I love to spawn camp

[Beerbeer]

I'll be honest. I love to spawn camp. I love discouraging potential new players because Sony allows me to do it. Nothing is more gratifying than launching tank shells or rocket pods into some idiot who has some false hope that he can defend. Moreover, my k/d ratio, as poor as it is, wouldn't be half as good if I couldn't do this.

Thank you Sony.

[james]

Its sad but true. Its another thing that needs to be fixed in the game.

[Huntsab]

Well if SOE used the tried and tested method of having spawns protected from the outside like in PS1. Then only lamers in the tubes would do any camping. AzK cough

[Beerbeer]

The only sad thing is Sony's thinking. I know they're not very smart, but there must have been a specific reason they did this, but I can't figure out why, unless I'm overestimating their intelligence.

[Beerbeer]

Regardless, my k/d ratio went up a point in the last two weeks since I started concentrating on this. It will continue to climb.

Not my nc character mind you. Nc sucks at spawn camping IMO.

[Bocheezu]

I just bought HE Prowler on triple station cash day, and I realize this is not new info for people but the thing is just hilariously overpowered. I drove down to Zurvan from Crimson Watch, and just sat around the corner of a mountain about a good 150m from the northern satellite, backing up behind the mountain anytime I got a lock from the 4-5 people that were trying to shoot rockets at me.

I almost felt bad for them, because one guy had the dumbfire launcher, and you could see he was trying so hard to shoot the thing before I would see him and one-shot him; he would come out the door, sprint behind a rock, and pop out and shoot the most hasty and comically off-target rocket shots in this vain effort to get one lucky shot in before he died. He tried all kinds of stuff with those rockets; he tried popping up on the rooftop of the spawn, but that didn't matter because I had the high ground and could see all the rooftops. Tried dashing between different buildings and popping out from random locations like fricking whack-a-mole, that didn't matter, I would get him with the AoE.

Why he didn't get a tank himself, I have no idea (I would have had no chance with my HE turret against a stock tank), but there are tons of people in this game that are either really dumb or really stubborn, I can't tell which.

[Beerbeer]

Prowler is 10x better than the vanguard shelling infantry. No ifs, ands or buts.

Most of my targets are br7 and below. They don't know any better. They aren't corrupted yet. They either quit or convert and considering the paltry population, they quit.

[Electrofreak]

Going to plug my dynamic XP thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=51343) as possible solution.

Well, to prevent you getting crazy XP for camping at least. Bases will need some redesign to truly fix the problem.

[p0intman]

magnify this issue until it forces their hand.

also said this in another thread but it bears repeating

[03:17:36] < P0INTMAN >so i noticed there are actually a lot of very bad players in day-z and other arma2 mods.
[03:18:15] < P0INTMAN >im actually suprised that people are shocked when I return fire
[03:24:25] < P0INTMAN >its so unsatisfying though, it isn't fucking persistant.
[03:29:44] < P0INTMAN >it would be fucking fantastic if there were an mmofps where being infantry was viable.

[Suitepee]

Since I don't use rocket pods or HE tank rounds, I don't really get to "spawn camp" like all the "good" players do. One time I used a Dalton liberator bomb on a spawn (from a friend's lib), but that's about it.

I get minimal enjoyment from spawn camping; I more enjoy killing players who have a chance to fight back.

[Beerbeer]

Not me.

Any infantry, anywhere is fair game to me.

[Crator]

Well if SOE used the tried and tested method of having spawns protected from the outside like in PS1. Then only lamers in the tubes would do any camping.

This is not true. Lamers aren't the only ones who will spawn camp. Actually, spawn camping will be more strategic if only infantry could get to them. You would either destroy the spawns and defend them from being repair or setup a small team to watch them and call reinforcements to them if they got bad.

Sometimes in PS1 taking the spawns or gen out right away was a lame move. Mostly due to the fact that you ended a fight that could have been controlled while the base was being hacked. You got more for the base hack with more fighting at the base during the duration of the hack.

EDIT: And yeah, we should be exploiting the hell out of spawns by spamming them with tank shells. How else will the issue be seen?

[PredatorFour]

I bought rocket pods just to follow in the footsteps of all the BR 50s + beyond. Abuse the OVERPOWERED after all cos this game is all about K/D ratio`s.

[Electrofreak]

...You got more for the base hack with more fighting at the base during the duration of the hack...

This made me smile. I've been thinking about how in PS1, you got crap XP for killing newly spawned players. I completely forgot that intelligent (and confident) attackers left the spawns up to allow the defenders to retaliate so that if/when they took the base, they got more XP for it.

Another example of how the dynamic XP system in PS1 motivated players to pursue fair gameplay.

Alright, I'm going to shut up now.

(Hamma, where did the beating-a-dead-horse smiley go?!)

[KaskaMatej]

I don't like spawncamping. I sometimes have to, because orders or situation, but most of the time I rather sit on a capture point.

I feel sorry for people who keep spawning at a camped spawn.

[bpostal]

Beer, your sarcasm warms my heart on this cold winter morning. :love:

Electro, I like the idea of dynamic XP as you've suggested. It may be convoluted for new players to 'get' but my guess is that we'd see some kinda formula pop up on Reddit within a week that sorts the whole thing out so I'm not too worried about them. Hell, new players are having a hard enough time getting a grasp on the game. I introduced it to my brother and he told me that if I wasn't telling him where to go and what to do he would have thrown his monitor across the room. The basics, that's what new players need tutorials for.
And yeah, keeping the tubes up was always guaranteeing a fight but IIRC that was only because there were a dozen boomers on the gen, just in case we needed to take our toys and go home ;)

[Electrofreak]

Beer, your sarcasm warms my heart on this cold winter morning. :love:

Electro, I like the idea of dynamic XP as you've suggested. It may be convoluted for new players to 'get' but my guess is that we'd see some kinda formula pop up on Reddit within a week that sorts the whole thing out so I'm not too worried about them. Hell, new players are having a hard enough time getting a grasp on the game. I introduced it to my brother and he told me that if I wasn't telling him where to go and what to do he would have thrown his monitor across the room. The basics, that's what new players need tutorials for.
And yeah, keeping the tubes up was always guaranteeing a fight but IIRC that was only because there were a dozen boomers on the gen, just in case we needed to take our toys and go home ;)

Eh, if they do it right, it won't even matter what the formula is. Nobody really knew what the formulas were in PS1 (or at least, the community didn't) and it didn't stop anyone. You took a base after a big battle, you got big XP. You took a base after a small battle, you got small XP. It just worked!

Oh yeah, I said I'd shut up. I hate it when people go in other people's threads pushing their ideas and derailing the topic, so, my bad!

[Crator]

^ Exactly, but what it did do was give the players, attackers and defenders, better control over doing something about it. That's where commanders come in, from global to squad. It was their job to instruct the other players on what do to. And they were able to do that b/c base defensibility, especially spawn locations in relation to hard points at a base (i.e. spawns, CC, GENS, main console*, vehicle terms.)

*Main console was where expert hackers could install viruses in bases.

[TheMarz]

While I understand spawn camping can be a negative part of the game if a faction is getting spawned camp they are probably going to lose the base anyways. Anyone remember PS1 spawn tubes being camped like crazy. After tubes been camped/destroyed game over for that base/tower. Only difference now people do it with HE shells. I am not arguing that adjustments need to be made and things can be improved.

