Why is continent domination threshold moving from 75% to 94%?

To make pop imbalanced servers MORE playable for underpop factions. Since it's easier for them to block a cont cap when the enemy needs 94%.

Dude, on my server continents are already locked by one overpop faction. So, what others should do? I tell you what: there is nothing we can do now.

Why would you care about ingame stuff if you only play Forumside?

They've changed it so that you wouldn't be able to lock indar ever again.

Won't cont lock just mean Esamir and Amerish are occasionally locked thanks to a ghostcap forcing even more Indarside?

No, I meant that picture you posted is from a band called "Pulled Apart By Horses" - who are a noise-rock band from Leeds lol xD

I was being irreverent, ignore me ^^'

What or why I do is none of your business.
Earn my respect before asking this kind of question.

Continent domination was supposed to be similar to continent locking but without actually locking the continent. Because locking will be introduced in a few months they need to make the proper changes, including changing the threshold to cover all the regions (minus the WGs).

cause things and stuff make something up i blame or thank the burning bush.

To bring back the days where TR would hold indar by 1 territory on waterson for an entire month, and every night there would be the most epic battle in the entire game at Indar bay point ( Or whatever that tower base by the south western warp gate was called ) between the entirity of the NC, VS, and TR forces on indar.

I assume that random percentage still means no last stands...

...so i have to say well, nice try SOE, but 90(?) 94(?) % is not 100%. If it won't give me back the thrill of last stands i'm not interested.

Unfortunately even worse, it begs the question how they plan to achieve intercontinental warfare / cont locking. Advancing to the next continent while the previous one still has enemy territories with enemies? Not to mention locking a continent that still has enemy territories and enemies?
How the hell is the whole intercontinental warfare part going to work without having last stands?

Last stands or bust.

Population imbalance is part of the strategy. When you are struggling to overcome overwhelming odds on a continent, you might want to divide part of your force to attack a continent with low population in order to make a lot of ground and lock it before the enemy notices. Of course you would need to leave enough people to defend on the more populated continent, also the enemy might pull off troops to defend the less populated continent. They might even pull off too many and the group you left behind would start gaining ground.

Population spread over continents is part of the strategy of meta gaming continent locking. Its not a mindless head to head grind with 200 vs 200 perfect fights. Look at the map like a general taking over the world. This is something people don't understand in planetside 2 because continent locking was not in at launch so they game is like a super large call of duty crap fest.

I with ya, last stand are the shizzle man. Those are soo much fun and I miss them.

You'll get last stands out of this. Higby was saying during an interview that the new percentage works out to 100% minus about 2 territories. This should allow last stand but prevent that frustrating situation where it became impossible for the aggressor to truly get a lock because of constant 1 territory probes from the 3rd party faction. Once it became frustrating the last stand would dissolve and end. That always sucked and happened too much. I want those last stands to drag out until resource death.

Pretty sure they'll implement the lock simply be not allowing new spawns or capture point flips on the locked continent. If you're already there you can stay there but can't really do anything.

It also makes the locking empire immediately on the defensive on the other 3 (hossin coming) continents because a lock anywhere else will unlock the original.

Don't you folks remember how it used to be before the continent cap percentages were lowered? It was a lot more fun! People actually cared about defending and protecting their hard earned continent captures. We would sometimes even leave active alert continents to go and protect our continent caps.

It's not much, but it's all the 'Meta Game' we had/have. I was really unhappy when they reduced the continent capture requirements. It made capturing continents a trivial accomplishment. No one cares anymore about the caps.

At the time, many people complained about the capture percentage reduction. Sony disregarded our concerns. Now they return it to how it once was. I think maybe they will reinstate the old Crown next. (I can hope.)

Indar got taken all the time back when the threshold was 100%. What are you talking about?

Ohman, this. Please.

Most epic fights in the game happened back then. The new crown is too easy and frankly sucks.

The increase to capture a continent would make sense if it were matched by an increase, rather than a decrease, to the threshold to lose the continent. 94% to cap and 50% to lose makes a lot more sense - if you don't hold the continent, you don't hold the continent. Why should you keep the benefit because you managed to hole up in a corner while enemies run over most of the rest?

Seems like it will encourage each side to camp on continents they own rather than push for new ones. Even worse, it encourages cooperation between two sides to remove the lock before fighting each other. (No, the sides aren't meant to cooperate.)

It's Step 1 of Phase 1 for the Continent Locking update being launched in the next week or 2.

They probably want some initial data on how often continent captures happen with the new system

The "lock break" doesn't matter though, since after the continent locking is implemented you can't un-cap a continent by fighting on it, but by capping another continent.

It makes it harder, therefore more valuable and a viable medium term metagaming target.

this.