Remove camping spawn buildings from meta game

[Miir]

Bring back the spawn generators instead.

I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place but I'd rather the fight end than just sit and camp each bases spawn room at every encounter.

As an example: Yesteday I was at Snake Ravine with about 30 magriders camping the spawn room as we waited for the base to flip. In the spawn room there was about 10-15 NC that kept trying to push out. Each time ending in them being killed. I do see a purpose for this. It was boring as hell to sit there in the mags and I'm sure the other guys weren't having much fun either.

So why is this even a part of the game?

[evilsooty]

Agreed.

[FatherJack]

Because when the SCUs were at smaller outposts my personal experience 100% of the time went like this.

1. Arrive at base.
2. Run to SCU, find it completely undefended and blow it up.
3. Cap base with minimal resistance.

Fights at outposts are now actually interesting. When I am camped by 30 tanks I just spawn somewhere else, the battle is lost. I see people getting spawn camped who come out of the door to face a 20 man firing squad and all I think is why?
You will be waiting for the XP anyway at least you have something to shoot at.

[Miir]

Because when the SCUs were at smaller outposts my personal experience 100% of the time went like this.

1. Arrive at base.
2. Run to SCU, find it completely undefended and blow it up.
3. Cap base with minimal resistance.

Fights at outposts are now actually interesting. When I am camped by 30 tanks I just spawn somewhere else, the battle is lost. I see people getting spawn camped who come out of the door to face a 20 man firing squad and all I think is why?
You will be waiting for the XP anyway at least you have something to shoot at.

What it was then and what it now is exactly the same. Just at different ends of the spectrum. They just need to find that middle ground where things encourage a good fight and discourage a drawn out campy ending.

[Tatwi]

It doesn't matter where they move the spawn area to, there will always be a point where the attackers can spawn camp. SCU, as FatherJack pointed out, only served to end a battle before it began. I don't think that any conventional wisdom will solve these issues, because if that were the case they would already be resolved.

Teleporting defenders out of the spawn room to one of several locations might help. Drop pods instead of spawn rooms might help. Large underground facilities with many spawn points might help.

But the best solution is already in the game:

Spawn somewhere else and come back with a bigger offensive than what the enemy has taking the point.

[Miir]

Right now every battle ends in spawn camping and I don't see why we should just accept that's how the game needs to be. I don't know about you but I don't play this game to camp. I play for the big battles. Once it gets to that camp stage it needs to end not drag out.

Why not make each outpost easier to defend? Give them some turrets, shielded walls? and like you said a couple spawn locations or escape tunnels or maybe change the layout of the outposts so it forces players out of their tanks and on foot? Add more randomness. Maybe if you own the base you can pod drop in at any time rather than spawn. That would allow you to move outside of the camp zone and push back in or at least create enough of a diverion to push out.

If the SCU had the same sort of system as the Shield Generators where you need to over load them. That might give people time to counter the attack. That might not be a bad option.

Even taking out static spawn points altogether might be a interesting thing to try for a week. Just to see how people adapt.

[Tatwi]

Right now every battle ends in spawn camping and I don't see why we should just accept that's how the game needs to be. I don't know about you but I don't play this game to camp. I play for the big battles. Once it gets to that camp stage it needs to end not drag out.

Why not make each outpost easier to defend? Give them some turrets, shielded walls? and like you said a couple spawn locations or escape tunnels or maybe change the layout of the outposts so it forces players out of their tanks and on foot? Add more randomness. Maybe if you own the base you can pod drop in at any time rather than spawn. That would allow you to move outside of the camp zone and push back in or at least create enough of a diverion to push out.

If the SCU had the same sort of system as the Shield Generators where you need to over load them. That might give people time to counter the attack. That might not be a bad option.

Even taking out static spawn points altogether might be a interesting thing to try for a week. Just to see how people adapt.

I am all for doing all of the things you suggested.

I don't want to just accept that all fights should naturally devolve into spawn camping until the base flips, because you're right that it is boring. We all do it any way, because we may as well do something while waiting for the base to cap and it's the most efficient way to quash any internal resistance.

It would be very interesting to see what happens at outposts if:

The hack -> destroy -> useless until base flip issue to turrets and terminals bug was fixed.
Outposts had terminals for Sunderers rather than spawn rooms.
Sunderers had an exclusive deploy radius that prevented other S/G-AMS from being deployed too close (this is already incoming).
Higby's tug-of-war capture system end up being more than just "pile more live bodies into a base than the enemy and wait". No idea how this system actually works, but I am hopeful.

[PoisonTaco]

You get to choose where you spawn. If you keep spawning at a base that's being spawn camped, why do you keep spawning there? Going to hope that by some chance the tank outside is going to get bored?

You have many options to choose from when you spawn. Why do people keep spawning at the one that's being camped? Spawn at the next closest point and launch a counter attack to retake the outpost you've lost.

[EVILoHOMER]

Just bring back hacking and allow the hacking of the force fields and make it so you can destroy spawn tubes.

That way you can stop them from spawning like in Planetside so you don't have to spawn camp.

[SixShooter]

Bring back the spawn generators instead.

I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place but I'd rather the fight end than just sit and camp each bases spawn room at every encounter.

As an example: Yesteday I was at Snake Ravine with about 30 magriders camping the spawn room as we waited for the base to flip. In the spawn room there was about 10-15 NC that kept trying to push out. Each time ending in them being killed. I do see a purpose for this. It was boring as hell to sit there in the mags and I'm sure the other guys weren't having much fun either.

So why is this even a part of the game?

The game needs EMP grenades to solve this one. EMP spam, escape the spawn room, fight on! Alternatley, spawn elsewhere and return with a couple Libs to clear out the MBT's.

[maradine]

There needs to be a bunch of ways to leave a spawn room including tunnels.

Then the tunnel exits get camped. This is Tatwi's earlier point - there will come a time in every fight where it is effectively over, and continuing to put bodies into the grinder serves no purpose (not that people won't do it). If the defenders continue to spawn, on the other hand, they still have the will to retake, and so the attackers can't leave. Should it be otherwise?

