This thread is going to mainly be dedicated to discussing lockdown. I’m not likely going to be saying anything that hasn’t been said before, but I’m going to put a couple things out there that I think would make the game better (which is why it’s located in the “suggetions” thread). For the most part though, I’m going to primarily want to just talk about the role of Lockdown as it pertains to this game as a whole. I’ll also express my concerns for the recent trend in updates and go through the reasons why I think that this so-called “mini game” deserves far more attention than it’s getting. I also want some feedback (obviously) on whether you guys feel the same way I do or not and why.
First off, if you don’t already know this, I am a MAJOR lockdown junky. Lockdown alone is the only reason me and many other veteran players are still around. This leads me to make a very bold statement: a game is only as good as its pvp system. Admit it, you can only play against an AI for so long before it begins to get seriously dull, but a human opponent learns as you do and gets progressively harder as time goes on. One of the most famous and best-selling games (in the U.S. at least) is the Super Smash bros. line of games, particularly the first two. Why is this? Neither of them had any plot. They were just the multiplayer half of a game that had no story mode. Now, I’m not saying story mode is bad, but despite all the efforts that get put into making the story mode of a game, it seems to me that typically, it’s the PvP that causes a game to live well beyond its release date (to this day, there are still national tournaments that feature Smash Bros. and Smash Bros. Melee).
Now, I’m not going to say that Lockdown is the ONLY reason people stay with SK, but once you beat Vanaduke 5 times, there’s really only two things left to do: make costumes or play PvP. I can say for sure that lockdown is what hooked many new-comers and anchored many veterans who would’ve otherwise left. It gives players the chance to fight the ultimate boss – each other.
All that being said, I just cannot understand why lockdown hasn’t gotten more attention from its creators. Many have suggested wonderful and truly necessary additions and options that are available in other PvP’s of rival games, but haven’t really come to pass here. Things like 1v1, 4v4, deathmatches, and custom lobbies would REALLY bring Lockdown to perfection and finalize what is likely the best PvP game I’ve ever played.
Now, you may be thinking “Dude, this is a little over board don’t you think? It’s just a mini-game for crying out loud! It’s not even what SK is all about!” I have to respectfully, but strongly disagree. Lockdown is NOT a mini-game. It is a highly competitive (and highly fun) PvP and as I’ve already established, PvP’s are the life-blood of what would otherwise be a short-life’d campaign game. If Lockdown was perfected and sold as a separate game by OOO, I would drop my SK account and buy that game tomorrow. It deserves that much recognition and that much attention. Without Lockdown, players would have no reason to continue to beat their heads against that vanaduke-wall so-to-speak. It’s the only reason so many players STILL, after all this time, continue to do runs and expand their arsenals.
What serves as a major turn-off to LD though, is how hard it is to be successful these days. The inability to play guild matches with smaller teams or shut off features like UV’s are major obstacles to overcome and only serve to hinder this game’s ability to grow into what it was meant to be.
Ok, that’s my two-cents worth. Let’s hear from you guys. Am I hitting the nail on the head, or am I just full of horse defecation? :P
State your opinions below.
See Also: Thrillhaus' custom lobbies thread
"a game is only as good as its pvp system"
Wrong. A game is only as worth coming back to as its replayability factor. Games can definitely be good without PvP, without multiplayer, even without replayability. It's the replayability - whether it be co-op against randomly generated scenarios, open-world gameplay like in Prototype or Minecraft, or PvP like SK or Halo - that keeps people coming back. I made a thread about this.
Lockdown is an amazingly fun gamemode, and it definitely has that competitive spirit. However, it can never be truly "competitive" - in the sense that you know you can beat someone if you are better than them 90% of the time - because of elements of the core SK game, which is PvE. This includes both balance and mechanical issues.
I'll use invincibility frames as an example. In PvP, they are nothing but a nuisance, ruining teamfights and rendering quick-attack weapons like Cutter, Winmillion, Blitz, Troika and Catalyzer charges, useless. In PvE, however, we can use them to our advantage (somewhat controversially) to take less damage and survive being mobbed.
We could also go with the similar examples of Auto Target, trinket/weapon slots, and UVs. Because the PvE aspect of SK is noncompetitive, it doesn't matter how unfair your tactics or gear sets are. Weapon slots give extra versatility, UVs just give a straight stat buff, AT helps with hitting targets - you get the point. But in PvP, all these things are carried over and you get an asymetrical, unbalanced system. Players are divided into "haves" and "have-nots" - you could argue that it was pay-to-win, but right now that's not even relevant. The main point about all these systems is, they give certain players permanent advantages over others.
Look at all the games that are played on a professional level - Halo, CoD, counter-strike, Street Fighter, SCII, LoL. What's the common link between all of them? They all have completely skill-based multiplayer (except halo and cod, which are on console so they get a bit of aim assist). No dice-rolls, no AT+flourish combo spammers chancing a hit they shouldn't have gotten. They also all have a level playing field to start - symmetrical or asymmetrical. If it's asymmetrical like in LoL or SCII where you start with different teams, they all have their own strengths and weaknesses that make them balanced. SK does not have this. Instead, we have AA combo spammers, polaris spammers, hammer spammers, trinket users with twice the HP of non-trinket users, and generally people getting too far because of balance exploits and luck. If we got rid of all that, LD would be truly competitive. Unfortunately, LD is too tied-in to PvE to warrant those changes without disrupting the core and main draw of the game.
And about Super Smash bros - that game is a party game, and it was never meant to be competitive beyond the casual level. When real money started getting involved, characters, maps, and abilities had to keep getting removed from competitive play, until it got to the point where the creators basically said "look guys, it's a party game. It's not meant to be played at tournaments for prize money." It's good for fun, certainly, but not actually competitive in the sense that you can be "better" than someone else. It's like being competitive at slot machines - if you win, it's not because of you.
1v1 and deathmatch
These wouldn't be Lockdown, since the main purpose of Lockdown is to "lock down" the points. I feel like people forget that all to often. Maybe you should retitle this thread "PvP needs more attention"?
Overall, LD is a PvP gamemode - not minigame, gamemode - of SK that has a lot of potential, but do to what needs to be done in order to make it into what it needs to be to be really amazing would take it too far from SK for them to be in the same game. And OOO definitely doesn't have time to work on this kind of thing right now.
<(^_^)>