Cont Lock finally? - Page 7

Azzzz · 2014-06-12, 04:37 AM

Not to bash SOE but they do have a track record of releasing content that well...breaks other things.

I too look forward to the cont lock but suspect it will take a couple updates when first released before we see the full impact.

Illtempered · 2014-06-12, 08:55 PM

The mission-system is still broken. Yesterday I was at Rashnu proper, inside the dome, on the bottom of the mini-map it said I was at Rashnu Watchtower, and on the top, the points showed for Crimson Bluff, which I guess was my 'mission' to take. It would probably be a good idea to iron these things out before introducing new features. Please just give us and option to turn it off and have the mini-map show the points for the base we are in.

raw · 2014-06-19, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

I actually don't like Anti-Personnel mines either, and think they're pretty cheap too. I'd love to remove them from the game, or make them give more feedback so people have a better chance of not dying to them.

I can understand why you don't like AP-Mines, however this is more of an issue with their current implementation. A change of perspective is neccessary; a squad lying down a minefield for area denial is a whole different thing than cheap kills with a mine hidden below the surface texture of stairs.

RSphil · 2014-06-19, 07:27 AM

AP mines are part of the tactics of Planetside 2. unless used in a buggy way like hiding them under textures. Planetside is not a run and gun game its a game of tactics and thinking. K/D ratio is not a factor its the territory you own and AP mines are good for slowing down a surge of enemy troops and repelling them. pitty TR AP mines are the worst lol

Phantomdestiny · 2014-06-19, 07:41 AM

What does the community think of cont locks without continental lattice? personally while it might slightly negate idarside , it will not bring the continental conquest fun we had in ps1

Gimpylung · 2014-06-19, 07:59 AM

I think it a pretty quick and dirty fix tbh. They'll probably sit back thinking that'll keep us happy for a while and it'll be months(year or never maybe) before we see proper warp gate traversal and inter-cont lattice.

This game would go to an entirely new level of awesomeness if you could push an empire right back to their warp gate, drive on through the gate en masse and force them to defend their home cont via a battle island or whatever.

On enduring memory of PS1, was the VS taking all territory on Werner and unlock VS coloured Prowlers and Vannies etc. I saw it happen once ever but it provided continual motivation. A victory condition if you like, which elevated PS1 beyond just a large scale team deathmatch.

ringring · 2014-06-19, 08:43 AM

I think it has every change of being a fail.

There are plenty people who hate Indar with a passion and that's because that where the fight always is (over exposure if you like).

Plus there are plenty people who will only fight there and will go into a strop if they can't.

There have been suggestions that the first crowd are organising themselves so that Indar gets locked - this will cause the the second lot to be mightily pi**ed off. Remember people think that you're supposed to go fight where you want, they've been schooled in it by this half-built game.

If the above does happen I think it will cause drama, otherwise it will be a damp squib.

If I was Higby I'd get a better set of 'cut and paste' tools added into the dev toolset because they're simply not producing new continents quickly enough.

Gimpylung · 2014-06-19, 08:58 AM

I think you're on the money there. There was a fair old backlash to the lattice forcing people to fight on particular lanes and not anywhere they felt like.

No doubt history will repeat.

RSphil · 2014-06-19, 09:11 AM

the main thing that needs to be looked at also is the reason to lock a continent, atm the bonuses for owning the continent arnt really that good and dont effect the battlefield. i hope the locking bonuses are a lot better and make you want to fight for that lock.

Stardouser · 2014-06-21, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Muldoon

You say No deploy zones is fighting the devs, and I disagree. Why, in soccer or hockey, am I not allowed to just stand next to the goalie and goalhang the whole game? The reason I can't is the offsides rule. Am I fighting the rule makers of FIFA or the NHL? No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

NDZ by itself isn't the end of the world, but considering many of the game's aspects, including audio spotting, shields where the defenders can fire out but no one can fire in (legitimately), and so on; NDZ and all of those things are indeed player vs dev.

Now obviously someone is going to say "but audio isn't good enough to hear shot direction". That might be a slightly valid point but not enough to justify automatic situational awareness granted by the game.

As for spawn room shields, in addition to the devs providing the shield and thus breaking the 4th wall, those features feed those who are treating this game as a deathmatch. When players continue to spawn as infiltrator-snipers in a base that's surrounded by tanks, knowing very well they can't get a visual on who's on the cap point from the spawn room, yet continue to spawn there and try to shoot who they can, you know they aren't playing to win. If you're surrounded by tanks and have no hope of breaking out of the spawn room, you should be spawning HA or a tank of your own from the next nearest base, not continuing to snipe from your surrounded base spawn point. Giving the shields just says to the players, "it's OK, you can't win, but we'll protect you as you try to get a few kills."; when there IS a way to win - spawn at the next base and come blast those vehicles from behind.

Now, I'm not saying remove the shield, but perhaps it should go down at some point? Or give some other way of penetrating it for the attackers?

Edit: I'd like to think that this game could be more like a war, than simply a big deathmatch, especially after continent locks mature. Instead of people complaining about dying to mines, know that those mines cost resources, so use your resources better than the enemy to win. Right now, though, with deathmatching all we have, complaining about matters of skill are more in our faces, I know.

Sibercat · 2014-06-22, 02:12 AM

Obstruction · 2014-06-23, 05:44 AM

No, I am playing a balanced game that gives people a sporting chance to win. If we let any strategy go, we start getting cheap no-skill tactics like that.

that sounds like scrubspeak to me. i really don't think it was cheap no-skill tactics to place and defend spawnpoints in the best possible places. i think the no skill comes from the development side; they can't come up with something better than a zerg camping a spawn - despite two solid years of player feedback and thousands of complaints at every nerf to base defense.

and it isn't just no deploy zones, it's everything defense related. first they ruined Tech Plants. then the Crown. then let's not forget the lattice, which so many wanted for nostalgia reasons but for no attainable design goals. the hex system had problems, sure, but rather than address those, they gave up and put in 5 different weak solutions to symptoms of the larger issue that still plagues the game today.

and this type of scrubbish talk about people using "cheap" tactics that make total sense within the confines of the environment? that explains everything. you know what was cheap tactics? putting in OP weapons and/or vehicles for the sales, and then nerfing them so much that they have no use after sales plateaued.