[Stardouser]

Actually, they have hit upon the solution to undefended spawn generators. You now have to trigger an explosion that takes a minute to happen, that would given defenders time to react.

So, add another spawn room and/or tunnel exits to all bases, and add that spawn gen back to small bases.

[Whiteagle]

Drop pods instead of spawn rooms might help.
This is probably the best idea, as it not only prevents camping but the pods themselves could make Tanks more cautious about approaching bases.

Spawn somewhere else and come back with a bigger offensive than what the enemy has taking the point.
And how do you suggest we get this army?
Pull them out of our ass?

Fact is, some of us don't have huge Outfits backing us up, so reinforcements are most likely NOT coming because they are too busy sitting on the FUCKING CROWN to give a damn about the rest of their Faction...

Hell, I'm usually the only guy IN my Outfit online most of the time...

You have many options to choose from when you spawn. Why do people keep spawning at the one that's being camped? Spawn at the next closest point and launch a counter attack to retake the outpost you've lost.
Because, sometime, your only only other choice of Spawn Point is a kilometer and a half away!

Hell, if there was actual coordination in this game, voluntarily throwing yourself into the meat-grinder could be a valid stalling tactic.
The more time the enemy is focused on killing you at that particular base, the more time your allies would have to mount a proper counter-offensive.

In other words, those greedy kill-whores might end up screwing their entire Faction's push over just because they wanted to pad their K/D.

[Figment]

It doesn't matter where they move the spawn area to, there will always be a point where the attackers can spawn camp. SCU, as FatherJack pointed out, only served to end a battle before it began. I don't think that any conventional wisdom will solve these issues, because if that were the case they would already be resolved.

Teleporting defenders out of the spawn room to one of several locations might help. Drop pods instead of spawn rooms might help. Large underground facilities with many spawn points might help.

But the best solution is already in the game:

Spawn somewhere else and come back with a bigger offensive than what the enemy has taking the point.

Or just create a multilevel spawnroom where there's a number of corridors between the spawnroom and exit, potentially an underground spawnroom with tunnels to various buildings with spawn control unit and control console within the same building so those guys camping actually have to get out of their tanks and fight their way in and hold positions within reach of the defenders, while the defenders can eventually use high ground to fight the tanks instead of relying on two exits that are both camped...

Where have I seen that before?

[Canaris]

So far I'm still of the opinion that PS1s style of having to overcome the defenders bastion of the spawn rooms is a superior meta game than any of the PS2 versions I've tried.

Tho to have the bastion mechanic it would require most of the spawn rooms in all bases and outposts being redesigned and moved to more secure and defensible central locations.

[Marinealver]

That would require some decient thought in the world design
http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/021/7/1/jesus_spawn_camping_motivator_by_brokeneye3-d37qqpr.jpg
Instead this is what you get.

Deal with it you aint getting paid to make a game, you aint paying them to make a game. you are paying a mega-corp who is paying a group of developers to make a game.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Spawncamping is not generally the problem imo. As being said it will happen to a base being overwhelmed at some point. It happened in PS1, it will happen here.

The issue is, spawncamping is being made ridicously easy in PS2. It's the same that applies to the actual capturing of bases, i just don't get why you can do it both WITH VEHICLES.
Why are spawn rooms so often some hut outside the actual base where you can just park a tank infront of it and let the defenders run into their demise as soon as the first tank arrives at that base.
Once more, it's not the spawncamping itself that is annoying, it is how easy it is to do. Move the spawnrooms below surface, make them so only infantry troops can spawncamp it (as a good example here, the main area of the bio-labs).

Actually i believe that making both capturing points and spawn rooms only being able to be reached "on foot" without vehicles / aircrafts would help several issues the game currently has (flow of battle, spawncamping, tank rushes, tdm behaviour, the "too open" base design).

[EisenKreutzer]

Honestly, I agree. Every battle I was in yesterday ended with us camping the enemy spawn room waiting for the base to flip. You can't just up and leave, because then the guys in the spawn room will take the base back half a minute later. So youre stuck waiting outside the spawn room, impotently shooting at the force fields in the hopes of catching one of the guys inside in an unwary moment.

Honestly, it feels sort of boring. There has to be a better way of solving this issue than how it is currently?

[Canaris]

they removed waiting for hack and replaced it with waiting for spawn room :D

[TheRagingGerbil]

I'd love to see some tunnels connecting the buildings together. Maybe even a duct or something you duck into that runs from the spawn to the other buildings?

There were a couple of bunkers in PS1 that were linked by little tunnels. Always fun little firefights in those.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Tunnels would work fine imo.

[Miir]

In the end the best thing they could implement is something that keeps the fighting exciting.

Maybe putting a portal in the spawn room that allows you to teleport (one way) to other secure areas around the base/outpost/towers.

I know these spots would likely get camped as well. But as long as they were in places that vehicles can't get to easily. Then it would come down to infantry/Max only battles. They could have the room where you teleport to be equipped with a shielded doorways similar to the biolab so you could clear the immediate area before pushing out.

Seems like they have all these things already in game.

Also move all the capture points inside buildings so they can't be camped easily by vehicles.

Tunnels or a way to move from building to building without the option of going outside would be great.

[Crator]

^^ I actually like that idea Dj. So a mega-router ;)

But about the spawns, they really do need to be inside behind walls or underground, away from vehicle spam. Why they moved the majority of spawn rooms outside is beyond me. They could make it diverse.

For instance, I actually don't have an issue with the spawn room being outside at The Crown. I'd like to see it placed on the north side of the tower, on the hillside. With the hillside providing protection from vehicle spam at the exits of it. A quick run south to the tower to defend it from a south attack. This will give the south attackers a better chance at actually gaining ground while still allowing the defenders to use better strategy in defending The Crown.

But there's other cases that the land structures around the outpost or tower do make sense to have the spawns inside or underground. To make locations more diverse in how to attack them.

EDIT: My north/south were mixed up in the above text but I just fixed it. My dyslexia showing . :)

[Aaron]

There should just be a set of defensible stages before the attackers reach the spawn tubes. If the attackers do get to the spawn tubes, they should be able to destroy them and end the fight. Also, the spawning room should not be accessible to vehicles (preferably underground).

