PS2: Lockdown!

My only issue is about how long the lockdowns are. I say an 1-2 hour lockdown would be sufficient enough. The winning faction should also be given a total exp/cert boost as well for locking down that continent. And to prevent last minute log on abuse, a player must have been playing on the continent for an entire hour to receive the prize at the near end of the lockdown.
Chromehounds comes to mind. It had a multiplayer war with 3 factions and multiple maps. Each faction had a capital and started the war with additional maps. The goal was to help your faction win by conquesting the enemy faction capitals. Once a side won, there was a 30 minute break as the server reset, then war were declared all over again.If you were part of a faction who lost their capital, you could only fight on the capital maps, trying to reclaim the capital. If you dud reclaim your capital and certain other maps, avsecret weapon was released, replacing one of the maps with a boss encounter of sorts.Wars typically lasted a week to a month and when the server was finally shutdown, it was on war 90 or so. It was a great concept (and game). It sounds like a modified version woukd work well for ps2.
1-2 hours?! Nooooo. In all honesty, what happens when (with the current continent count at 3) two continents get locked out back to back in a server? All those people will get shoved into one continent. my understanding is that BOTH SOE and the players have a vested interest in maintaining server population somewhat diluted so as to avoid lag and keep the game from being too taxing on the players computers...If a lockdown is ever implemented, I would be truly shocked to see it span more than 5-10 minutes. Anything more and winning is going to be a punishment, not a reward for the PS2 community at large.
This is a good system, and an adaptation of it could definitely work!
Goddamn, I loved Chromehounds.
What are the odds of two servers being on lockdown at the exact same time for the entire duration of 24 hours? That's part of the game is it not? An hour last time I checked, never killed anyone. If it did, dear God help them because they truly are pitiful creatures. You also have to realize that there are plans for more continents... not just the slated 3. Don't forget the 4th one coming around next month. Right now the worlds are HIGHLY congested. The developers obviously see that. By releasing new continents you spread out the population even more. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a continent where there are only 500 people at one time. It'd turn capturing bases even more strategic than before. Another point I'd like to point out is that you're also assuming that each player is static. There is a probable 50/50 chance where you find that a cornered faction has zerg'd reinforcements coming in to push back the opposing force. Let's not also forget the difficulty of completely locking down a continent. It can take days and hours before it even happens. I'm not saying your concerns are entirely wrong, I'm just pointing out that you have to consider all the factors before giving out assumptions.
I'm trying to steer clear of assumptions such as timely releases of additional continents, and instead I'm looking at how a -suggestion- may affect the game we are playing -right now-. When you state an hour never killed anyone you forgot to mention that the first victim of a waiting period to play a game (especially a f2p one!) is not the player, but the game itself. Making games accessible is not just a design approach but a mechanical one too, if I can't play with the soldier I created, with the weapons I unlocked, and the camo/custome skin I paid for in the continent of my choosing (let's say its my favorite) then what incentive do I have to log in at all? Permanence of victory at the price of accessibility and choice is a wrong turn for the (currently available) game in my opinion.
To be honest what i would like to see would be something far more complex that makes use of a lockdown mechanic. Combat that spans entire servers comes to mind. Let's say that TR has managed to lock down all of the continents on the server. If there's a lockdown of some sorts, it would be a major game breaker. I for one wouldnt want someone to dictate when i want to play. So what do you do then? You link all the servers together. Effectively, there are truly 3 factions on all the servers. If say a TR faction loses ground on its server, they could hop onto other servers to help the war effort there while their home server is still on a lockdown. The faction that locksdown server receives a significant whateveryucallit reward, but the war still rages on. Imagine what would happen if the war effort came down to one server. It would be an absolute spectacle!

 Ever since I started playing Planetside 2, way back in the beta days, players of all factions have been complaining about the impermanence of their combat exploits. The problem stems from the fact that captured bases can be re-captured by the enemy almost immediately thereafter - and this is a core component of the endless war PS2 is all about. But what happens when your faction achieves the ultimate victory of capturing a continent? The present system awards your faction a bonus. That’s it. You fight your way across every hex, pushing the enemy back to their warpgates, and then 5 minutes after your ultimate victory you are back fighting for the same hexes.

It appears the folks over at SOE have heard your complaints, and they are working on a concept to “lock down” captured continents. The following excerpt is from the March Roadmap for PS2, which can be found here.

In order to start laying the foundation for a proper metagame, we've been putting a lot of thought into continent locking. There are a lot of little snags and details still to work out, but the basic idea at the moment looks something like this:

  • Add the ability to capture a Warpgate.
    • This is accomplished by taking over all adjacent territory.
    • You won't be able to take over an Empire's final Warpgate. This restriction would go away if we ever pursue adding Sanctuaries.
  • Once a single Empire controls all territory on a continent, the continent enters a "locked" state:
    • All enemy units are removed from the continent and spawn in at an available Warpgate.
    • The continent can not be entered/attacked by enemy units for a period of time.

If you are like me, you read the first bullet point and thought to yourself “finally!” Then you read on to the second bullet point and started thinking about the implications of such a system. Since I happen to enjoy raining on everyone’s parade, I invite you to try on the loser's shoes for a bit and walk around in them. Imagine choosing the wrong faction as a newbie, only to end up getting camped at the last continent your faction has an active warpgate in. Breaking out may be fun, eventually, but getting pummeled over and over again for poking your nose out of the shields is bound to chase some players off the game. Still think it’s a good idea?

Going back to the winning side, does chasing an enemy entirely off the playing field constitute a “fun” reward for your efforts? The whole point of the game is to fight this forever-war, finding the enemy and vanquishing them from their positions or defending your bases from them. If you conquer the continent, and everyone that’s not wearing your uniform is “locked” out from spawning in it, you are essentially given one of two unfun choices. The first is to hope your server is not so busy that you can’t switch continents to continue the fight elsewhere. The second is waiting around for the continent you conquered to be “unlocked” again and for your enemies to return. That’s right folks, your reward for winning is a loading screen or a period of waiting. Two things us gamers love about our first person shooters.

You may be thinking “way to go GoodSam, shooting down ideas without offering your own.” Well, I happen to think the current system is just fine. I enjoy the seesaw of conquering territory and then having to defend it. It is fun, realistic, and forces players to think strategically as well as tactically. There’s a balance to be struck between making conquest fun and rewarding and forcing players to adapt between offensive to defensive roles. The current system may be lacking a bit in the “rewards” department, but it still offers the combat we all flocked to PS2 for in the first place. While this is clearly still in its developmental stages, there are some serious issues that need to be addressed.

You can read and discuss SOE's continent-locking suggestion, as well as many other suggestions, at PS2's Roadmap site. 

I play all kinds of games as evidenced by my ever-expanding Steam library. Glad to be back!