An alternative to lockdown

[Nezzer]

Tripwire has always said the purpose of lockdown is to end those matches where the attackers are getting slaughtered, going nowhere, which means it's supposed to be a relief for the attacking team.

Even though with all the improvements made, which definately made it much better, it still works as another obstacle for the attacking team, and used as a tactical tool for the defenders. It's common to be on defence and hear someone saying "Let's hold them here even if we are almost out of reinforcements. Only a few more seconds and we win by lockdown".

So what I'm suggesting is making lockdown this proper relief it was supposed to be, and not an obstacle, by making it optional for the attacking team. The timer would still be as it is, but only shown to the commander of the attacking team on the artillery/support menu. Once the timer has reached zero, and only after it has reached zero, to prevent trolls from ending the battle too early, the commander is given the option to use the lockdown function to end that losing battle earlier than the map time.

This way, lockdown would serve its purpose and would only happen if the attackers really think they can't stand being slaughtered anymore.

 

[Cwivey]

A nice idea, but put into practise, wouldn't someone just carry on regardless? They want to win, and being given the option for an quick loss seems like something not alot of people would go for.

It should be tied in somewhere else, and not made an optional thing.

 

[Nezzer]

A nice idea, but put into practise, wouldn't someone just carry on regardless? They want to win, and being given the option for an quick loss seems like something not alot of people would go for.

It should be tied in somewhere else, and not made an optional thing.

They would carry on if they still had a chance. But if the attackers are too annoyed or frustrated, thinking it really is a losing battle and that they are justing wasting time, they might want to use it. Lockdown would only serve its purpose if it were optional to the attacking team, otherwise it will always be an obstacle.

 

[Nightingale]

This would work well if all players were sensible and even-tempered, but I can imagine lots of people *****ing at their team's commander if he ever decided to forfeit using the lockdown feature. And in any event, wouldn't a team in a competitive match always choose not to forfeit?

Perhaps an easier solution would be to make the lockdown timer only visible to the attackers. This way the defending team would only be able to guess how long they have to hold the point for, rather than anticipating it and sort of "cheating" the reinforcements like you described.

 

[Nezzer]

I can only accept lockdown if it serves its original purpose, and I can't see it being so if it's forced on the attackers. I am totally against lockdown as a victory condition.

 

[Sarkis.]

Attacking is hard, and with a not so well cooperated team it is a huge undertaking. I agree with Nezzer that the present state of lockdown can be improved.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

Funny, I thought Lockdown was always in favour of the defenders... ie: they're slaughtering the enemy attackers, they know they're going to win because the attackers are slacking off or just plain suck, so it gives them the victory sooner to save everybody the time, rather than saving the attackers the humiliation (cuz it's still a humiliation when you think about it)

No attacking team that I'm aware of love it when the lockdown ends the game.

Back in the Mod & Ostfront, there were many matches where my team (attackers) were walled by the defenders for a good 10-15 minutes before we started to break their defence and then we rolled over them for the rest of the match & won before the timer ran out.... or we ended up wiping out all their reinforcements and won.

I'm not much of a fan of the lockdown.

I think the only good time Lockdown should be used is when the attacking team runs out of reinforcements.

The moment the attackers run out of reinforcements, the Lockdown timer starts ticking until the Attackers capture an objective..... this method of Lockdown would be useful for the defending team waiting around for a camper or AFK player and either force them to go for the objective and face their untimely death, thus the defenders win.... or they camp for 2 minutes until lockdown hits and the defenders win..... or those 1-2 remaining attackers pulls a miracle out of their arse and takes on the entire defending team and caps all objectives.... allowing the very remote chance of the attackers winning

 

[Sarkis.]

I think the only good time Lockdown should be used is when the attacking team runs out of reinforcements.

I'd take that anyday. Down with current form of Lockdown!

 

[Proud_God]

The moment the attackers run out of reinforcements, the Lockdown timer starts ticking until the Attackers capture an objective..... this method of Lockdown would be useful for the defending team waiting around for a camper or AFK player and either force them to go for the objective and face their untimely death,

I think the more straightforward solution for that is the one that has been suggested a lot before: remove spawn protection when out of reinforcements.

That being said I'm also not a big fan of lockdown.

 

[Cpt-Praxius]

I think the more straightforward solution for that is the one that has been suggested a lot before: remove spawn protection when out of reinforcements.

That being said I'm also not a big fan of lockdown.

But if they're not in spawn, but hiding somewhere else in the map (or continually runs away & relocates so he's not found) the Lockdown as I described would be useful..... so that if someone does this (and it does happen) everybody else only has to wait about 2 minutes, rather than the remaining 17 minutes or so of the actual round.

 

[Sarkis.]

Let's have dead players from the team that has no reinforcements vote on ending the round. Would work specially well when playing together with bots. Vote, and the round ends, or Vote and the commander terminates the round.

 

[danh]

We should let them vote for the end of the map. It should be between commanders and squad leaders.