You wouldn't even need spawn shields with this setup. The spawn defense stages should be fairly spacious and quite defensible. The players that use the base's defenses should be the "shield" instead, and if they fail then the war ends without any spawn camping. You would get more of a situation were attackers and defenders are pushing against each other, instead of defenders getting instagibed out of the spawn doorway.

However, what if the attackers simply destroy the spawn tubes before anyone notices? If you don't want that to happen, then maybe the spawn room should only be opened to attackers once they get further down the base hack progress (25%? 50%? 75%?).

[Stanis]

If they made every base a wall courtyard with a tower in the centre. two shielded entrances and a resupply tower.

Every base would effectively be PS1.
They'd also be easier to defend. Something to actually fight over.
Tanks unable to camp the spawn room door.



The spawn locations need redesigns. The base layouts are swiss cheese.


I get we are supposed to fight - but have you noticed how towers and Biolabs are the places those fights happen? It's because the defenders have a hope in hell of holding out against numerical superiority. AKA: The Zerg..

[Figment]

302 Found

Note, this is ONE guy (of course Dachlatte always been a good tanker, but as you can see Dachlatte also finds this rather ridiculously easy).


So. Let's blame the enemy for getting farmed? ...

[Aaron]

302 Found (http://youtu.be/UtmvGK_8n5A)

Note, this is ONE guy (of course Dachlatte always been a good tanker, but as you can see Dachlatte also finds this rather ridiculously easy).


So. Let's blame the enemy for getting farmed? ...

That guy has got a good shot...and framerate xD

Anyway, I'm missing your point.

[Figment]

That guy has got a good shot...and framerate xD

Anyway, I'm missing your point.

Hint: a few minutes in, hovering over a base. Ask yourself how you can fight back as a defender in that position.

[Aaron]

Hint: a few minutes in, hovering over a base. Ask yourself how you can fight back as a defender in that position.

Oh, sorry. I was clicking through and I must of skipped it. Yeah, that is a pretty good example.

[Miir]

302 Found (http://youtu.be/UtmvGK_8n5A)

Note, this is ONE guy (of course Dachlatte always been a good tanker, but as you can see Dachlatte also finds this rather ridiculously easy).


So. Let's blame the enemy for getting farmed? ...

This video is a great example. Does farming really add anything to the game?

[MrBloodworth]

It doesn't matter where they move the spawn area to, there will always be a point where the attackers can spawn camp.

Problem is not the spawn camping IMO. Its that you do not have to fight anyone to be able to.

If the spawns were deep inside the bases like the original, would not be an issue. Fights right now just go to who ever drops the gen. That's outside, far away from the core of the base. Same with the spawn points.

I have no idea why the treat spawn locations, and gens af if they were latrine areas on a forward base.

[Hamma]

Bring back the spawn generators instead.

I'm not sure why it was removed in the first place but I'd rather the fight end than just sit and camp each bases spawn room at every encounter.

As an example: Yesteday I was at Snake Ravine with about 30 magriders camping the spawn room as we waited for the base to flip. In the spawn room there was about 10-15 NC that kept trying to push out. Each time ending in them being killed. I do see a purpose for this. It was boring as hell to sit there in the mags and I'm sure the other guys weren't having much fun either.

So why is this even a part of the game?

Agreed.

[PClownPosse]

Problem is not the spawn camping IMO. Its that you do not have to fight anyone to be able to.

If the spawns were deep inside the bases like the original, would not be an issue. Fights right now just go to who ever drops the gen. That's outside, far away from the core of the base. Same with the spawn points.

I have no idea why the treat spawn locations, and gens af if they were latrine areas on a forward base.

Yeah, base design could use an overhaul. Everything's strangely spread out, not very logically placed and spawn locations are just weird. Consequently, interior fights (of any length, substance or importance and without a tank breathing down your neck) are almost non-existent, which is a shame IMO.

[GraniteRok]

Should be like in PS1, you're not worth much in point value until you've lived for a certain period of time. Fresh spawns should be next to nothing in kill points. Current system is a roughly a one cert point gain for every two kills; 100pts per kill plus bonuses. No kill points then no cert points, possibly lesser camping or at least maybe be able to get out of a spawn to make a fight more worthwhile. Anyone who spawn camps then are padding their useless KDR stat that means squat. Of course, there will be those that will still do so.

[Miir]

Should be like in PS1, you're not worth much in point value until you've lived for a certain period of time. Fresh spawns should be next to nothing in kill points. Current system is a roughly a one cert point gain for every two kills; 100pts per kill plus bonuses. No kill points then no cert points, possibly lesser camping or at least maybe be able to get out of a spawn to make a fight more worthwhile. Anyone who spawn camps then are padding their useless KDR stat that means squat. Of course, there will be those that will still do so.

I like this idea. It could also be used to help make the leaderboard a little more accurate. If you are killed in the first 20 seconds it doesn't count as a kill towards someones score. I believe this would have a huge positive impact on the leaderboard.

It wouldn't fix the camping of the spawn rooms but it might make it a little less appealing for people that like to farm kills.

[PClownPosse]

Yeah, I think the only way to stop spawn camping is maybe a slight redesign of bases and spawn points, if that's even feasible at this stage?

Especially the "tower" spawn points outside of bases. They're so wide open and confined in regards to exits that it's impossible to stop.

The ps1 tower underground spawn location, locked door that always remained shut even after it was hacked and upper exit point made defending these locations much easier and reasonable against a vehicle heavy assault.

[MrBloodworth]

Should be like in PS1, you're not worth much in point value until you've lived for a certain period of time. Fresh spawns should be next to nothing in kill points. Current system is a roughly a one cert point gain for every two kills; 100pts per kill plus bonuses. No kill points then no cert points, possibly lesser camping or at least maybe be able to get out of a spawn to make a fight more worthwhile. Anyone who spawn camps then are padding their useless KDR stat that means squat. Of course, there will be those that will still do so.

Not to be offensive. You are working with what you have.

