Remove camping spawn buildings from meta game

[Sturmhardt]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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]

Originally Posted by Figment

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]

Originally Posted by VaderShake

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]

Originally Posted by Miir

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.