I wouldn't be against that, but they'd also need to add a beacon item you can lay and have people teleport to.

It's lame as hell how end-games (close games anyway) on Cataract always end up the exact same way. People scrambling for the other team's portals to backdoor while hopefully defending their own, and spamming locks and teleporting all over the place. Some Demigods are way better then others at escaping from backdoor attempts, or defending.

I think a lot of people need to stop viewing flag locks as some really complex item that requires tons of skill and strategy, because it's not. Situations where it should be used are entirely obvious, and it doesn't require skill to use, I keep seeing people say flag locks win games and things like that, and advising people to use them. When an item becomes so important, that's a sign something is not balanced. A one-strategy-fits-all approach is something to avoid in strategy games.

 45 seconds is too long, it should be reduced to 30, while the recharge increased to 60. Or if you're going to keep the current stats, at least double the cost to 500g.

I would honestly like it if flag locks were removed from the game entirely, they defeat the entire purpose of map control. This is why we SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DISABLE WHAT ITEMS WE WANT TO IN OUR CUSTOM GAMES, NO I'm not a scrub who doesn't want to adapt or whatever and you're not some leet expert who says everyone should play the game "the way it was meant to be played", with all items in it. Some items in this game are lame, period. Obliterating Heart of Life was a very good decision btw thanks for that.

One good idea I had was to make flag locks attackable but have decent hp. At least then you can try to do something about it instead of the other guy running away yelling neener neener while you sit there and can't do anything but wait. Maybe you could burn through it's health in 20 seconds or so making it not nearly as unbearable.

That's a pretty good idea, I would say acceptable health would be about 4000 or so, or maybe it should scale depending on what level you are.

No. Flag locks are not always the best decision: they are often wasted. Flag locks are not so powerful that they reduce strategy. They do not defeat the purpose of map control. All I hear in this thread now is whining about how "all games end the same." This is ridiculous. I think in the last 20 games I have played, perhaps 1 has ended because of locked portals. Most games are decided well before rank 10. In low level games that do get that far, then yes, there is usually a wild scramble to backdoor each other's portals. But in high level games, if you try that, you die. No team can ever lock another's portals unless that team makes a huge error, in which case: tough cookies, you deserve to have a locked portal.

That said, I would support a very minor change: increase lock cast time slightly to make it easier to reactively interrupt. 

Unfortunately most games are a one way steamrolling. The few games I've played premade vs premade it has gone significantly further (generally 30 min ish), so I disagree that things are decided by level 10 in the games where it actually matters. These games did end up as a scramble to try to lock each others flags, but an organised team can react and counter a locking attempt or a locked flag in numerous ways already stated.

To say that you have to make a huge error to have your portal locked is wrong though, it just requires some well thought out moves to get there. Anytime a character gets forced to rtb, or dies, there is an opportunity for a portal lock, and despite high quality games being low scoring, with a coordinated attack you can easily get kills even against the best opponents (stun locks etc.), and forcing a team to retreat can be done by running the enemy healbot out of mana.

Yes they are, it's all about the interrupt as SoFFacet hinted at in his suggestion. Solution: Don't play Regulus. He's shit.

Also if any of the proposed nerfs besides removing locks from the game completely were implemented it would generally increase strategy, not decrease it, especially the idea about having a longer (and ideally more visible) cast time.  Even something like a 500g key or maybe just a key with a dramatically longer CD than the locks, or an HP total on the locks would add depth to the game.

I'd like to see flag locks on portals only active for ~20 seconds instead of 45.  This would help to deter the immediate shift of focus in end game that the OP mentioned, and I feel it would encourage people to more often defend portals that they have locked (whereas most times it's a matter of locking and bolting because 45 seconds it quite long, often long enough to sacrifice yourself to lock the portal, die, resurrect, then port back and re-lock).  However, on all other flags, the 45 second lock time would stand.

 EDIT: Someone else mentioned my idea first, so credit to him/her.

 - andpancakes

Um no, they are very rarely wasted. A waste would be something like locking your gold mine at the beginning of the game. Locking any of the 3 neutral flags allows you to leave that lane and hold the flag without contesting it, and help out your allies which will in turn make it easier to hold the other 2 flags on top of the one you have.

I said CLOSE GAMES always end the same way, don't bullshit me about "high level" games on Cataract being any different. I don't see why noobstomps would bear any importance to how close games always end.  I've played with noobs and pros alike and whenever it's a close game, it always does end with backdooring portals. This is all on Cataract of course, which is the most played map.

Yes, flag locks do reduce stragegy because they lower the amount of viable late game strategies.

LOL you think you're so leet that you can kill anyone that backdoors your portals? Well, you need to be staring at the map or the minimap in order to see the backdooring demigod and be ready to teleport right away. It takes about 6 seconds to capture a flag on moderate, but you can't teleport on a neutral flag, meaning you must see him in advance. Once he gets the flag to neutral you must now teleport to a nearby tower, and you will not have enough time to run up to the flag to contest it. At least half the demigods can escape easily from a backdoor attempt, whether it was successful or failed, Erebus of course,and any of the Generals especially with Cloack of NIght, and UB can take on anyone late game, and if a Rook does it and puts up 3+ towers, you will almost definitely not be able to take him out of there yourself, and will need help.

If one team gets run off the field at the end of the game, what's the problem with a chance that the game might end? Isn't that exactly what's supposed to happen? Seems to me that everything is working just fine. 