However. No one will care how much XP a kill gives. Its all about the number one. One more kill count. one more "Did you see, I totally got that guy, AND his three friends that were right behind him! They had nowhere elese to go, but you see, I'm awesome. Lets go play some Battlefield, this game sucks, I'm not walking to the next base.". :D

Yeah, I think the only way to stop spawn camping is maybe a slight redesign of bases and spawn points, if that's even feasible at this stage?

This seems to be the game-play they want. This is not Accidental design. They do not even have doors on buildings with direct LOS to Objectives.

[PClownPosse]

Yeah, the no doors is a head scratcher to me? It invites vehicle camping.

[Gonefshn]

This might be fixed when they change to the new system where the timer is not tickets but rather capping the point itself.

This means people who want points will have to watch over the point the entire time until it flips. Perhaps this will make camping the spawn less viable because people will want to influence the cap instead of sit at the spawn building.

Probably wont fix it entirely but could help.

[Figment]

This might be fixed when they change to the new system where the timer is not tickets but rather capping the point itself.

This means people who want points will have to watch over the point the entire time until it flips. Perhaps this will make camping the spawn less viable because people will want to influence the cap instead of sit at the spawn building.

Probably wont fix it entirely but could help.

Ehm no doesn't fix it. Since people camp with 50 people, nah.

[CaptainSmall]

I think the simplest solution, as pointed out by some others here, would be to allow defenders to drop-pod in (with a timer - otherwise the defenders can just keep re spawning indefinitely and wipe out attackers each time) for any outdoors outpost. This way, the attackers would have to actively secure the point during the point flipping - as an attacker, I would find it more fun to have to actively patrol the point we just took rather than be forced to sit at a door.

Furthermore, the dev team doesn't have to spend a significant amount of time redesigning bases or whatnot.

[Whiteagle]

I think the simplest solution, as pointed out by some others here, would be to allow defenders to drop-pod in (with a timer - otherwise the defenders can just keep re spawning indefinitely and wipe out attackers each time) for any outdoors outpost. This way, the attackers would have to actively secure the point during the point flipping - as an attacker, I would find it more fun to have to actively patrol the point we just took rather than be forced to sit at a door.

Furthermore, the dev team doesn't have to spend a significant amount of time redesigning bases or whatnot.
Well I think this, combined with the new "Spawn Control Unit" mechanics, would be the way to go.

You wouldn't be able to camp a Spawnroom door if they are dropping out of the air, but you could still stop them from coming down by overloading the bases "Drop-pod Targeting Beacon" and screw any that made it down over by hacking all the local Equipment Terminals.

[Figment]

Why all the convoluted solutions when you can just as easily make a central building with an internal spawnpoint and the control point in the same building, linked to a variety of rooms that have to be breached, fought through a bunch of defended position all the way down to the underground spawnroom where you find a spawn disabling device outside a shielded spawnroom. You manage to get in there, take that down (overload, whatever), the spawn shield comes down, you kill what ever is left, done.

But in the meantime, defenders have had a chance to defend themselves without being camped constantly.

There's a reason the Tower Outpost design is the best designed building so far, but is still poor, because you can't (re-)enter the spawnroom to clear it out AND because it's too open and prone to assaults from all sides.

The most ridiculous thing though is that you can be shot and tank/aircav shelled in small rooms in which you HAVE to be stationary and in close proximity to a terminal, from the outside...

Do I really have to draft a ground plan to make the obvious clear? :/

...

Fine...

[ringring]

Should be like in PS1, you're not worth much in point value until you've lived for a certain period of time. Fresh spawns should be next to nothing in kill points. Current system is a roughly a one cert point gain for every two kills; 100pts per kill plus bonuses. No kill points then no cert points, possibly lesser camping or at least maybe be able to get out of a spawn to make a fight more worthwhile. Anyone who spawn camps then are padding their useless KDR stat that means squat. Of course, there will be those that will still do so.
I agree with the xp thing (also in ps1 freshly spawned didn't count towards merits), but it wouldn't solve the issue at hand.

[Figment]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PlanetSide%20Beta%20images/Outpostdesign_zpsec1b48bb.jpg (http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Forum%20Pics/PlanetSide%20Beta%20images/Outpostdesign_zpsec1b48bb.jpg)

Note that I didn't even apply a fancy shape or a basement spawn room in this (drafted this at work, didn't really have time).

PS1 Turreted Tower combined with PS2 building and a little bit of PS1 base inspiration, PS1 AT Redoubt spawn room with PS2 outpost door shields (but curved), shields in front of all the top floor rooms, protected door exits, locked external doors and a spawnroom that can't be camped, but where spawns can be taken out after people have been pushed back all the way to the spawnroom.

Vehicles can't fire directly into the spawn room or any other room than the room that the entrances lead to. IFF shields protect from blasting, but can help to harass vehicles, making infantry and non-blast vehicles (gunners?!) more important in suppressing the people inside. CC in particular is extra protected, due to players being sitting ducks around there and small groups having a chance to make a stand. Larger groups could be picked off partially through the windows. Making a stand is very important to players, feeling rapeable from four-six sides isn't that satisfaction inducing. ;)

Infils have something to infiltrate and sneakily capture and a SCU to sneakily kill. The AA turret is in a logical position as it has a 360 view, some AV (or AI) turret defenses. The four exits (and roof exit), in this case on three sides, two on a higher level, making it harder to camp from the outside and allow infantry from inside to try to find a way upstairs. Catwalks leading into other buildings connecting the central building with the remainder of the outpost. Catwalks and doors are protected by various forms of shielding (from above or to hide behind). On the other hand, a Galdrop and Jetpackers can get in easily through the top floor.

Once SCU goes down, spawn shield go down. Shields are curved so you can shoot at people camping around corners: incentive to take out SCU rather than camp the hell out of them.

It's possible for an attacker to wriggle themselves between defenders and CC, but defenders can try and retake the CC without having to get outside and pass by the 20+ one shot kill vehicles, where the drivers have to get out and into the base.

Defenders have AA and AV options built into the base. Engineers have something to do. Normal infantry can reach mid floor from three directions, but top floor is relatively protected with just one way up. Of course jetpackers can get up more easily.

Whacha think? :)

[Miir]

Having the SCU is by the spawn room makes a lot of sense. If you can push someone back to their spawn room then you should be able to end the threat by disabling the SCU.

