck on teeny islands? They would eliminate the dozens of retards hanging around the WG and dragging down their empire's cont pop, and they give a wonderful place to gather for new assaults. They are important strategically and they lend themselves to that intangible of intangibles -- esprit de corps. Please?

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Why it would be great to have a user's guide, most new players would never look at it.

/jaw drop

Wow. Just wow. Never fucking mind, then. I'll never ask anything of you again.

[Azzzz]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Wow. Just wow. Never fucking mind, then. I'll never ask anything of you again.

I could be wrong but aren't there a few videos posted when you load up the launcher showing you a few tips and tricks? I recall the combat videos at least.

Although granted, not much of a "user's guide".

[Edfishy]

Originally Posted by Muldoon

Here's a tiny update on continent locking.

Thank you so much!

[Figment]

Thanks for the info. I was just editing the previous post, so I have a few more questions. Will ponder a bit on the implications of what you just wrote.