Its sad that everyone focuses on the current negative parts of the game and not what is done right and the fun you can have playing. When I first started coming to PSU before and during tech/beta the conversions where positive, excited and constructive now I am wondering what the point of visiting any forums other than getting news.

[bpostal]

While I understand spawn camping can be a negative part of the game if a faction is getting spawned camp they are probably going to lose the base anyways. Anyone remember PS1 spawn tubes being camped like crazy. After tubes been camped/destroyed game over for that base/tower. Only difference now people do it with HE shells. I am not arguing that adjustments need to be made and things can be improved.

Its sad that everyone focuses on the current negative parts of the game and not what is done right and the fun you can have playing. When I first started coming to PSU before and during tech/beta the conversions where positive, excited and constructive now I am wondering what the point of visiting any forums other than getting news.

Tubes should be destroyable IMO. I don't really remember them being camped too often because of the painfields, etc. Most of the time when a group pushed into the spawns the first thing that was done was to take the tubes and terms down.
There is alot of focus on the negative portions of the game, and, I feel, alot of frustration with the game overall. The great parts of this game are really great and self evident but too may people seem satisfied with the game when it's really not living up to it's potential. (Subjective, I know but it's still my thoughts on it)

[PurpleOtter]

Meh,

As some one above said, spawn camping is a viable strategic tool. If you spawn into a room with 15 people dying to splash damage from tank/Rpod fire at the two entrances, re deploy to somewhere else.

YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST THE BASE!

All you are doing is being farmed. I can see trying at least ONCE to get do something constructive, but with the current base floor plans, it's pretty much a forgone conclusion.

Rather than act like a lemming, fall back, regroup and try to set up a counter attack/defensive perimeter. Spawn camping is another synonym for choke point control of the enemy.

YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION TO SPAWN SOMEWHERE ELSE!

Auraxis is a persistent world, the map is not going to reset. Being spawn camped is a personal choice.

[Beerbeer]

That kind of dumb thinking is the reason we have this mess and I bet Sony believes the same thing.

Vehicle to infantry spawn camping should never be allowed, ever, especially from vehicles that kill with one shot. People will abuse it.

[Huntsab]

Spawn camping is an indirect way and saying I suck at the game. It makes people rage quit. The OP is honest, I like that. He camps because he can't kill shit and I would imagine many more are in the same boat. When you lost the tubes in PS1 you had up to 15 mins to respawn at sanc get a team together and retake it at the last minute when the attackers were distracted and many times tking each other or afk. Ps2 you just do merry go round dance. How boring you guys just try PS1 when you can. If you go back to PS2 its because your eyes bleed due to the graphics

[Mox]

Spawncamping is boring. I have to do so since SOE force us to do so because of the poor base design.

[PurpleOtter]

Ok, let's turn this around. We need to punish a numerically superior, better equipped, possibly better organised and led group because they are using effective fire suppression to deny their enemy the ability to mount an effective defense.

..and this is because the people being spawn camped are ButtHurt???!!!:lol:

Seriously, don't be a Lemming, being spawn camped is a personal choice!

[Beerbeer]

It removes any chance of defense. It propagates and promotes empty base capping, a big problem in this game.

[Sledgecrushr]

Bases should be a little easier to defend. Spawn tubes should be destroyable and very defendable at the same time. Also once everything is cleared out the base should flip a little quicker. Its kind of boring sitting at an empty base waiting for it to flip.

[PurpleOtter]

I think I see the problem now.

We are confusing three different issues, although they can impact one another. The bases are designed to be indefensible, they are arbitrary places to meet to shoot at each other. This is a deliberate design choice by SOE to discourage protracted sieges.

The second issue of Zergs capping empty bases is a symptom of cert/resource/Exp territory capture game mechanics.

We are discussing the appropriate use of suppression to deny an enemy the ability to mount an effective defense. I'm serious about just pick another location to spawn at, deny the enemy the free points!

[Mriswith]

While I understand spawn camping can be a negative part of the game if a faction is getting spawned camp they are probably going to lose the base anyways. Anyone remember PS1 spawn tubes being camped like crazy. After tubes been camped/destroyed game over for that base/tower. Only difference now people do it with HE shells. I am not arguing that adjustments need to be made and things can be improved.

Its sad that everyone focuses on the current negative parts of the game and not what is done right and the fun you can have playing. When I first started coming to PSU before and during tech/beta the conversions where positive, excited and constructive now I am wondering what the point of visiting any forums other than getting news.
The problem is that this isn't always the case, atm there are a lot of times where even though the defenders outnumber the attackers, and by natural should have an advantage by being the defenders they get completely wasted due to the attackers simply having one or two gunships nuking the spawn from early on in the battle, after that it doesn't take long until ground gets into a position to spawn camp the rest of the capture timer.
It's not long drawn out fights that end in spawn camping only a short while before the base is captured but instead it's an instant spawn camp right from the get go before the base is even starting to get capture, which prevents any proper fighting from the get go.
This is especially true for any of the smaller bases which only have 2 or even 1 exit leading from spawn, it's not rare to see 2 tanks with heat / HE getting into position before the base is even starting to get attacked so that any reinforcement is going to get spawn camped before the base is even getting alerted on the map.

Personally I just find that many of the spawns are just to weakly protected against both by direct tank fire from either close or far away, and that most of the bases lack any defense against air at all.
At least against the gunships, the fighters are a lot easier to handle/avoid since most have to do hit and runs to avoid getting shot down by AA max's <- while the gunships just nuke them from far, far away

[TheMarz]

The problem is that this isn't always the case, atm there are a lot of times where even though the defenders outnumber the attackers, and by natural should have an advantage by being the defenders they get completely wasted due to the attackers simply having one or two gunships nuking the spawn from early on in the battle, after that it doesn't take long until ground gets into a position to spawn camp the rest of the capture timer.
It's not long drawn out fights that end in spawn camping only a short while before the base is captured but instead it's an instant spawn camp right from the get go before the base is even starting to get capture, which prevents any proper fighting from the get go.
This is especially true for any of the smaller bases which only have 2 or even 1 exit leading from spawn, it's not rare to see 2 tanks with heat / HE getting into position before the base is even starting to get attacked so that any reinforcement is going to get spawn camped before the base is even getting alerted on the map.

Personally I just find that many of the spawns are just to weakly protected against both by direct tank fire from either close or far away, and that most of the bases lack any defense against air at all.
At least against the gunships, the fighters are a lot easier to handle/avoid since most have to do hit and runs to avoid getting shot down by AA max's <- while the gunships just nuke them from far, far away

In that situation than yes I probably agree with you. Considering all of the "situations" that are possible in PS2 its going to be quite hard to make everyone happy. All I read on forums are complain this/that and making attacks at SOE because they don't know what they are doing. I'm sure they play the game right along with us and see what is going on.

@Beerbeer be patient we dont know what is going on behind the scenes at SOE, give them a chance to repair what needs to be fixed. At least that's my thought, make your experience ingame positive, respawn when getting camped etc.

[bpostal]

I think I see the problem now.

We are confusing three different issues, although they can impact one another. The bases are designed to be indefensible, they are arbitrary places to meet to shoot at each other. This is a deliberate design choice by SOE to discourage protracted sieges.

The second issue of Zergs capping empty bases is a symptom of cert/resource/Exp territory capture game mechanics.