The rest of your proposed design looks solid.

[Figment]

Note that if lagging doors is the main issue that we don't have doors in PS2, we can also have shields instead.

IFF-locked shields: Why shouldn't shields be hackable instead of doors? Not every building would need them. Interior doors could have similar replacements if there are locations where they're needed. For example, neutral blast shields that stop projectiles and grenades, but not players or small projectiles/lasers.

Maybe you can give infils and engineers with the hacking cert (including a Remote Electronics Kit (REK)?) the ability to temporarily disable and/or ENABLE them at other buildings and in that way help to fortify bases and outposts. It would make the hacking cert more attractive.

The shape of shields is also something you can discuss. Why is it a flat surface? Why not arced? Spherical? Cilindrical? Corners can be convex curves as well to create better outward angles.


I've travelled a lot on holidays across all of Europe and visited tons of castles, citadels and bunker systems from all ages. I loved analysing the building and keep layouts. The funneling systems, the variation of arrow openings and firing angles, the layout and firing angles within moat systems around star fortresses, where the various occupants were housed, location of the barracks, cellars, wells, etc wrt to the remainder. Entry points and exits. The walls always having no cover on the inside to prevent them being used by attackers, etc etc. EVERYTHING is usualy completely thought out to lengthen a siege.

Then there's PS2: It's literally knocking down open doors. Many of the small walls have no purpose and are often more advantageous to attackers than defenders, because they cover both sides, therefore trapping the defender, rather than obstructing the attacker, who can jetpack or fire over them, while the defender cannot fire back. The bigger walls have open maintenance tunnels or simply big holes in them. A lot of the bigger bases now start to slowly make more sense (aside from terminal and barracks placement). It's a good thing that you can place a Sunderer AMS inside to replace the barracks at this moment, because the barracks placement (certainly with respect to the SCU) is just asking to get taken out swiftly. In itself it's okay that barracks are close to the walls, but it's ironic that you now use an AMS to protect the CC, instead of the walls (as was the case in the past).

The Bio Lab (aside from the teleporters) now has a decent build for a defense. The only thing is that the flow from the interior of the court yard to the upper building is missing due to the teleport systems in place there. The teleports disjoint both fights instead of letting them flow from one into the other. An elaborate stairwell and catwalk system along the bottom of the Bio Dome could IMO provide an excellent replacement. Teleports should be more for empires that hold both sides of the teleport, rather than one side and these could be tied to infiltrators hacking as well.

There's a lot of potential again, but these bases have to be designed from a defender's point of view. The attacker should think in tools to dismantle the defensive position. The Jetpacker and infiltrator could have a much greater role in this. Same for transports: the Sunderer with a shield breaching role could really add, but it would have to lose the AMS role to a true AMS (groundbased AMS is a must, but can also be a semi-ranged siege vehicle, where the Sunderer is a close range siege vehicle in essence). The Sundy itself should be cheap. Till then, nobody is going to waste 400 points on a "Storm Ram"-Sundy when it can also be a very profitable AMS-Sundy.


Everything is connected in design, but I really hope that MMOFPS wargames base their systems with the idea of prolonged war in mind, not quick deathmatches.

[rambles on]

[MrBloodworth]

Note that if lagging doors is the main issue that we don't have doors in PS2, we can also have shields instead.

Blacklight Retribution does doors in 2012 right. This includes hacking. We do not have to have the "Star trek" doors of PS1.

But we need doors.

http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/567203-blacklight-retribution-windows-screenshot-hacking-a-doors.jpg

[Hmr85]

I love the look of the design Figment and I agree that if we can't get working doors that open and close then how about some shield doors you can disable through hacking?

Also wanted to comment that a complex Hacking system like what I see above for Blacklight Retribution would be awesome. (*Note I never played the game, but it looks cool from the image.)

[MrBloodworth]

Its a good system. Doors are eather hacked open, or hacked closed. Thats it. Not Star treck doors. No lag makeing doors seem open when closed ETC.

The hacking, is just a random number matching game. That could easily be expanded to include progression. IE: When locking with a high hacking skill, you add one more number combo required to open it. When Unlocking, high hacking skill could increase the time out timer.

Personal player skill, and progression. Also can be applied to hacking CC's instead of this mass on point BS. THAT is modernization and improvement of a legacy system.

FIN.

[Fear The Amish]

i think SCU's need to be put back in BUT with a minor change that when they are destroyed you can still spawn it just adds a 30 second timer or something along those lines. Also keep the open style of bases with a few changes barricade alleys so there are only 1-2 entrances, Make all doors to existing buildings only open to center, Place spawn facility as well as SCU in center of this enclosure. This would make the bases still have an open feel but make them much more defensible making them more conducive to attack/defense battles.

[Malorn]

Another idea for you...

When the new tug-o-war capture model goes in, perhaps halfway through a capture (like when the capture point has been neutralized) the defenders lose access to the spawn.

So while the fight is going on and until the attackers secure the area around the capture point for a certain period of time, defenders can spawn in. Once they have clearly lost control of the outpost then their spawn gets automatically shut down so those players can move on to other outposts, pull ams/tanks and try to push back instead of sitting in the spawn room getting camped or moving from one camped spawn room to another.

It also means that taking down the spawn is not an optional mechanic that could be abused (for further spawn camping), nor would there be animosity between the people trying to secure the objective by destroying the SCU and the people that want to not ruin "the good fight".

If your empire holds over half of the capture progress its a safe bet you've established control over the outpost and the fight is pretty much over. While you finish the cap it gives the previous defenders an opportunity to set up at their next outpost, pull vehicles, or even try to counter-attack.


Other methods of improving the situation would be to add more cover around parts of the spawn building, or even Stronghold-like walls to both protect the spawn area and give defenders a solid position with which to attack out of, instead of an easily-camped room.

[MrBloodworth]

I Dislike any idea that cuts off the possibility of a comeback. Its the base layouts. The spawn should always be the last reachable thing in a base assault. Look at ANY standard forward base protocol and the barracks are next to the command post, in the center of the base. Layout 101.

