Upvote
0
What is the intended purpose for lockdown in territory?
- Thread starter Branden
- Start date
I very rarely see games end because of lockdown these days. Even on Red October I see Soviets reaching the final objectives well ahead of the lockdown timer, where originally I found that time usually ran out about a minute before you had a chance to kill it.
I actually don't feel either way about it. I felt cheated of a victory many times in RO1 where you could be defending for 40-50 minutes only to have attackers suddenly become teamstacked or many defenders quit the game. I doubt this would happen in RO2 though, so I'm not using RO1 as a cautionary tale.
Actually, lockdown doesn't seem to accomplish much good because the campers it supposedly tries to lit a fire under do not care about objectives anyhow. Still, I would prefer it to remain in the game or at least remain a server side option, because if I'm in a team of failed campers that won't advance past the first objective I want the game to end rather than me having to leave as a quitter, I'm not sticking around for 30+ minutes of slowly bleeding to death.
I actually don't feel either way about it. I felt cheated of a victory many times in RO1 where you could be defending for 40-50 minutes only to have attackers suddenly become teamstacked or many defenders quit the game. I doubt this would happen in RO2 though, so I'm not using RO1 as a cautionary tale.
Actually, lockdown doesn't seem to accomplish much good because the campers it supposedly tries to lit a fire under do not care about objectives anyhow. Still, I would prefer it to remain in the game or at least remain a server side option, because if I'm in a team of failed campers that won't advance past the first objective I want the game to end rather than me having to leave as a quitter, I'm not sticking around for 30+ minutes of slowly bleeding to death.
Upvote
0
I don't think lockdown should be in the game.
In the end for it to be effective, users actually need to be forced to advance. The problem however is that lockdown is just a tiny little timer that does nothing more than annoy the **** out of you when you finally find out it's near to 0.
It doesn't actually accomplish a better flow of the game, which is what I'm missing on some maps such as Red October Factory.
In the end for it to be effective, users actually need to be forced to advance. The problem however is that lockdown is just a tiny little timer that does nothing more than annoy the **** out of you when you finally find out it's near to 0.
It doesn't actually accomplish a better flow of the game, which is what I'm missing on some maps such as Red October Factory.
Upvote
0
My only beef with lockdown is the inconsistency with which it's applied. Spartanovka has a forgiving lockdown timer on easy cap points, and it's very rare to see the game ended by it. Commissar's House, on the other hand, has a brutal timer tied to simultaneous objectives and almost never ends for any reason other than lockdown. Station, Grain Elevator, and Red October fill out the spectrum between those extremes. It's a bit schizophrenic.
Upvote
0
A stalemate is when neither side can win. When an attacking team cannot establish in the first objective, that is far from a stalemate; that's getting dominated by the defenders and the loss will be decisive. So it's not really the stalemate that it was intended to prevent.
On an attack/defend map, it was/is possible for attackers to roll through quickly and get a speedy victory, but it wasn't possible for defenders to get a quick victory. So one of the things that lockdown introduces is a mechanic to equally reward solid defense with a quick win the same way that weak defense can be punished with a quick loss. In the former game it was not possible for the defenders to achieve a decisive quick victory because the only way to earn a defensive win was to hold throughout the round.
I think of the reinforcement of the concept of pushing at objectives as a secondary intent of lockdown. All but the most obtuse of players will learn after a few lockdown losses that the game is about objectives, and it is more fun when you make an effort to capture them.
I think of preventing long pointless battles is at best a tertiary intent of lockdown. I'd been in a lot of good long attack/defend rounds in RO:Ost, but I'd also been in a lot of bad ones where it becomes clear that roughly the second half of the round timer is a pointless exercise in futility. Sometimes on attackers those kinds of rounds would've felt better to cut our losses and just move on to a new round or a different map, like a retreat/rout as someone said.
But, contrary to what many imply about it, it doesn't wholly eliminate long rounds, as usually it is only the first one or two objectives that have the lockdown timer associated. Once the attackers defeat the lockdown, it is very possible to have a long battle for the remaining objectives, and that happens pretty often.
I think lockdown has debatable aspects that may need tweaking, but I'm not decided on any of them. Take reinforcements for example. Does it factor reinforcements into the lockdown? Say the attackers are not getting the objective but are taking huge advantages in reinforcements to where if they were given enough time to get the objective they will probably win because the defense can't outlast them reinforcement-wise as they attack the remaining objectives.
Also many people mentioned overtime or something to allow for the effort to get the objective. It always stinks as an attacker when your team finally gets it together enough to start having a real chance at capping that objective but then the buzzer goes off and you lose just before it switches over.
Also maybe lockdown just needs to be on a somewhat longer timer.