We are discussing the appropriate use of suppression to deny an enemy the ability to mount an effective defense. I'm serious about just pick another location to spawn at, deny the enemy the free points!

I agree, these are both separate issues that impact one another.
I do feel you are missing the point that is brought up by the word 'defense' however.
Defense is NOT abandoning the base and counter attacking from elsewhere. Counter attacking is just that, yet another attack. Protracted sieges are/were the bread and butter of Planetside facility fights, designing against that waters down the experience significantly.

There is a subtle but distinct difference between Planetside style defense and PS2 style defense. Planetside defense is: Fight to the last man. Hold the CY, Hold the Lobby/BD, Hold the stairwell, hold the gen/cc...usually in that order. The fight was not over until the offense MADE it be over. (the wording there is weird but I can't think of a better way to put it)
Planetside 2 defense is: (in no particular order) Fight outside where vehicles reign supreme, fight inside where vehicles reign supreme, fight in the small areas where vehicles can't get at real well but if you lose ANY of those fights you're pushed back into the spawn room (with little chance of running the gauntlet from the spawns to the CC) and once you're there your only option is to QUIT the fight. You have to assault to get to the area where you should be defending. It's completely opposite and ass backward.

Again, there is a subtle but noticeable difference between the two. In one instance the defense is forced to cease fighting at that location because the gen/tubes were down and it was literately no longer an option...unless a small force still available was able to fight their way to the tubes/gen and bring it back up (which is why every Planetside player worth his/her salt will tell you that there is at least one glue gun inside their locker.) If the tubes come back up, the fight's back on again! Even a loss can be rewarding and the fights were typically high quality.

In the other, the fight either starts on the outskirts of the base and quickly fragments to small pockets of fighting across the compound, with the situation typically favoring the attacking forces or the fight begins for most with a late response, trapped in the spawn room facing a large, armored force and having to assault through to the CC. Typically unrewarding and lopsided.
Players stop spawning, not because they can't, but because the odds are stacked against them to an almost insurmountable amount. Not a rewarding feeling.
Make the tubes destroyable, remove vehicles from the inside of bases, put the spawn rooms in logical locations and add the flow back into the fight.

Do you see the difference and now understand that 'spawning elsewhere' is an unacceptable answer?

[Wizardhood]

Personally, if they had a simple option of a terminal to drop in near the spawn point with using deploy timer IMHO would fox this issue. Imagine all the people sitting in spawn drop in at the same time? Chaos and fun!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[PurpleOtter]

Oh I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, this is Planetside2 not Planetside1, the development team have been VERY clear on that point.

NO SIEGES!

Bases are currently completely indefensible:

1. Non contiguous outer walls that favor attackers with cover
2. No doors or windows
3. Floor plans with multiple entrances means your "six" is NEVER covered
4. Arbitrarily gimped turrets
5. "Clutter" in courtyards and rooms that restricts your fields of fire & view

Camping spawns is the LEAST of your problems with the current game play. The dev's said they wanted faster "game play"..Planetside2 is what we have. I hate to break the news to you, but SOE is not going to make the changes you want...EVER!

[bpostal]

Oh I understand exactly what you are saying. The problem is, this is Planetside2 not Planetside1, the development team have been VERY clear on that point.

NO SIEGES!

Bases are currently completely indefensible:

1. Non contiguous outer walls that favor attackers with cover
2. No doors or windows
3. Floor plans with multiple entrances means your "six" is NEVER covered
4. Arbitrarily gimped turrets
5. "Clutter" in courtyards and rooms that restricts your fields of fire & view

Camping spawns is the LEAST of your problems with the current game play. The dev's said they wanted faster "game play"..Planetside2 is what we have. I hate to break the news to you, but SOE is not going to make the changes you want...EVER!
If they had called it anything other than 'Planetside 2' I would be satisfied with that answer. They didn't. They made a Planetside game and then took the Planetside out. I want it back (doesn't have to be NAO!) but eventually, or I want Planetside to go f2p so there will be the pop to sustain a game of like minded players.

[PurpleOtter]

OK...

I officially change the to "CALL-of-DUTYSIDE"


..feel better...:p

[bpostal]

OK...

I officially change the to "CALL-of-DUTYSIDE"


..feel better...:p

Actually, I kinda do. The honestly is refreshing :D

[Figment]

I think I see the problem now.


We are confusing three different issues, although they can impact one another. The bases are designed to be indefensible, they are arbitrary places to meet to shoot at each other. This is a deliberate design choice by SOE to discourage protracted sieges.

The second issue of Zergs capping empty bases is a symptom of cert/resource/Exp territory capture game mechanics.

We are discussing the appropriate use of suppression to deny an enemy the ability to mount an effective defense. I'm serious about just pick another location to spawn at, deny the enemy the free points!

Clearly, you don't see the problem at all... :/ And I mean, absolutely not even close to getting it.



It takes two to have a fight.


If you tell people to leave, which btw, all the people here ALREADY DO, then... THE BASE IS EMPTY.

Since a zerg gets to the spawncamping even faster and even more relentless, THEY CAP MORE EMPTY BASES.


The thing is, WE FIND THAT INAPPROPRIATE SUPPRESSION THAT KILLS FIGHTS AND RUINS GAME PLAY AND MAKES BOTH DEFENSE AND OFFENSE BORING.


Experience points has next to nothing to do with it. You don't get it at all. :/ The CONSEQUENCE of zerging though, is getting lots of free experience points that should have been earned. You know, earning, as in, working hard to achieve something. SPAWNCAMPING IS NOT EARNING YOU ANYTHING BUT THE TITLE LAMEMEISTER.

It's not working one bit! In fact, every single system in PS2 creates both giant groups and ensures they move around one another, because they're certainly not pushing large groups into one another. Every single system, from class suits to solo-mbt/ESF to capture (mass on point) to base defenses (lack there off at outposts and too large sized ones with giant holes at big bases) caters only to zerg gameplay. Zerg. Only. Have no large amount of fodder at your disposal? You lose. Smart gameplay? Nah. Everything's negated by numbers...


MercenaryS, the top NC Werner outfit, just quit PS2. Three guesses why? Boring. No fight or challenge when attacking. Too much spawncamping. No defense. No epic holds. Just boredom, cheap kills and grinding for certs.

Only drones play that sort of game and like it.

[PredatorFour]

cheap kills and grinding for certs.

Thats probably the best description of this game you could make. Nailed it. Its like although people are having some fun now, a year from now it might get really stale.

Got told they are bringing in 4 more conts ? If thats true think of how spread out the pops will be. If they would of held the launch back and released more conts at launch, it probably wouldve worked better in the long run and kept the pops up. Hopefully these new conts will have better spawn defenses ! Can only hope lol.

[Stardouser]

Most spawns are protected by shields. Camping the door isn't spawn camping. Camping a sunderer doesn't count. Spawn somewhere else.

The problem, if there is one, is with Magriders able to barrage spawn room doors from unexpected locations, such as steep mountains, and tanks in general being able to camp spawn room doors are a problem. Singular spawn bases at outposts causes this, lack of AV turrets at outposts causes this, SOE base design policies causes this.

Perhaps spawn rooms should be partially underground and you have a short ramp up to the surface? Would reduce tanks spamming the door, and possibly liberators too.

[Figment]

Hopefully these new conts will have better spawn defenses ! Can only hope lol.