The Current outpost designs ask defenders to walk across an entire base, normally from its out most parameter, through tanks and aircraft to even begin to reclaim the capture point. Vech terms are the same way. By design, the bases put defenders at a disadvantage, not only do they not hold the courtyard, they also have the challenge of getting through the entire attacking force TO defend.

TBH, knocking out a spawn gen is a act of mercy.

[Figment]

I dislike the idea of the game telling you you've lost while you're still in the fight.


I'll ffing decide for myself if I've lost. :P Besides, if you want to stall or resecure and you have a chance at that but just need a little more time as you're almost blowing up that enemy (Sundy) AMS, you don't suddenly want to lose your spawn to an arbitrary rule you can't really work with.

50% is just a number. But in PS2 I've also saved bases that were 95% red. Couldn't have done that without a solid spawn (and despite of Mishi Overwatch camping in a Magrider from the cliff on the other side).




And besides Malorn, How many bases in PS1 were saved by getting the spawns UP with 1:00 on the clock?

[Miir]

I'd like to try out the tug-a-war model Malorn suggests as a replacement for the SCU.

However we still need better placement of spawn rooms so they aren't easily camped by vehicles.

Summary of ideas I've liked in this thread:


Bring back SCU or new tug-a-war model to remove the prolonged campy ending.
Tweak base designs so spawn rooms are more protected from vehicle spam.
Add tunnels or additional methods to move around a base without exposing yourself to vehicles.
Remove scoring kills from people that have just spawned for a period of time. Discouraging camping/farming.
Have a minimum range in which you can deploy AMS's from each other.

[Whiteagle]

If your empire holds over half of the capture progress its a safe bet you've established control over the outpost and the fight is pretty much over. While you finish the cap it gives the previous defenders an opportunity to set up at their next outpost, pull vehicles, or even try to counter-attack.
Perhaps, but is there anything notifying the greater faction of this?

Often times when I've decided a base is a lost cause, I have to return to the Warpgate and shout about it over Regional Chat just so people know what's going on.

Other methods of improving the situation would be to add more cover around parts of the spawn building, or even Stronghold-like walls to both protect the spawn area and give defenders a solid position with which to attack out of, instead of an easily-camped room.
Yeah, it's almost as if you should have been considering this in the FIRST PLACE!

I Dislike any idea that cuts off the possibility of a comeback. Its the base layouts. The spawn should always be the last reachable thing in a base assault. Look at ANY standard forward base protocol and the barracks are next to the command post, in the center of the base. Layout 101.

The Current outpost designs ask defenders to walk across an entire base, normally from its out most parameter, through tanks and aircraft to even begin to reclaim the capture point. Vech terms are the same way. By design, the bases put defenders at a disadvantage, not only do they not hold the courtyard, they also have the challenge of getting through the entire attacking force TO defend.

TBH, knocking out a spawn gen is a act of mercy.
Indeed, there are already far too many things that favor aggressive attacking in this game, especially with most base layouts making it easier to simply counterattack after loosing the territory then entrenching to defend it.

It really paints Planetside 2 as more of a "Team Death-match Shooter on Really Big Maps" then a "Planetary War of Continuous Conquest" when all the game mechanics discourage digging-in and holding ground.

[Crator]

It really paints Planetside 2 as more of a "Team Death-match Shooter on Really Big Maps" then a "Planetary War of Continuous Conquest" when all the game mechanics discourage digging-in and holding ground.

Do we even officially know what they are planning? I don't. I want to know though.

[schlikbolt]

Do we even officially know what they are planning? I don't. I want to know though.

i dont think so. however, im not sure what i would prefer tbh

[MrBloodworth]

It really paints Planetside 2 as more of a "Team Death-match Shooter on Really Big Maps" then a "Planetary War of Continuous Conquest" when all the game mechanics discourage digging-in and holding ground.

This is what we have in practice.

[IMMentat]

what I think is needed are sensible spawn buildings, 2 ground floor exits on a small room usually surrounded by easily cut-off terrain is a foolish place to put a spawnpoint.

The pattern becomes,
spawn,
shoot out of shields,
step through shield,
#tank cannon to the chest#,
watch yourself crumple into a foetal position in slow motion (probably 1-2 seconds after the sever decides to tell you that you have died),
repeat until nauseum.

IMO a layout akin to the PS1 towers would be best, 2-3 story building with several elevated firing positions to help neuter tank door-camping.
Alternativley put a man-cannon/launcher system onto the spawn points (think of the accelerator jump pads on the amp station/base wall but have them start from inside a shield bubble on the spawn roof), that way a respawn wave would at least have a chance to counter attack instead of getting tank-spammed.

second option, 1-way teleporters leading to 1-3 small but elevated/submerged guard/sniper/bunker buildings spread around the local area, shielded to prevent instant death by vehicle but vunerable to troop access (similar to the anti-vehicle shield on an amp base).

[MrBloodworth]

I was just in a battle last night where the spawn camping went on longer than the real fight for the base. Just like i posted about earlier.

Awesome. I even have pictures, because I remembered this thread. The base had a spawn building on its parameter, where all the TR troops ( That I am with ) just sat outside with tanks, aircraft, engi turrets and rifles.

This is what Planetside has become in the search for speed? In other words, Arena and death match base layouts stitched together.

[Miir]

2 weeks left to fix this. Take spawn camping out of the meta game. :)

[Tamas]

Would be more fun if defenders would get an option to choose - spawn in the room of death, or hot drop in a pod.

[Hamma]

Side note, I did see some newly designed spawn buildings that will be on Amerish that will help to prevent door spamming even more.

[Jennyboo]

Side note, I did see some newly designed spawn buildings that will be on Amerish that will help to prevent door spamming even more.

Winning :groovy:

[Miir]

Side note, I did see some newly designed spawn buildings that will be on Amerish that will help to prevent door spamming even more.

Cool... can't wait to try them out.

[Miir]

I haven't found much in the way of better spawns on Amerish. I did however find a nice bridge they added beside one of the towers to help make sure tanks can get to the same level to make camping the tower even easier.

:(


302 Found

[Figment]

I didn't see new building designs. I did see changes in layout and more obstructions in the vicinity of buildings. Also more use of high ground and terrain that slows down tanks.