 

[BuenaventuraDurruti]

I think the purpose of lockdown should be simply to shorten a foregone conclusion. That said, it should only be initiated under specific circumstances, such as, lets say, these:

1- The defending team has many more reinforcements than the attacking team. I think a 2:1 ratio would be good, considering that the attackers start out with more, if it ever gets to this point, either the defense is solid as hell, or the attacking team is terrible. Either way, the outcome is easy to predict at this point.

2-The attackers still have a lot of work cut out for them. Lockdown should never happen if the attackers have one or two points left to take, even if their numbers are dwindling. If, on Mamayev for instance, the Germans are halted at B, and have 30 reinforcements to the Russians 90, that is when lockdown should happen.


Lockdown can be useful in shortening those annoying prolonged battles, that always seem to end with the last attacker remaining behind their own lines, either unaware or away from the computer, but it can also ruin a perfectly good game (some of the best games even). I think it needs to be tweeked, but not done away with.

 

[Don Draper]

I like Lockdown alot.

And i also like this idea alot:

Perhaps an easier solution would be to make the lockdown timer only visible to the attackers. This way the defending team would only be able to guess how long they have to hold the point for, rather than anticipating it and sort of "cheating" the reinforcements like you described.

 

[Nezzer]

I like Lockdown alot.

And i also like this idea alot:

Yeah, that idea would improve it. I like the concept of lockdown, but not how it's implemented. I shouldn't be a victory condition like it is now. Attacking usually is already hard enough just by itself, so adding another obstacle for the attackers only makes it even harder, forcing them to use speed tactics.

That's why I think lockdown should serve only to end a match so frustrating that it ends up being boring for both teams. Something like the Germans getting stuck on the first objective of Grain Elevator for several minutes. But it should never be activated if the attackers still have a chance of capturing the objective.

 

[Don Draper]

Yeah, that idea would improve it. I like the concept of lockdown, but not how it's implemented. I shouldn't be a victory condition like it is now. Attacking usually is already hard enough just by itself, so adding another obstacle for the attackers only makes it even harder, forcing them to use speed tactics.

That's why I think lockdown should serve only to end a match so frustrating that it ends up being boring for both teams. Something like the Germans getting stuck on the first objective of Grain Elevator for several minutes. But it should never be activated if the attackers still have a chance of capturing the objective.

Dont get me wrong as a victory condition it sucks.

but it provides drive for the attacker to get out and attack.
Otherwise there would be no point to having multiple cap zones on a large map, you could just fight it out until exhausted in the first cap zone and win that way.

The whole idea is to create urgency of the battle which brings atmosphere and helps promote team play.

I think it is brilliant, but any small improvement posible should be made...when the defender know the lockdown they can probably guess a assault is close.

 

[Nezzer]

Dont get me wrong as a victory condition it sucks.

but it provides drive for the attacker to get out and attack.
Otherwise there would be no point to having multiple cap zones on a large map, you could just fight it out until exhausted in the first cap zone and win that way.

The whole idea is to create urgency of the battle which brings atmosphere and helps promote team play.

I think it is brilliant, but any small improvement posible should be made...when the defender know the lockdown they can probably guess a assault is close.

I don't know, the game already has a very fast pace, and lockdown at its current state only makes it even faster. It gives the player little choice for tactics, as you not have to beat the clock for every single objective.

Like I said, the attackers are forced to use speed tactics. If they don't take the objective in 5min they lose; it doesn't matter if they lost 10 or 100 men in the fight. Tactics in RO2 now is rarely anything more than "throw smoke, run to the cap as fast as you can". If your team tries to set up a base of fire or play more carefully, time's up and you lose. At least that's much harder to happen now than a few months ago, since lockdown was greatly improved, but it's still a second enemy for the attackers.

Before launch TWI said it was supposed to be a relief for the attackers for battles than end up on a neverending slaughter for them, yet it turned out to be just another obstacle.

 

[Sarkis.]

Bridges of Druhzina a few minutes ago, We steamrolled the attack with extreme ease. But the Germans held the advance at the last bridge objective. After some good minutes Lockdown kicked in, in spite of our tremendous performance in the rest of the round. Timer ended and attackers lost.

I can say that the Germans kinda deserved winning, for bravely holding out at the last moment.

However in a map with some 17 objectives, the Russians pretty much didn't deserve to loose outright. Until the last one they did nothing wrong. Brilliant attack. Attacking is hard...

It is safe to say that you can win the map and still loose the lockdown.

 

[Cwivey]

Wasn't it up to the mapper to set which objectives can have lockdown on them?

I can get why (and quite like) having lockdown on the first half of the capture points because they're the ones that somewhat dictate how well things may go on from there (Not always, the other team can get their act together and blast the others back), but on the last objective(s), it's possibly better for both sides if it runs down to the end game time.

 

[LugNut]

Nix lockdown. I like the vote to end the map, that is a good idea.