Arclegger pretty much stated in my thread with the outpost redesign that the artists are too busy working on new continents (texturing, world building, etc) to work on new bases. Even if what I proposed would be relatively quick to do.



My problem is that they're building new continents by hand and then have to completely redo everything if they come up with new spawndesigns, because they still use the same flawed design principles for the new continents. :/

[PredatorFour]

Perhaps spawn rooms should be partially underground and you have a short ramp up to the surface? Would reduce tanks spamming the door, and possibly liberators too.

Then we would have the ramps camped so it would still be the same problem. Dare i say it .... "If it were more like PS 1" ...then only infantry could possibly spawn camp because the spawns were inside the base ala bio dome.

[Figment]

Most spawns are protected by shields. Camping the door isn't spawn camping. Camping a sunderer doesn't count. Spawn somewhere else.

Camping means sitting still with overwatch on some area. If this is a spawnpoint, the tube, position or room a freshly spawned player comes out of, then it's spawncamping. Regardless if there's a shield in the way that lengthens that procedure.

To be exact, it's spawnroom-door-camping, but we all know we mean that when we say spawncamping a shack.

The problem, if there is one, is with Magriders able to barrage spawn room doors from unexpected locations, such as steep mountains, and tanks in general being able to camp spawn room doors are a problem. Singular spawn bases at outposts causes this, lack of AV turrets at outposts causes this, SOE base design policies causes this.

Of course it's a problem. :/

Perhaps spawn rooms should be partially underground and you have a short ramp up to the surface? Would reduce tanks spamming the door, and possibly liberators too.

Partially underground fine, but giving high ground to campers only makes things worse. You do know why a Light Assault stands on top of a spawnroom and not next to it? High ground is a form of hull-down cover for infantry, safe from AoE damage etc. Low ground acts as a sink for AoE things like grenades.


Making a ramp like you suggest would be like making a collection spot for AoE spam... plus, any higher hit would automatically mean a headshot. :/

The highest ground should always be accessible for the defenders. Why do you think the top floor exits are so popular at those particular spawn room buildings with no entry/exit back into the spawnroom? Because it gets you an overwatch position.

[Stardouser]

Camping means sitting still with overwatch on some area. If this is a spawnpoint, the tube, position or room a freshly spawned player comes out of, then it's spawncamping. Regardless if there's a shield in the way that lengthens that procedure.

To be exact, it's spawnroom-door-camping, but we all know we mean that when we say spawncamping a shack.


Right...I don't think it should be totally prevented, this is not Battlefield where loser admins can institute uncap rules to turn it into a duel simulator where you can never get an edge on the enemy.

That said, OK...what else can we do? First of all, it's a bigger problem at small outposts where the spawn building is like 20 foot by 20 foot square...how about:
1. More than one of them
2. An underground tunnel that exits somewhere else in the outpost, in addition to the two normal doors
3. Remote control, unhackable turrets operated from within the spawn building to provide AV
4. Armored awning over the doors to prevent high ground tanks from bombing

What else?

[Figment]

Right...I don't think it should be totally prevented, this is not Battlefield where loser admins can institute uncap rules to turn it into a duel simulator where you can never get an edge on the enemy.

Getting an edge is one thing, putting them in front of execution squads and battalions of tanks an entirely other...

You don't find THAT gamey, loser game play or whatever? :/ Really? You have something against uncap rules, but you have no problem with mass exploitation of a ridiculously easy way to kill enemy players and prevent them from even participating in the game, at all?

That said, OK...what else can we do? First of all, it's a bigger problem at small outposts where the spawn building is like 20 foot by 20 foot square...how about:
1. More than one of them
2. An underground tunnel that exits somewhere else in the outpost, in addition to the two normal doors
3. Remote control, unhackable turrets operated from within the spawn building to provide AV
4. Armored awning over the doors to prevent high ground tanks from bombing

What else?

1. Doesn't work: Divide & Conquer. No defender should want to divide their populace over holding multiple spots, that just makes matters worse. :/

2. That has come up many times, yes. An underground system complex from a centralized position with linear outward fighting would work.

3. Unnecessarily gamey.

4. That's only partial and primarily AA defense. But yes, helps.

What else?


Read this thread.
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/outpost-spawn-design-based-on-existing-building.65475/

I've posted 7 images throughout the thread, as well as Design Principles for all bases. The main thing is to create a significant infantry - infantry buffer zone leading to high ground and multi-exits. There's an incredible amount of things you can do to increase the defensiveness.


You may not realise this, but PS plays much like medeval and renaissance warfare. The only difference is the vertical Light Assault and air addition. Beyond that, you can apply any and all standard fortifications that have been used since the ancient Greeks to Vaubain.

[OCNSethy]

Ive been in many spawn room slaughters, both as the the spawner and the attacker.

In almost all occassion the facility in question had been overun and in the process of being capped... it was only a matter of time before the rooms shields would go down anyway.

In these events it was time to pull back and try and to formulate a conhesive counter-attack.

Until such time as SOE moves to limit this tactic, we must deal with it as best we can.

[ShadetheDruid]

Arclegger pretty much stated in my thread with the outpost redesign that the artists are too busy working on new continents (texturing, world building, etc) to work on new bases. Even if what I proposed would be relatively quick to do.



My problem is that they're building new continents by hand and then have to completely redo everything if they come up with new spawndesigns, because they still use the same flawed design principles for the new continents. :/

What they really could do with is just grabbing one person off that team (just one so it wouldn't overly hamper the other stuff they're doing) and have them go around all the bases just plopping down some temporary improvements to them, until they can go back and redo them properly.

Just going wild with a few billion anti-vehicle barriers and walls would be a simple and effective, but massive (albeit far from perfect) improvement.

[Stardouser]

Getting an edge is one thing, putting them in front of execution squads and battalions of tanks an entirely other...

You don't find THAT gamey, loser game play or whatever? :/ Really? You have something against uncap rules, but you have no problem with mass exploitation of a ridiculously easy way to kill enemy players and prevent them from even participating in the game, at all?


Well, I look at it this way: People cried until SOE gave them back the ability to spawn at bases within a huge radius of where they died. Yet when one particular base is surrounded, suddenly they feel entitled to keep spawning there?

But part of the problem is there's no such thing as interdicting the enemy traveling to your base. The distances are small, instant action defeats the purpose of base walls, etc. But again if the 10 people who are blindly respawning and walking out to die would stop doing that, spawn at the warpgate and pull fighters with rocket pods, they could wash death over the tanks camping them...

But yea...I skimmed your thread...base design changes can help. It's a matter of SOE putting their hand to task.

[Figment]

Well, I look at it this way: People cried until SOE gave them back the ability to spawn at bases within a huge radius of where they died. Yet when one particular base is surrounded, suddenly they feel entitled to keep spawning there?

What apparently was lost in translation is that people not only wanted to spawn, but also fight from that spawnpoint.

I've said before that SOE simply added spawn points to base design that wasn't centered around any sort of linearized, staged conquest game play, without realising how that would play out. It wasn't in their original vision and the revised vision desperately clung to the old vision to not make it costly to change the entire layout and design, where that would be required. Anyone could see it would have had to change. I don't believe anyone expected a spawnbox in the open... I certainly didn't expect that... :(

Something the people asking for the spawns to be added, expected to be there as a form of common sense. And even without that common sense, MORE fights did come from at least being able to spawn there, where before it was just a checkpoint without a fight. :/


Honestly, when I look at the entire design of the maps and bases, I can't distinguish a coherent or sense-making or even consistent design philosophy. It's very ad hoc design, without really an understanding of the place it is designed for. The modular design probably was expected to provide cheap, varied game play, where attack patterns were considered irrelevant due to expecting to appeal to some sort of CoD gameplay that would somehow naturally occur.