[sylphaen]

I didn't see new building designs. I did see changes in layout and more obstructions in the vicinity of buildings. Also more use of high ground and terrain that slows down tanks.

Well, terrain is major to balance an area in favor of a playstyle.

Havent played yet but did they add forests in Amerish to favor troops outside bases ?

The next step would be jammers. I always considered them to be the great equalizer in PS1 and I'm still amazed they are not in PS2.
(and just to avoid being discredited as a PS1 bittervet: the jammers concept also existed in BF2142 (along with shields that acted as doors on titans to structure the combat phases of its assault))

[SixShooter]

Well, terrain is major to balance an area in favor of a playstyle.

Havent played yet but did they add forests in Amerish to favor troops outside bases ?

The next step would be jammers. I always considered them to be the great equalizer in PS1 and I'm still amazed they are not in PS2.
(and just to avoid being discredited as a PS1 bittervet: the jammers concept also existed in BF2142 (along with shields that acted as doors on titans to structure the combat phases of its assault))

We definitly need Jammers sooner rather than later.
:cheers:

[Figment]

Well, terrain is major to balance an area in favor of a playstyle.

Oh yes, but it'd help so much more if we didn't spawn in these one room sheds.

Havent played yet but did they add forests in Amerish to favor troops outside bases ?

Higher tree density, but still quite open. The ridges are comparable to trenches in some areas though.

The next step would be jammers. I always considered them to be the great equalizer in PS1 and I'm still amazed they are not in PS2.
(and just to avoid being discredited as a PS1 bittervet: the jammers concept also existed in BF2142 (along with shields that acted as doors on titans to structure the combat phases of its assault))

I believe only one class gets access to very expensive EMP grenades atm. :/

[psijaka]

Side note, I did see some newly designed spawn buildings that will be on Amerish that will help to prevent door spamming even more.

Yesterday I was spawn camped in the Talwrch power plant like base about half way down the right hand side of the map, but the 3 upstairs exits with protective balcony walls made it difficult for all of the spawn exits to be covered effectively by the attackers. I broke out the NC sniper rifle and had a great time popping up and snapping off headshots (those engi's don't seem to learn that their heads stick out above their conspicuous turret shields). Larger spawn rooms with multiple exits definately a step in the right direction.

But being spawn camped in the smaller buildings is just misery; might as well not bother if there are tanks sat outside spamming shells....

[evilsooty]

Agreed. The spawn generators were a much better idea. Perhaps they should be returned, but have them moved into somewhere a bit more defensible.

[VaderShake]

I try this crazy strategy when the spawn rooms are getting camped hard.....ready.....I spawn somewhere else...shocking I know.

[Figment]

I try this crazy strategy when the spawn rooms are getting camped hard.....ready.....I spawn somewhere else...shocking I know.

Stop being a bad troll. Spawning somewhere else doesn't fix the problem, it just means you lost territory for no reason other than that the design of the building prevented you from making a stand and the camping will proceed once that group reaches your next outpost. Boring, frustrating and unsatisfying game play.

It needs to be adressed so that skill and objective achieving/thwarting are key to taking and holding territory, instead of camping.

[Sturmhardt]

I try this crazy strategy when the spawn rooms are getting camped hard.....ready.....I spawn somewhere else...shocking I know.

Yeah, but it's a stupid mechanic anyway. A good idea would be to put a spawn generator right next to the spawn. If you can disable it (overheat it like the shield generators) the enemy does not spawn anymore. That way the camping would only be 1 minute or so long. Sounds like a solution?

[psijaka]

I try this crazy strategy when the spawn rooms are getting camped hard.....ready.....I spawn somewhere else...shocking I know.

I do this if things get bad too - but I shouldn't have to.

Perhaps we need multiple spawn rooms, or large spawn rooms with lots of exits. Or tunnels!

[Sir fraggington]

Or just create a multilevel spawnroom where there's a number of corridors between the spawnroom and exit, potentially an underground spawnroom with tunnels to various buildings with spawn control unit and control console within the same building so those guys camping actually have to get out of their tanks and fight their way in and hold positions within reach of the defenders, while the defenders can eventually use high ground to fight the tanks instead of relying on two exits that are both camped...


I was thinking about some form of battlements that can only be accessed via spawn room and give a clear view over key areas while providing cover.

[VaderShake]

Stop being a bad troll. Spawning somewhere else doesn't fix the problem, it just means you lost territory for no reason other than that the design of the building prevented you from making a stand and the camping will proceed once that group reaches your next outpost. Boring, frustrating and unsatisfying game play.

It needs to be adressed so that skill and objective achieving/thwarting are key to taking and holding territory, instead of camping.

Haha, not trying to troll, just saying that if they have the spawn area locked down you might want to cut your losses and concede the area since in my expiriance that pretty much means the fight is over there anyway.

[Figment]

Haha, not trying to troll, just saying that if they have the spawn area locked down you might want to cut your losses and concede the area since in my expiriance that pretty much means the fight is over there anyway.

It would feel as an unjust defeat though. :/ Now if you were forced off and have truly lost all control over the area, that'd be a bit different. Difference between being spawncamped and spawns having been destroyed.

SCU itself wasn't a bad idea, their placement being in entirely undefendable areas was though.

[sylphaen]

In a way, PS1 SCUs were the spawn tubes themselves. On tower outposts, you had to choose between defending spawn tubes or the control console (CC).

So there were effectively 2 ways to kick someone out:
- take control of the outpost
- destroy the spawn tubes

Since both couldn't be defended at once, it involved choices for the defenders as well as oppotunities to the attacker. A strong grip over the outpost was necessary to take it yet it still gave a chance for defenders to save the day.

It could be interesting to try such a set-up in PS2 (i.e. SCU near spawn, CC further away but protected from vehicle fire).

One issue I see is that vehicles in PS2 are too valuable for the driver to have an incentive to get out and assault. And since he is likely playing as an Engineer, he has even less incentives to go face to face with HA defenders.

[MrBloodworth]

Haha, not trying to troll, just saying that if they have the spawn area locked down you might want to cut your losses and concede the area since in my expiriance that pretty much means the fight is over there anyway.