But, I haven't decided on these aspects because I like the basic idea of a quick decisive victory also being available for the defenders, and most of these latter points significantly undermine that principle by just extending the amount of time it takes to get such a victory. After all, a capture is a capture, and anything less than that is a failure to capture. If lockdown is overbalanced in favor of the defenders and gives them a clear demonstrable advantage reflected in win/loss statistics, then yea it probably needs slight tweaking, but I'm sure the devs have been looking at this (I think someone mentioned they would try to address lockdown).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It's awesome if you play Soviets on Commissar's and the Axis do nothing but ye olde tank spawnrape
Upvote
0
I think instead of a 'count down timer', you should have a points pool, and a tick rate. Put a few buffers around the objectives. Tick rate is then calculated based on where the attacking team is based on the objective and buffers. If you get a few attackers actually in the objective, a handful in the first buffer, and most of the living team in the other buffers further back, then the tick rate would go down to zero.
If no one is in a buffer beyond the 2/3rd (depending on map design), then the tick rate is going to be horribly high.
This way we don't have to suffer long with a team that doesn't do anything to push toward an objective. The match will end quickly. But it doesn't punish the attackers as much for getting smacked down by a strong defence early in the match. If they can counter the defence and push up, then even if the pool was only 1 ticket left, they can continue and finish capturing it. (And thereby refilling the pool.)
Upvote
0
I really hate lockdown. If it has to stay, give at least 10min per objective. If the attackers have to capture two objectives at the same sime, they should get 20min. Winning a battle with 64 players as a Russian on Commissar's House and Red October, while possible, is exhausting and feels like time trial.
Upvote
0
I like to use a tactical approach to my games. Lockdown delivers a " Ruuuuuuuuun...oh Fuuuu not again " non tactical approach 
Upvote
0
Problem with countdown is that as most servers play several rounds on the same map the countdown only makes the attackers start over, and if they didn't even manage the first time they are likely to fail again the scond time.
If teams were swapped between rounds it would at least serve some kind of purpouse.
If teams were swapped between rounds it would at least serve some kind of purpouse.
Upvote
0
Yeah and its also a nice Way to make rounds short when the Teams are too stacked in favor of the Defenders. Gives some incentive to even the Teams on next round/map.
Upvote
0
I like to use a tactical approach to my games. Lockdown delivers a " Ruuuuuuuuun...oh Fuuuu not again " non tactical approach
Well 6 Minutes are enough to approach the Target zone in a Tactical Way, just make sure you don't die once you've reached the area
.
Upvote
0
Honestly, for most of the maps if you can't tactically take them in 10 minutes or less, then you should step back a*d pound them with artillery for awhile longer. (AKA, they def%n?ers held and you have failed.)
Upvote
0
a better question would be:
Why did TWI decide to not put it as a server side option?
Be that as it may, it is absolutely not working. People are NOT capping more because they realize the round will end- i.e grain elevator B cap for the germans.
PUT THE DAMN thing to server side. I dont know how much more can be said on the fact its not working.
Why did TWI decide to not put it as a server side option?
Be that as it may, it is absolutely not working. People are NOT capping more because they realize the round will end- i.e grain elevator B cap for the germans.
PUT THE DAMN thing to server side. I dont know how much more can be said on the fact its not working.
Upvote
0
My guess?
Preventing defenders from farming tons of kills and points and totally wrecking the stats system.
Preventing defenders from farming tons of kills and points and totally wrecking the stats system.
Upvote
0
its potentially useful but the timing need to be lengthened. Just came out of a match on Red Oktober, we were doing ok as allies, making ground slowly but got timed out each round, just a massive pain in the nuts.
Double the current lockdown timer to give slower teams the chance to win
Double the current lockdown timer to give slower teams the chance to win
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Lockdown definitely needs tweaking in my opinion or a server option to turn it off. I can understand the merits that caused its inclusion, but it seems to do more harm than good. Most of the time it just prematurely stops a match that is not really one sided. If anything defenders already have it easier than attackers, lock down makes it near impossible to attack on some maps.
Even if winning at some point would be difficult, I still want to try and win, as long as the fighting is still mostly balanced.
Otherwise its like you might as well use a player ranking system based on the team loadouts and just declare a winner on the players per team without playing. Lockdown to me makes it feel that you're in the middle of a game and it just suddenly ends. It could work but the time should be longer and perhaps the game should check some other variables.
Like looking at both time and performance, if one side is mostly getting killed and hardly making kills and the team is unable to cap within time then prematurely cut the match. But if both teams are getting good kills just roll on.
Even if winning at some point would be difficult, I still want to try and win, as long as the fighting is still mostly balanced.
Otherwise its like you might as well use a player ranking system based on the team loadouts and just declare a winner on the players per team without playing. Lockdown to me makes it feel that you're in the middle of a game and it just suddenly ends. It could work but the time should be longer and perhaps the game should check some other variables.
Like looking at both time and performance, if one side is mostly getting killed and hardly making kills and the team is unable to cap within time then prematurely cut the match. But if both teams are getting good kills just roll on.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I think there needs to be more time added or bonus time added as and objective is being contested. Maybe even pause the timer if an objective is actively contested.
Upvote
0