But of course, using deathmatch design in a conquest game, doesn't work...

But part of the problem is there's no such thing as interdicting the enemy traveling to your base. The distances are small, instant action defeats the purpose of base walls, etc. But again if the 10 people who are blindly respawning and walking out to die would stop doing that, spawn at the warpgate and pull fighters with rocket pods, they could wash death over the tanks camping them...

But yea...I skimmed your thread...base design changes can help. It's a matter of SOE putting their hand to task.

I hope so. The reinstating of an SOI to block droppods (even just with a SOI transmitter array or something - see page 8 post), would greatly help in making defense and Galaxies more viable.

[Beerbeer]

That's Sony's intention all along. Or at least their thought process. Only problem it doesn't work. People respawn elsewhere and typically go elsewhere. I'm surprised Sony hasn't seen this yet, or paid attention to it. Their intentions are totally misguided and frankly kind of dumb.

The defenders there want to defend, except they cannot even get out of the doors to try.

That's why no one defends once vehicles get nearby. It's become habit by now, except for people that don't know any better.

If Sony wants to foster more action, allow those defenders (WHO ARE ALREADY THERE) a chance to fight. Some action is better than none and would break the monotony of empty base capping. The base designs are poor.

Even outnumbered, those few defenders, if in a base of proper design, could hold out long enough for reinforcements to first, become interested and secondly to get there to help. Now, small fight outside of base, door camping, defenders scatter, fight over.

[Beerbeer]

I kind of thought about this more, and their reasoning behind these design decisions. While I cannot get into smedly's head, there has to be a fundamental reason for the drastic change from infantry to vehicles in comparison between ps1 and ps2.

I remember in ps1 there were some really good players and outfits that could utterly dominate the indoor infantry game. A few of these players could hold a tower for hours against a larger force of average players. Third person view (which is gone) and the uber-skilled jackhammer/MCG/lasher (to a lesser extent)/decimator user could wreak havoc.

Maybe they were afraid of that? These ultra-skilled people just dominating things again, exerting their influence at will. Maybe they were afraid it would scare people off?

Now I'm just speculating, but with the way bases are setup, spammable vehicles that one-shot, weak heavy assault weapons (they are obviously deathly afraid of the jackhammer considering its current state), no third person view, Sony went out if its way to ensure this would never happen.

The only problem is that they didn't realize the complete opposite is even more detrimental to the health if the game.

Again, I'm just speculating. They killed infantry play and maybe this is the reason, not the only reason, but one that sat in the back of their minds during the design process.

They need to bring it back IMO. Things have tilted too far the other way and people are getting bored and leaving.

[Hamma]

I see this come up time and time again but I see no way you could ever solve "Spawn Camping" it is suppressing the enemy whilst you capture territory or bases. It is a tactic that is extremely useful - are you supposed to just let people spawn over and over at a facility you are attacking just so you can be nice to them?

Maybe we should make everyone spawn in the WG to prevent "Camping"

[Beerbeer]

Isn't that the whole point of this game, to fight? You're insinuating that people should empty base cap. Like I said, when people respawn elsewhere, they usually don't come back, at least not all of them. Anything to garner more action is beneficial to all, IMO.

Utilizing those defenders, while they are already there is something that should be fostered, not repressed.

[Miffy]

Yup I have friends who played for the first time, got spawn camped and just quit the game and haven't returned.

Easy way to fix it.

Make more internal space in bases and make it so it has multiple exits and lots of space and the enemy cannot get in there until they cap. This satisfies players that they aren't being spawn camped and gives them the belief they can come up with a plan.

What people get frustrated in is if they spawn in a room and cannot leave without dying right away.

[bpostal]

I see this come up time and time again but I see no way you could ever solve "Spawn Camping" it is suppressing the enemy whilst you capture territory or bases. It is a tactic that is extremely useful - are you supposed to just let people spawn over and over at a facility you are attacking just so you can be nice to them?

Maybe we should make everyone spawn in the WG to prevent "Camping"

Bring back destroyable tubes. Problem solved there.
If we can nullify spawn camping by vehicles then I think we'll have gone a long way towards getting people to defend.

[PurpleOtter]

Notice how the conversation has come full circle back to:

1. Base and meta game design is the under lying issue.
2. Spawn camping is in fact a viable strategic tactic in THIS game.

Most if the issues players have with spawn camping are due to the fact that in a traditional FPS, with small maps, camping the only spawn point IS lame. The intended objective in PS2 is territory conquest, not personal dueling. Denying the enemy the ability to defend an objective is valid, they can spawn some where else. You can't do that in other games. Unfortunately some bad design decisions by SOE has led to the "Wandering Zerg" game play we have now.

Don't be a lemming, being camped is a personal choice!

[bpostal]

Notice how the conversation has come full circle back to:

1. Base and meta game design is the under lying issue.
2. Spawn camping is in fact a viable strategic tactic in THIS game.

Most if the issues players have with spawn camping are due to the fact that in a traditional FPS, with small maps, camping the only spawn point IS lame. The intended objective in PS2 is territory conquest, not personal dueling. Denying the enemy the ability to defend an objective is valid, they can spawn some where else. You can't do that in other games. Unfortunately some bad design decisions by SOE has led to the "Wandering Zerg" game play we have now.

Don't be a lemming, being camped is a personal choice!

I know this is a conversation we've had before, but still...spawn camping in any game is lame and the result of poor mechanics.
I agree denying the enemy is a valid tactic but can be addressed much more intricately by adding the ability to go in and destroy the spawn tubes to force the defending team to stop spawning. If a defending force can't stop the offense from coming in and destroying the tubes (destroy them instead of camp them) then really the defense deserves to lose.

[Figment]

I see this come up time and time again but I see no way you could ever solve "Spawn Camping" it is suppressing the enemy whilst you capture territory or bases. It is a tactic that is extremely useful - are you supposed to just let people spawn over and over at a facility you are attacking just so you can be nice to them?

Maybe we should make everyone spawn in the WG to prevent "Camping"

Hamma, are you deliberately not reading all the threads on this issue, or just sharing your thoughts without ever reading the thread?


Because just because spawndoorcamping is ALWAYS going to be possible at SOME point, doesn't mean it should be:

1. Endless
2. Easy
3. By three unit types (infantry, vehicles and air) at once.

All those three specific things can be VERY EASILY dealt with individually.

1. SCU
2. SCU very close to spawns. Camping only be done from level ground angles (no roof angles, no long range angles) and within the enclosed proximity of CQC areas. camped can uncamp themselves due to direct camping positions not being ideal camping positions and within range of camped
3. Create a buffer zone between spawn and building exit for infantry combat exclusively. This should contain the CC and SCU as well, so that's dealt with in one go. Create a buffer zone outside the building exit, with:

A. Infantry combat primarily, followed by an area from which camping vehicles can be fired upon, followed by an area which aircraft can fire at. By simply obstructing vehicles and dispersing chokepoints into multi-chokepoints through the use of barriers with a roof overhead.