Considering how outposts are laid out, and that the spawn room is the first building to have Vehicles, turrets and fighters swarming it. Your suggestion makes for a very boring game.

This is 100% a world design issue, and, until proven otherwise, 100% intended game play. There is no way you make game areas like this with out that intent.

[VaderShake]

Doubly Posty

[VaderShake]

It would feel as an unjust defeat though. :/ Now if you were forced off and have truly lost all control over the area, that'd be a bit different. Difference between being spawncamped and spawns having been destroyed.

SCU itself wasn't a bad idea, their placement being in entirely undefendable areas was though.

I agree, if there is a spawn generator to destroy that will help this situation IMO. I was just commenting on the game in it's current state.

Another option they could possible implement is the ability for engineers to fortify the spawn area or deploy shields around the buildings much like a min-warp gate...360 degree protection instead of just 2-3 doors (barrels to shoot fish in).

Spawn Gen would be the best option though, but then again they could still not destroy the gen and just spawn camp anyway right?

[Figment]

I agree, if there is a spawn generator to destroy that will help this situation IMO. I was just commenting on the game in it's current state.

Another option they could possible implement is the ability for engineers to fortify the spawn area or deploy shields around the buildings much like a min-warp gate...360 degree protection instead of just 2-3 doors (barrels to shoot fish in).

Spawn Gen would be the best option though, but then again they could still not destroy the gen and just spawn camp anyway right?

Well, consider the flow of battle at an AMP station in PS1, that's probably the third most comparable PS1 base to PS2's outposts, even though the AMP station is a lot bigger inside. At redoubts and module buildings, you can't kill the tubes, so those are camped per definition, but at an AMP station, it depends on the threat the tubes represent.

At an AMP station, there is relatively little incentive to actually kill the spawntubes if you have a firm grip of the courtyard, because of the semi-exterior placement of the CC. In that particular scenario, it results in pretty campy game play. However, if your pop is more even or if external pressure is rising (can be due to the third empire, can be because you are under a time schedule to move on in time to secure the next base or resecure something else and want to reduce the amount of troops needed to pin down the enemy), then it becomes far more important to take out the spawns. In PS1, if you are outnumbered by the defenders, it is imperative for you to kill the tubes most of the time if you have the option at least as soon as enemies start arriving. People even blow up equipment terminals, just in case someone makes it into the spawnroom and might bring it back up by hacking engi gear out and repairing the tubes. *cough*someonelikeFiggy*cough* Even when outnumbered and with a detached, but indoor CC, holding choke points allows you to succeed, but if spawns come up, the rate of enemies arriving at the CC and the risk of them massing for a crash increases. And since the resecure would be instant, the hold would be over once you lost control of the hold area. In PS2, that's not the case.


Yet if you compare to any indoor CC base, you'll notice that attackers feel forced to secure the spawning quite swiftly, simply because they have far longer logistics lines to the CC than the defenders do and there's just a severe risk of losing the CC. Even a focused strike by ten guys dropping in by Galaxy can force the attacker's hand to drop the gen as the spawns would come up, simply because it is that threatening to a hold. In many cases, both gen and spawns would be blown or someone would have the gen on blow up standby.

Holding with spawns up is optional, but with even pops would be extremely hectic and prone to getting resecured. All it would take is to somehow lose your spawnpoint(s) closest to the CC or one succesful push or resecure strike from the defenders.



With less AMSes and spawn options available and only a single, 20 second to minute CC exposure to defenders to see the base resecured, that risk is much greater. The Sundy deploying radius will recreate this to some extend, but fact of the matter is, there are simply more Sundies in PS2 to redeploy than there were AMSes in PS1 since not everyone in PS1 could afford it and not everyone could grab an infil suit and just turn any local vehicle point that's alive. (Hence why people would kill or boobytrap their own vpads).

Since the spawnrooms are disconnected from the often outdoor, thus easy to hit (!) CC area and all you need to do is camp a single, tiny spawnroom and because it takes a while for a CC to turn sides even if they do kill everyone around it and even if they do that, then it still takes a lot longer for the defender to actually defend the base while the attacker retains their capture progress till next attempt (not a single surgical strike), the risk of a spawn being up is much lower and even the risk of suddenly a large group of players spawning in is significantly lower, since you're already covering the only point they might spawn at with instakill tankshells. Since camping generates exp, which generates cert points, etc etc, it's very lucrative to keep it up indeed and just becomes more lucrative if more people spawn in all of a sudden.


Capture system/SCU/tubes/base layout/ease of spawn logistics/tank (numbers) vs infantry damage. They're all connected...

[Methonius]

Honestly, I agree that the spawning needs to be changed somehow for outposts and main bases they need to maybe increase the number of spawn rooms. But mainly imo they need to add the spawn rooms to the inside of the main bases in the hardest location to get to inside of them. This way it creates a more tug o war feeling. Tech plants the spawn should prob be on top, I noticed the area up there is not used much anyways I guarantee it would be attacked more from the top if this was the case. Bio labs maybe underground inside up top somewhere, create some tunnels underneath and have maybe teles that go to diff parts from the spawn room to diff locations around the gio lab. Amp station up top make another room up there. That way cant camp that shit with tanks. If you want to camp your going to have to hot drop in with a gal. Honestly they can keep the spawns they have now but add in these ones as well. Having one main spawn location at a huge base is not a good idea. For the outposts all they need is a wall around the spawn rooms to keep tanks from shelling the doorways and maybe have 2 or 3 spawn rooms make it harder to camp, its way to easy with only one spawn room. Maybe have 2 at least for outposts and 3 for big bases.

[crmchicago]

Why not make each outpost easier to defend?


This.
I have noticed that it is pretty easy to take an outpost because people would rather be attacking than defending (generally speaking), so when you have 30+ attackers roll over 10-15 defenders, its not that fun for the defenders.

[Figment]

Speaking of teleporters, I'm not a fan of non-Routerpad teleporters. Since you can't really do much about them or take them out, they either become camped with firing squads, or prevent a defender to get to the source of the problem that leaks through the teleporter.