Cont Lock finally?

Azzzz · 2014-05-23, 12:41 AM

So reading through PSU and noticed a tweet by Alex Hoffman stating that they're finally working on Cont Lock.

I'm excited yet at the same time thinking...Where the fuck was this at launch?

Thoughts? Comments? Complaints? Bitches? Moans?

Obstruction · 2014-05-23, 02:10 AM

i still don't get how it's supposed to help the game.

i mean they had to ruin the crown to stop people from only playing at the crown, right? then they had to create the entire conceit of Alerts from whole cloth just to get people play a map other than Indar. and even now when pop gets low you have to play on Indar, because everyone plays on Indar - because everyone plays on Indar.

so now the idea is to lock off the alternative places to play? so the empty continents get captured and closed off for play, and everyone fights over Indar with the supposed goal of gaining them back? except you can't ever push people out of an Indar warpgate because the lattice funnels all the players into three 100 v 100 lag pits.

also what is the benefit of controlling a whole continent that is locked away? one side gets 1000 resources to use on the other continents while the poor get poorer in the only place left to fight?

i just don't see this being the magical solution to the myriad design flaws in the overall system. as it stands, the game is playable, even fun, if you don't try to take the territory game too seriously. the flaws are there, but you can play around them and have a nice time of it.

i will stay open minded to change, and even look forward to many of the planned redesigns, including the resource system. i am just very concerned about enshrining the very worst aspect of gameplay (territory control) and decreasing available area to play in. if anything i'd think we want more options and not less.

but then again i liked the freedom and unpredictability of the hex system, and felt that there were many other things contributing to the basic problems blindly scapegoated on hex that (surprise!) still persist today. and i have been repeatedly shit on for that opinion, so i don't really expect much difference with this.

ringring · 2014-05-23, 05:29 AM

No this is not continent locking as described on the roadmap. This is literally continent locking, ie if you capture a continent it is closed. It will be launched when Hossin is ready.

It is a step along the way to the proper intercontinental lattice but that requires 3 battle island minimum and no work has been done on them for ages.

This from Higby on Reachcast Q and A.

STOMPIE · 2014-05-23, 08:42 AM

Instead of continent locking, why dont they just restrict the faction that has more than 33% (a predetermined % would be in place. Say 40%) from attacking on that server on that map. They could
still defend their territory but couldnt take anymore since they would have reached the maximum % allowed. This way all continents dont have to be locked and everyone has something to play towards on every continent in every server...

thats my inexperienced thoughts. Just wanted to add to the thread. Just an idea in the end as im sure we all want a good experience.

ringring · 2014-05-23, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by STOMPIE

Instead of continent locking, why dont they just restrict the faction that has more than 33% (a predetermined % would be in place. Say 40%) from attacking on that server on that map. They could
still defend their territory but couldnt take anymore since they would have reached the maximum % allowed. This way all continents dont have to be locked and everyone has something to play towards on every continent in every server...

thats my inexperienced thoughts. Just wanted to add to the thread. Just an idea in the end as im sure we all want a good experience.

That's not the idea, ie that every factino has something to fight on every cont. The purpose of continent locking (which is a term that doesn't describe what it actually is) is supposed to be a reason to fight and give each empire an overall aim. Either to dominate the entire world or to be dominated.

The big problem is that it cannot work with 3 or every four continents. It takes 7 minimum and 9 or 10 ideally. (ps1 had 10) The reason why we don't have it is that SOE finds continent creation very time consuming. At launch we were expecting 2 conts per year and we're way way below that, dev time is mostly spent on keeping the current game running and adding sweeties like new guns to the store.

Azzzz · 2014-05-23, 06:13 PM

Regarding one faction have a shit ton of resources, isn't the new resource vamp supposed to fix that?

Then again we really wont know until they (if/when) put it out and we can fully gauge it's functionality.

Edfishy · 2014-05-23, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

...The reason why we don't have it is that SOE finds continent creation very time consuming. At launch we were expecting 2 conts per year and we're way way below that, dev time is mostly spent on keeping the current game running and adding sweeties like new guns to the store.

Ever watch the dev streams when they're designing a base? 90% of the time sink can be found right there.

They're already stretched thin for resources, but a player studio for designing bases would probably resolve a majority of the problem. Even if player-designed bases needed touch up work or need to be moved across continents, a player studio contribution would still eliminate a huge portion of the time wasted by paid SOE employees.

Edfishy · 2014-05-23, 06:49 PM

double post, please delete

Sarloh · 2014-05-24, 12:23 PM

Well, if they've started doing it at an accelerated pace earlier it would be here by now. I've been waiting for this feature for 1.5 years now. The gameplay and it's goals need new content, weapons and cosmetics are OK but if we look at it; we've been doing the same thing for 1.5 years now!
This post was very influenced by a video from (I believe) Wrel.

At least they've finished the implant system and they will hopefully get to some much more needed work now.

bpostal · 2014-05-24, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by ringring

No this is not continent locking as described on the roadmap. This is literally continent locking, ie if you capture a continent it is closed. It will be launched when Hossin is ready.

It is a step along the way to the proper intercontinental lattice but that requires 3 battle island minimum and no work has been done on them for ages.

This from Higby on Reachcast Q and A.

Intercontinental lattice is what I'm really excited for. I'm hoping that they'll just put Nexus in where appropriate instead of waiting on the other three battle islands.

Obstruction · 2014-05-24, 08:01 PM

i still don't get why we want less places to fight.

bpostal · 2014-05-24, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Obstruction

i still don't get why we want less places to fight.

It's going to be needed when (don't laugh) we get more continents. It also adds a sense of ownership and a goal for players to strive for.

Mordelicius · 2014-05-25, 01:33 AM

They can't rush this by any means. Look at how much destruction WDS preseason 2 has caused in such a small time period. This is system mechanics is even more ingrained.

It's not just an event but will be built-into the map itself. I hope they send out previews (in great detail) of what they are planning so it can be critiqued for any flaws, large or superficial.

Lastly, it can't be half-measures like what they've done with the No-Deploy Zone, Amp Station/Tech Tunnels, WDS Preseasons, Amerish Lattice etc. A lot of these ideas are underdeveloped, unstructured, incomplete or just plain misguided.

Sarloh · 2014-05-25, 05:18 PM

Like what I believe a developer said: ''They'll forgive you for being late but not for being bad.'' So let them take their time and make it good (if they are ever going to make it anyway).

Illtempered · 2014-05-26, 02:41 PM

Given their track record, my prediction is that it will be half-baked, prematurely shoved into the game, and poorly implemented/executed. Then they'll leave it in, even though it's broken, so they can tell their bosses they're doing something useful.