B. Infantry to AA zone on high ground, where any exits are protected from direct AA fire and again the roof choke point exit is dispersed into several covered exits, semi-protected from ground fire, which can be used primarily to deal with aircraft. Edges of this area can provide overwatch cover fire for the above mentioned area. Primarily usable entrypoint for Light Assault and Galaxy Drops.




It's not at all hard to implement. It just takes more space than a tiny little room with no cover around it.


Hamma, you may not be able to imagine it right now, but that still doesn't mean one should accept the current situation.



Do you recall what the inside of the front door of an Interlink lobby looks like? That big wall that creates two exits out of one entrance?

_______________________________________


[INDOOR AREA]


..........===[blast wall]===..........
..........<--................-->..........
========||-[door]-||========
..........-->[wide roof]<--..........
[cover]===[blast wall]===[cover]


[OUTDOOR AREA]

_______________________________________

Imagine that only on the outside (and the wall on the inside), with additional roofing like on the walls and bridges of PS2. Then some cover to hide behind and return fire at tanks. If it's a really important entrance, you can add several rows of cover in front or to the side of that using the same principle of covering the opening with a barricade.


Would this door get camped with vehicles?

Sure.

Would the camping alone be enough to beat the defenders?

No.

Would it be harder to take and easier to defend?

Yes.

Would it be impossible to take and impossible to defend?

No.

Would all unit types (infantry, ground vehicles and air vehicles) each have shots on the door itself and whoever gets out? No.

Would it be possible to fight back against campers and use suppression fire as a defender?

Yes.



You see Hamma? It's pretty damn simple.

[Cajual]

I'll be honest. I love to spawn camp. I love discouraging potential new players because Sony allows me to do it. Nothing is more gratifying than launching tank shells or rocket pods into some idiot who has some false hope that he can defend. Moreover, my k/d ratio, as poor as it is, wouldn't be half as good if I couldn't do this.

Thank you Sony.

You're the type of idiot noob I can easily farm from behind the wall... Kudos to you and thanks again for the XP scrub..

[Beerbeer]

I was being sarcastic...

[PurpleOtter]

Taking out an SCU IS spawn camping, only permanent, it completely removes the choice of the defenders from coming through the choke point if they want to. The "Mexican Standoff" at the back door of the Tech Plants, before they were fixed, is an example of how NOT to design a base. Given the fact that it has been intimated that SOE does not have the resources for a full base redesign for the current Continents, we are stuck with our current situation.

They could make splash damage one way at the spawn point doors, in favor of the defenders. It would give them a slight advantage, and the possibility to push out. I think we are going to be stuck with modifications to the current situation that are never going to be entirely acceptable.

[Frotang]

They need to make spawn beacons deployable inside spawns again, then an organized squad could actually attempt a quick re secure.

[Electrofreak]

You're the type of idiot noob I can easily farm from behind the wall... Kudos to you and thanks again for the XP scrub..

Epic sarcasm detection failure there.

[Figment]

Taking out an SCU IS spawn camping, only permanent, it completely removes the choice of the defenders from coming through the choke point if they want to.

That's not spawncamping. Spawncamping is sitting around for a period of time waiting for people that spawn(ed) at that locaiton to come into a position where you can shoot them (typically well before they can do something about it). THAT is spawncamping.



An SCU is called a spawn denial objective: taking away a spawning opportunity through objective gameplay. In PS1, the tube was both the spawn and SCU. Hence that resulted in camping. The shield (which too could, and IMO should, be controlled by the SCU) prevents camping the tubes, but simply moves it a few yards to a door.


The idea behind the SCU itself isn't bad. Just the way SOE implemented it at first: in dependance buildings sometimes on the other side of the base. Far, far, FAR out of reach of defenders. :/ The furthest one I saw during beta (think it was near Mao?) was around 150m away across an open field, two roads and a hill.


150m away.


...


How the hell would one get there with an engineer and even if you get there, how the hell would you keep it up?

Speaking of indefensibility... It's in general ridiculous how spread out the objectives are. As attacker, you don't have to wade through some enemies to reach it, because there's no linearity to the routes you would take to get there that force you to pass through manned defense lines in their vicinity (meaning actively manned and which can be held by a squad or platoon). :/




Anyway. One of the other things they should bring back is deconstructing at a spawnpoint to avoid the redeploy timer (which is basically /recall and /suicide is instant /recall).

[PurpleOtter]

I was comparing spawn camping to SCU destruction in the context of strategic denial of being able to spawn, not the specific definition of being "camped"...

As to being able to deconstruct, my personal choice would be to allow transport, in both directions between the warp gate and any Empire held spawn tube. Step into the tube and appear at the destination. It would make defending territory easier.

[Figment]

I was comparing spawn camping to SCU destruction in the context of strategic denial of being able to spawn, not the specific definition of being "camped"...

Well yes, but the difference is that one pisses off players as they feel they should be able to defend (camping), while the other (if in a position where it's their own fault they lost the SCU), it feels like a defeat which you did all you could have done for and fair enough to the other side for being able to take it down. As a buddy of mine puts it, the moment they fought all the way to the spawn tubes in PS1, you knew you had done all in your power to try and stop them as when the tubes fell, you fell with them in the same moment.

Camping has an entirely different sentiment and the ease and frequency with which it is done now just infuriates those trying to play for competition, control and land.

If we're not supposed to fight there, then the spawns should be out. But it shouldn't "just go out", because then it kills fights.

[OCNSethy]

If the spawn room is camped,,, why spawn there? You know your going to die, just like the 10 other times before. Just dont spawn there... spawn somewhere else and form up a counter-attack. Is it really that hard?

[Figment]

If the spawn room is camped,,, why spawn there? You know your going to die, just like the 10 other times before. Just dont spawn there... spawn somewhere else and form up a counter-attack. Is it really that hard?

There aren't any people in this thread that keep spawning there.

Is it really that hard to understand it's not an issue of incompetence?


Hamma, if people keep making these statements, you have got to start adding a test for forum sign up that checks for attentionspan and analytical IQ. :p

[OCNSethy]

There aren't any people in this thread that keep spawning there.

Is it really that hard to understand it's not an issue of incompetence?


Hamma, if people keep making these statements, you have got to start adding a test for forum sign up that checks for attentionspan and analytical IQ. :p

Thank you for adding to my understanding. Tell me, does this game bring out the best in you or where you just born a smart arse?

[Figment]

Thank you for adding to my understanding. Tell me, does this game bring out the best in you or where you just born a smart arse?

The potential was always there, people like you bring out the best of it.


Please try and realise people might genuinly not like the game play of being forced to leave, in this manner. Assuming incompetence of being able to make the judgment to recall and go elsewhere is simply you being insulting and non-constructive nor contributing to fixing the perceived problem. But thank you, Captain Obvious, for letting us know it's unhealthy to walk into AoE OHK tankshells.

[OCNSethy]

Well, Im glad I could assist you in some small manner :)

[Crator]

Guys, most of Beerbeer's statements are sarcasm as of late. Just read all of what he says that way and you'll be good... ;)

Oh, and learn to read through the posts in a thread. It will help with blind posting....

[Stardouser]

There aren't any people in this thread that keep spawning there.

Is it really that hard to understand it's not an issue of incompetence?


