Cont locking, intercontinental lattice, hossin, all these very large-scale changes that we don't really know will change the gameplay significantly. It's long overdue for them to focus on the problems that won't change when they implement stuff like the above. The basic gameplay needs some sprucing up, resource revamp, tank/air/infantry balance(libs*ahem*), and of course base design, zergs, and spawn camping "meta". These are what's really holding PS2 down the most right now, not anything on the grand strategic map level. Until those get fixed, changes like cont locking aren't going to make a difference. Perhaps those kind of changes will have their time eventually but it's a waste right now. Learn from the mistake of the lattice. All we got from the lattice was zerging replacing ghost capping but also we lost a lot of fun smaller fights because the lattice design funnels zergs into bases that don't have space to create enjoyable combat for such large forces. I miss 24vs24 fights at random small hexes, they're a rarity now. Also, performance and aesthetics still need more tune ups. We are still stuck with very poor weapon sight options and lots of other seemingly small but still very significant issues that make the basic gameplay less enjoyable. I think getting the right feel to the gunplay, armor, air is more important for player retention and bringing in new players than you'd think. The TR weapon sound update was one of the most significant and positive changes I've experienced. I am very negative about this game, a lot, and I recognize this, but if I didn't still enjoy it - love/hate as it might be - and want it to get better I wouldn't be here. I don't mean for this to be inflamatory. I just want to see PS2's management come down to auraxis and see what the real problems are for the players.
One thing continent locking/lattice is suppose to address is focusing/directing population instead of having them completely spread out across 3, soon 4, continents. Because diluted populations ARE an issue for people. Not to mention some of these things aren't exactly mutually exclusive. A dev team is not made up of a bunch of do-everything people where you throw more and more people onto a project to magically finish it at a certain time. I mean, I want some of the things you mentioned as well. But you're oversimplifying
we desperately need this https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...the-lattice-hex-system-for-continents.188182/ we need this like right now
Diluted populations are an issue to the degree there's barely enough people to fill one continent. On Ceres even Indar is a ghost town outside of primetime.
Primetime on my server we can fill one... maybe one and a half. Which is why I said it's a pretty bad problem, especially with Hossin on the horizon. One of the devs said they can adjust how many continents can be locked at once, so it's a valid attempt at trying to focus the population. A lot better than letting people spread between four continents, anyway. Especially if people want a little more variety than windar.
As a Connery player I'm probably not feeling the pop dilution as badly. I am more worried that concentrating players further will just lead to more one sided zergs and 5-10minute long spawn camps. That would be a lot better than the current lattice.
No, since there would be less space to maneuver, zergs will have an increased chance of colliding and creating big epic battles 200 vs 200 we were promised.
When Zergs Collide I am still doubtful though, as this doesn't address small bases being unsuitable for that many players. Or bad base design leading to very one sided battles even when zergs do collide. Or lib/tank spam shutting down the infantry game/forcing them inside. The way I see it there are still other problems with the game that should be taking priority.
According to real life anecdotes, the theory of software projects moving faster by throwing more man-power at it doesn't pan out. If the group had been re-assigned from the project at an earlier point in its life then, maybe, yeah, it might work in that case. Completely green developers, however, would slow the whole situation down as they'd have to learn the ins and outs of the application before they actually get to the job they were hired to perform. If you told me you had two assignment groups that needed completion: that the first one is complicated to implement and manage and would require significant adjustments even after deployment such that the timeframe for an initial delivery is indeterminate; and, that the second one is much more straightforward thus that the timeframe for the initial delivery is a realistic amount of time; and, that both groups were only loosely coupled in that one does not necessarily rely on the other; and, that you were intentionally suspending all progress on the second assignment group until enough progress was made on the first group; I would say you are not managing your project very well. In fact, the PS2 teams did just receive an exceptional amount of unfair flak for stopping everything else to redesign the non-Indar continents for Lattice and then just for the sake of re-vamp. Twice. At the same time, they get also get a lot of grief for ever touching things that are just the numbers in a spreadsheet - that thing we call "balancing" - or releasing a default weapon-1 rather than focusing on any major game changes. The difference is deliverables. They still look better by actually getting stuff accomplished, even if it's only minor, while explaining that the difficult work is being done in the background, compared to spending a long time with no demonstrated results on the difficult work and no demonstrated results on the easy work. Very early into a project, that might be excusable, for a while. PS2 is too far down the road. tl;dr - We will need continent locking down the road. We already know more or less what it will look like, just based on the practical considerations of implementing such a system. It has few if no prerequisites with the other aspects of the project that need exceptional love and attention. We can make some progress or just sit around listlessly while we wait for progress to happen.
There are two kinds of enjoyable fights (at least for me) in this game: 1. Large base battles, where 3-4 capture points are separated by 100-200m from each other. Having a 48+ vs 48+ fights on those bases is a blast. 2. Open field combined arms battles. When two zergs collide between bases with tanks, air and infantry, while organized outfits flank or do precise strikes. Those two kinds of fights are where Planetside truley shines above all other FPS games. It's too late now, but I think they should have removed all of the small bases from lattice. The bases could remain there, without capture or spawn capability, but you could turn the consoles and spawn Limited ammount of vehicles from those bases still. This way the fights wouldn't be all the time the same "proceed 500m to next base to spawncamp them".