Which you should be doing. The map is so small, there is no reason not to have complete visibility if the game is that even. You're supposed to prep for giants, not get them and insta win.

I think the complaint is that it's a near certainty that the game will end, rather than just being a swing in momentum like the outcome of other engagements.

I don't have a huge beef with the current system, though I'm not against something like flag keys to mitigate the strength of the tactic. There's a certain excitement to knowing that the winner of an endgame engagment in the middle of the map will almost certainly win the match.

What people have been posting here is that they feel the DEGREE to which cap locks decided the game is too extreme, and all your post here says is that they should be able to have a chance of ending a game, which no one even disagreed with in the first place. 

No, even locking neutral flags is often a waste because the best play is often to stay in your lane and farm creeps. No need to lock. 

Alright, lets talk about close games only. High level close games only. The enemy team knows you want their portals. They know that losing their portals will lead to a loss. They are going to block the way to their portals as often as possible. Any time they can't do that they will be obsessively watching the minimap and flag tickers for any sign that someone might be going for their portal. If you go for one alone, they will know what you are trying probably 5-10 seconds before you get there. 

More like lock and swarm the portal on the other side.  Now they have to have everyone defending the other portal (lest it get locked) and let the creeps rampage on one side or send someone to deal with the creeps and you're down a hero defending the other side.  Whichever the outcome you're going to come out a loser.

It's really a problem with Cataract and because Cataract has become the defacto default map (because Prison is way too wide open) the problem is exposed.  No one cares about locking portal flags on Prison or Leviathan or Exile or whatever because if they got back there your base is in shambles already.  Crucible backdoor locking is a critical hit too, but everyone hates Crucible.  If only more people hated Cataract....

Not really, because you havn't had the option to cap lock strategic positions for the first half hour of the game, therefore a point structure wouldn't really make sense. However, troop effectiveness SHOULD increase as time progresses, it's only logical.

but they don't wannnnnnnnnnnnna do all that they just wanna fight. It must need to be fixed!

Considering many DGs get some of their most fun abilities at 15 I would rather have the game focus more on using those abilities than the flag locks.

The entire issue is a matter of opinion, your smarmy little comments are pointless.

The point about football has nothing to do with a point structure, the idea is that you fight the entire game, the pace increases as units and DGs become more powerful and a greater threat to the citadel and static defenses, and then the game gets put into hyper drive the instant someone manages to lock a portal.

The point is that 6 seconds out of 30+ minutes is too brief a period to decide the game in my opinion. 

The other point is that you keep saying at expert levels of play it's fine, when obviously a weaker version of the cap lock would also be fine at expert levels, whereas for average and above average skill levels I believe the current mechanic is far from fine, on Cataract anyway.

The point is that the game CHANGES after a certain point from "Push back enemy Demigods and kill their buildings" to "Lock all portal flags and prevent yours from being locked"

That second game I don't like very much at all.

As has already been covered, in high level games one can't "decide a game" with a cap lock by just waltzing to an enemy portal and locking it. Now, if you defeat the enemy team in a 3v3 battle at the end of the game, which leads to you being able to lock a portal, what really won you the game? Dead DGs decide games. Not locks. 

So now that we've established that the "degree to which cap locks decide games" is very small, what exactly is this thread complaining about?

The game has to end sometime. Presumably there was about 30 minutes of momentum swings leading up to that point, so a resolution after that much maneuvering isn't objectionable. 

if they just run in ur base, u forgotten to get a telescroll :/ they should be dead if they walk alone into ur base and all of ur teamm8s telescroll into it for the kill, after that its time for a counter log...i usually head for the portal flags after a kill... than mostly its a sucsellfull log/win..

Would being able to negate a cap lock affect the balance of the game significantly?  If so then you admit you're wrong about it having a small impact, if not then why would you take the time to argue against it?

If flag locks aren't signifcant

Oh im sorry, I must have missed the memo that your opinion of level 15 skills being where all the excitment in this game is. That's clearly a valid arguement. Stop spouting your opinion as fact. Late game cataract is about map control, which is acheived by proper teamwork and defeating the enemy ENGAGEMENTS. Not hit and running flag portals which you think "even matches" are all about.

My smarmy little comments are just mocking the ridiculousness of your posts. Just because your low level of play gives you a preconceived assumption about even matched play, doesn't make it fact. I don't have to "love it or hate it" stop repeating that absurdity, as it's a failed leading question that supports your arguement.

Have you ever gone through your games list and looked at the people you've been beating?  You and char have *surprise surprise* 95%+ win rates, play every game together, and at first glance haven't played a single team with even a 50% win rate in what, weeks?  Pathetic.

I just looked at your last game, here's your opponents' records:

Frosaly

Total Games: 43

Games Won: 4

Games Lost: 39

Kokujin

Total Games: 92

Games Won: 67

Games Lost: 25

Pacov

Total Games: 49

Games Won: 26

Games Lost: 23

Jeez man, how were you able to keep Frosaly from backcapping you?  Wow dude, I was way off, that's a real eye opener.

This is how virutally ALL of your games are, look at the list you cocky moron.  If you want peopel to think you're good, then maybe you should make an effort to show it, or you could, you know, just not call people noobs and have a normal conversation.

Again, sorry about all the edits, I've basically rewritten this three times now, but this is my final one.