Hamma, if people keep making these statements, you have got to start adding a test for forum sign up that checks for attentionspan and analytical IQ. :p

There certainly are in game even if no one in this thread does. Honestly though the problem is not spawn camping in the overall sense, but the poor base design that allows just 2 tanks or 2 liberators(perhaps even one if they're good) to bombard a spawn building especially magriders who can easily strafe away from non-lock AV or strafe to put a small part of their hull behind a rock to block lockons. If 20 infantry are suppressing the spawn base, then it's truly lost and needs to be conceded - nothing should be done about that.

Of course I had another thought...sunderers have a very fast respawn compared to defenders, and I know I mentioned SOI before about drop pods, but you can park a sunderer right next to a spawn building too. When you combine faster respawn with close distance, it would take defender infantry outnumbering attacker infantry by a lot in order to bust out. And even if any did bust out, one engineer would probably keep the damage repaired to the sunderer. Obviously this example is infantry only and ignores involvement of tanks and air.

Honestly though, simply empowering defenders is not the answer, especially at major bases, as long protracted sieges that only require numbers to drag out forever are undesirable. Case in point - tech plants. Due to the ability to purchase and deploy sunderers inside the capture point building, tech plant battles can go on forever. I think we need to prevent sunderer deployment inside there, and adopt a multiple SCU approach - give a base like that 3 SCUs- two located outside the main tech plant building, one inside. If all 3 are active, spawn time is same as a sunderer. Loss of the first 2 SCUs adds 5 seconds per and loss of all three SCUs adds a total of like 20 seconds to spawn times.

Those are just example numbers to convey the idea.

[Beerbeer]

Guys, most of Beerbeer's statements are sarcasm as of late. Just read all of what he says that way and you'll be good... ;)

Oh, and learn to read through the posts in a thread. It will help with blind posting....

Cynicism always has a tinge of truth buried inside.

I was being sarcastic to show a point. I'm not always sarcastic. Sarcasm > apathy > contempt.

[PurpleOtter]

We are all feeling at least some disappointment. Think about it, we would not be here arguing this much about a video game if we didn't care. I think the cynicism wouldn't be quite so pervasive if SOE at least chimed in once an a while on these issues. There are some fundamental problems with the game and some times it seems like we are screaming in the wilderness and no one is listening...

[Miffy]

We are all feeling at least some disappointment. Think about it, we would not be here arguing this much about a video game if we didn't care. I think the cynicism wouldn't be quite so pervasive if SOE at least chimed in once an a while on these issues. There are some fundamental problems with the game and some times it seems like we are screaming in the wilderness and no one is listening...

I asked a shit load of questions to Higby on a live stream earlier this month or late November and every answer was no.....

[Crator]

Cynicism always has a tinge of truth buried inside.

I was being sarcastic to show a point. I'm not always sarcastic. Sarcasm > apathy > contempt.

Yes, it's why I added "as of late" to the sentence. I only said that because it looked as though some people were posting in this thread after reading only you OP and not getting that it is sarcasm.

[Figment]

There certainly are in game even if no one in this thread does. Honestly though the problem is not spawn camping in the overall sense, but the poor base design that allows just 2 tanks or 2 liberators(perhaps even one if they're good) to bombard a spawn building especially magriders who can easily strafe away from non-lock AV or strafe to put a small part of their hull behind a rock to block lockons. If 20 infantry are suppressing the spawn base, then it's truly lost and needs to be conceded - nothing should be done about that.

Camping shouldn't be the way to conquer. Camping should be a liability to the attackers, not an asset. There should be so much lurking doom coming from the spawns that you want to take it out, for which you would have to fight. That can easily be accomplished by base layout. If you have. Twenty people camping you should be able in another base layout, to make an attempt for taking out the SCU, or the CC.

By fighting and securing objectives and taking them out of the hands of the defenders, not camping. How many fights over the CC in random outposts do you currently have? Can the defenders get there at all in every case? Are they exposed to all forms of attack? If the defenders are facing too many threats at a single time, or are exposed to non-infantry fighting for the CC - in fact, if it takes crossing he majority distance of a base, it is badly designed. 40-50m through indoor cqc fighting suffices for an attacker to find an opening.

Of course I had another thought...sunderers have a very fast respawn compared to defenders, and I know I mentioned SOI before about drop pods, but you can park a sunderer right next to a spawn building too. When you combine faster respawn with close distance, it would take defender infantry outnumbering attacker infantry by a lot in order to bust out. And even if any did bust out, one engineer would probably keep the damage repaired to the sunderer. Obviously this example is infantry only and ignores involvement of tanks and air.

Ams respawn should be faster, the defender would have the advantage of a solid, protected spawnpoint, whereas an ams can be destroyed by force in a short time. The spawntime being shorter would compensate for the stronger defensive, fortified positions of the defenders - which of course should mitigated larger numbers.

Honestly though, simply empowering defenders is not the answer, especially at major bases, as long protracted sieges that only require numbers to drag out forever are undesirable. Case in point - tech plants. Due to the ability to purchase and deploy sunderers inside the capture point building, tech plant battles can go on forever. I think we need to prevent sunderer deployment inside there, and adopt a multiple SCU approach - give a base like that 3 SCUs- two located outside the main tech plant building, one inside. If all 3 are active, spawn time is same as a sunderer. Loss of the first 2 SCUs adds 5 seconds per and loss of all three SCUs adds a total of like 20 seconds to spawn times.

Those are just example numbers to convey the idea.

I would say the NTU system requiring resupplies would be more attractive. But yeah the tech plant - like everything else really - was poorly designed with little knowledge of what the fight flow would be like...

[Boomzor]

If I remember correctly, spawning on an AMS was generally a few seconds longer than spawning in facilities in PS1.
I also have a vague memory of biolab benefit (faster respawn) were only applied to towers and bases, but I could be wrong about that.
Both those things favoured the defender quite elegantly. Until the attacker had gained a foothold at a tower (which also gave them access to MAXes), but attacking infantry usually still relied on forward AMS's.

For some reason it's the opposite in PS2.

[yadda]

I don't understand why spawn camping in this game is perceived as a negative. It's the only way to successfully capture a base. What are the alternatives? Let them drop pod back in and kill the guys with bad pc's before they can load? Give them immunity so they can run around and line up shots?

If a base is lost, the base is lost. The only people being spawn camped are doing it by their own volition. Personally, if all the points are taken on a base and leaving the door leads to instant death I redeploy and leave.

There is no such thing as spawn camping in this game; a much more suitable term would be suicide because they are doing it to themselves and not being victimized. And the issue of an AMS getting spawn camped? Well, I don't know about your server but there is so much competition for those that they tk each other. Go to a different one that isn't on the verge of destruction or TK your engineer repairing it and causing the massacre. A lot of times I end up "spawn camping" an AMS is because I literally cannot break it through all of the repairs and when heavies start popping rockets at me I shoot them then get back to a full health sunderer. Next thing you know, I'm out of ammo and 93/0. My bad.

[Mriswith]

I don't understand why spawn camping in this game is perceived as a negative. It's the only way to successfully capture a base. What are the alternatives? Let them drop pod back in and kill the guys with bad pc's before they can load? Give them immunity so they can run around and line up shots?

The issue is that the goal is to capture the base and push the enemy back to their spawn, it's not supposed to be a instant spawn camp from the start so that the attackers can then later capture the base in their own time.
You often see bases where 30 attackers are camping spawn and 1 or 2 out of 6 possible are actually capturing the base.
It's turned from a battle to capture the base to a battle to spawn camp the enemy, where the actual capture isn't really important.

[yadda]

The issue is that the goal is to capture the base and push the enemy back to their spawn, it's not supposed to be a instant spawn camp from the start so that the attackers can then later capture the base in their own time.
You often see bases where 30 attackers are camping spawn and 1 or 2 out of 6 possible are actually capturing the base.
It's turned from a battle to capture the base to a battle to spawn camp the enemy, where the actual capture isn't really important.

If 30 attackers are able to run right up and spawn camp you from the get go then that base was never defensible to begin with. This isn't Mordor we're talking about here, there's a point in time where you just have to let go and leave a base. There's a very fine line between persistence and stupid and you cross it when you expect to survive a 30 vs 2 scenario and keep respawning at a base until it gets captures just because you can.

There is no way to sugar coat losing a facility. You lose it, you're going to get killed and if you keep going back they will keep killing you until it turns. That's what happens in FPS games. Except in this one, you can press escape and go somewhere else very easily and regroup with your team.

Do I camp the doors? Oh yes I do, I keep them in there so the footsoldiers and the people too "honorable" to hop in tanks can do their work unmolested. Iv never in my entire 200+ hours seen a base just get camped without people capping the area. I'm sorry, I just can't relate with that made up scenario and if it happens it's an outfit organized thing and not common tactics because someone ALWAYS caps it for certs.

[Electrofreak]

Yeah, nobody could really complain about spawn camping in PS1. If you were getting spawn camped in a base, it was because the defenders had lost the fight.

In PS2, the way to take a base is TO spawn camp so that the defenders cannot defend the base while you take down the generators. It's backwards from the way it should be, and mainly because the spawn building is a separate building in PS2, whereas it was buried in the heart of a base in PS1.

[Beerbeer]

It's not that yadda.

Will the base be lost even if there was no vehicular spawn camping? Probably.

The fact of the matter is that current state ensures people will flee once it reaches that point, then we're left with ten people standing around the capture point, twenty people in tanks, fifteen people in libs and esfs floating overhead doing nothing.

Sony probably thought that these defenders will respawn elsewhere and come back with vehicles. That rarely happens and even if it does, those attackers are long gone by the time that happens and we're left with a merry-go-round.

Base takeover is too easy. It should be made more difficult for everyone's benefit, attackers and defenders alike. The problem is by design, yet their intentions of how it should play out differs greatly from how it actually plays out.

[Mriswith]

Yeah, nobody could really complain about spawn camping in PS1. If you were getting spawn camped in a base, it was because the defenders had lost the fight.

In PS2, the way to take a base is TO spawn camp so that the defenders cannot defend the base while you take down the generators. It's backwards from the way it should be, and mainly because the spawn building is a separate building in PS2, whereas it was buried in the heart of a base in PS1.
I never played PS1, but I can't really see why they positioned most of the spawns as they did, in a lot of the small camps 2 light tanks with heat rounds can more or less solo camp the spawns from any reasonably sized group defenders.

And for a better example for what I typed earlier, I earlier today had a The Crown battle where we had at least 60-70 man inside the base, all the 3 capture points were ours (in color at least) and everything was looking good, then it all went down hill because instead of actually capturing the base we had 1/2, 1/2 0/2 on the capture points, no matter how much I yelled no one got their ass over to the points and so in the end we lost the base with something like 85% capture completion.
And the point I'm trying to make is that out of those 70 people there wasn't another 4 players that actually wanted to focus on taking the base instead of simply camping the spawn for kills / score.

I really think they should make the spawns a more integrated part of the base both in terms of making it more defensible (both the base and the spawn) and to get people to actually focus on the objective instead of score/kills/xp.

[Beerbeer]

Vehicular spawn camping just has to go. The problem is two-fold:

1. Ease of vehicle access that can just mow through infantry (power to access ratio is way off kilter)
2. Base design

Eliminating vehicular spawn camping will go a long way to actually encouraging more people to defend. Not only that, tougher bases will give the defenders more time, possibly allowing help to arrive while the attackers are there, moving the action back to the outskirts where vehicles can slaughter each other.

This massive vehicle VS vehicle world they're trying to nurture is having the complete opposite effect. They are going the wrong way.

[yadda]

It's not that yadda.

Will the base be lost even if there was no vehicular spawn camping? Probably.

The fact of the matter is that current state ensures people will flee once it reaches that point, then we're left with ten people standing around the capture point, twenty people in tanks, fifteen people in libs and esfs floating overhead doing nothing.

Sony probably thought that these defenders will respawn elsewhere and come back with vehicles. That rarely happens and even if it does, those attackers are long gone by the time that happens and we're left with a merry-go-round.

Base takeover is too easy. It should be made more difficult for everyone's benefit, attackers and defenders alike. The problem is by design, yet their intentions of how it should play out differs greatly from how it actually plays out.

Outpost turnover rate is intentionally high to promote dynamic play, there just aren't enough players to support it any more. No one really cares about those little baby 1 point bases, they flip all the time. You can't spawn camp the important facilities with tanks. Biolob/amp station/tech plant fights go on for hourrsssssss.

[Beerbeer]

The only thing it promotes is merry-go-round. Re-read my last two posts.

Having tougher bases draws people into the action as the fight is prolonged. Now, it's too dynamic for the issues I outlined above.

[yadda]

Those kinds of fights happen all the time at and around certain areas, there just isn't a large enough player base to support combat EVERYWHERE any more. During launch it was great, but it has shrank dramatically. Gotta get everyone in the server on the same continent somehow to keep bodies rolling out the gate and spawn camping wouldn't be an issue. It only happens when one side is outnumbered heavily. It doesn't make sense to see two giant armies clash over some stupid tent in the woods that doesn't even have an ammo dispenser anyway.

[Beerbeer]

And you wonder why it shrank? I have a good theory...and it has a lot to do with what we're talking about.

The tech plants were a good example. Those looking for action could find it. It was a cool ebb and flow. Vehicle action sprang up all around it.

If the defenders wanted to camp there, so be it, they risk losing everything else. It was like the crown, but at more bases. People actually got to engage in fighting instead of empty base capping.

I would surmise to guess that the majority of people left playing are vehicle whores and/or don't want tough fights and just want to overwhelm and farm infantry, spawn camp and collect the takeover experience. This is what we're left with.
And soon enough, even these people will get bored. It's a nasty habit we're left with thanks to devs grand vision that went haywire.

[PurpleOtter]

It's like there are three "pet" concepts that are being held onto despite the clear indications that they are not working.

1. The territory capture mechanic and the refusal to implement a lattice system.

2. Bad base design for the sole purpose of "game flow" .

3. The certification/EXP/station cash/unlock mechanic that does not promote the intended game play.

[Babyfark McGeez]

It's like there are three "pet" concepts that are being held onto despite the clear indications that they are not working.

1. The territory capture mechanic and the refusal to implement a lattice system.

2. Bad base design for the sole purpose of "game flow" .

3. The certification/EXP/station cash/unlock mechanic that does not promote the intended game play.


Add these Issues:

[4. Lack of any true strategic "metagame", like the / a "mission system" and persistant battlefield modifications (RTS elements basically)]

[5. Bad / confusing UI design and lack of customization options]

and you have list of all things wrong with Planetside 2.