The godawful spawncamping issue - Page 11

Ghoest9 · 2012-11-18, 08:39 AM

The only way to stop spawn camping is to not allow people to spawn.

I much prefer deciding when a base is lost myself(asit is currently in game) rather than than letting the game decide for me(as the whiners want).

If you are too dumb, to not let people farm you - go play BF3

TheStigma · 2012-11-18, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

You need to learn to think out of the box more. You only think in super-fortress the moment you hear defensibility. Yes, there are degrees of defense, but having none is not an option. The mere size of an outpost already determines the defensibility of said outpost.

Look at the differences in defensibility of the Tower of London:
And that's apparently the best we can do.

Just awesome post(s) in general... and illuminating

It doesn't take very much thinking to realize that it would be easy to nearly nullify vehicle camping if you wanted to. All you need to do is have the spawn be in a building that has multiple exits - preferably at multiple levels - and/or has protected pathways (tunnels/hallways/teleports) to other buildings. I think the basic tower in PS1 demonstrates this. It only had a few exists but was still resistant to camping - or at least required many vehicles of several types (you needed air-units to cover the upper exists) to lock down all the exits. Also to actually capture the tower you would inevitably have to send your own infantry inside to secure it, so just camping it didn't get you very far. If you wanted to further add more anti-camp sauce to that type of design then just add more exits (or exit-options like a teleport or a jump-pad that shoots you out of a shielded door). With enough options it eventually becomes non-trivial to lock down all possible exits. For sure - a box with only two (sometimes just ONE) tiny door in the middle of otherwise open terrain is a design that is only possible to improve upon no matter how you change it...

The metagame of PS2 will evolve and work around this problem even if it dosn't get fixed (some people seem already resigned to it apparently, sadly...) but I think the enjoyment of the gameplay as a whole will suffer simply because people hate pointless waiting - and that is exactly what this current mechanic basically mandates - pointless waiting over actual fighting. It will quickly get tiresome, and it is the kind of thing that makes you get bored of a game that much faster.

-Stigma

TheStigma · 2012-11-18, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Chewy

If the war was going on for those 200 years then I would be on the side of walling everything up as that what those buildings where made for, wartime. But that isn't in the lore.

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that we should make the bases conform to lore rather than to facilitate good gameplay...

The lore can quite frankly go F itself. The game first and foremost needs solid, fun gameplay with good flow. Lore is the little extra icing you put on top of that once the cake has baked - and you make it fit the cake rather than the other way around. If you are putting cake on top of your icing you are doing it wrong...

-Stigma

Buggsy · 2012-11-18, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by elfailo

Apparently their amazing Forgelight engine can't handle underground structures. This is what I gathered from the official forums.

Any engine that's capable of running a MMOFPS is an amazing engine.

The Heavy · 2012-11-18, 09:37 AM

As I've been saying a lot. Replace the current building with an unground facility, hack able doors, destroy-able tubes, all connected via small corridors ala PS 1 and life will be that much better.

TheStigma · 2012-11-18, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by Piper

What issue?

Spawn camping is, and always has been, relative. If your team is dieing more often than you're killing you're being camped in a way, it just isn't obvious till it's happening right outside the door/shield. Same as it ever was.

Oddly enough killing more of the enemy than your team is dieing to them is kinda how we take bases quite often in the first place. Same as it ever was.

It takes two to tango, a camper and a campee, for spawn camping to occur, don't like that you feel you're being camped then do something about it? You have plenty of spawn options in Ps2, just like Ps1, spawn elsewhere and come back at the enemy again if you like, with vehicles. Same as it ever was.

Being locked into a spawn area because to leave it is near on certain death is generally a good indication that you have, or are about to, LOSE. Accept it, move on. Same as it ever was.

Now should Ps2 have, by design, more destroyable spawn points like Ps1 had, (think about the caves that didn't have any and that camping was utterly necessary in them), maybe yes....or players can adjust their attitude to what is going on in the game. Same as it ever was.

To give defenders continual options to perpetuate fights is not going to help the games dynamic though.

I don't agree Piper.

Yes, of course we could just make spawns destroyable - or something similar like adding back SCUs. They had that in at some point after all. All that would do would be to replace the spawncamp with a spawn-block. That would prevent clueless newbies from having a bad experience by walking into inevitable death but it wouldn't really add much of value to the gameplay. Outposts would still fall redicolously fast, and then the defenders have to sit there and basically do nothing for a long time - BOOOOOORING (I think everyone agrees on that).

You remember why they removed the SCUs in the first place? Mainly because it trivialized taking an outpost. One or two guys could go in - disable the SCU before anyone had time to react - and then it was just a matter of withstanding some mindnumbing boredom before you captured the base. Well that is why they removed the SCUs, but they just forgot that without also changing the spawns nothing really changed. The spawns just became the new SCUs in effect - and pure pointless waiting got replaced with almost equally mindnumbing spawn-camping.

I have to agree largely with Figment on this issue. There ARE ways of designing this so that we replace the "waiting around to finish the capture" time with "fighting to hold the point until the capture can finish" time - and every sane person will admit that they would much rather be engaged in a proper fight during those several minutes rather than (a) just waiting or (b) spawncamping and maybe getting a few really cheap kills. Attackers and defenders both will have a much more fun time if you simply can't shut down the defence completely until you actually flip the base (and thus can move on to the next objective directly if you feel like it without being forced into mandatory tedious tasks).

-Stigma

Buggsy · 2012-11-18, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by The Heavy

As I've been saying a lot. Replace the current building with an unground facility, hack able doors, destroy-able tubes, all connected via small corridors ala PS 1 and life will be that much better.

What would that accomplish?

JoCool · 2012-11-18, 10:12 AM

If you get farmed at your spawn, it is your own dumbass fault.

The system right now is fine. Maybe could use a popup message on a player's screen that has been killed 3 times in less than 10meters from the spawnroom within 90 seconds, saying something "If you are being spawn camped, try to spawn somewhere else!"

Beerbeer · 2012-11-18, 10:23 AM

Easier said than done.

Imagine a brand new player, forced to respawn at a base with its spawn doors under siege, gear up itching for some action, runs out the door only to instantly die without knowing why. That same player respawns, thinking it was a fluke, runs out the door and gets instantly nuked again.

Now imagine the impression this will have on a new player, not wise to the mechanics of these bases. It won't be a good one that's for sure and he may log off in disgust never to return thinking to himself that this FPS game is a joke.

What seems obvious and logical to us, no matter unpalatable it is, won't apply to new people.

Figment · 2012-11-18, 10:23 AM

I'm done debating the "Defenders of the Status Quo", I'm not going to bother trying to convince people that think the epitome of fighting is camping a single shack and clicking a button 100 times and then saying "well yeah, but clearly you lost it by the time I could press my button so why are you using that facility for respawning if you could use another spawnpoint on the other side of the continent as well?" and think that is an answer.

These people just don't have any insight or vision and I very much doubt that if they can't or don't want to grasp even the basics of the complaint after ten pages of discussion, that they ever will even admit there's an issue.

Originally Posted by elfailo

Apparently their amazing Forgelight engine can't handle underground structures. This is what I gathered from the official forums.

I don't think it's incapable of doing that at all. It's more of a design vision issue from what I gathered. It's more that they don't want to, rather than that they cannot. Remember how they described the corridors from PS1?

They think base design is to be much like a DeathMatch FPS map, akin to CoD. So a collection of independent buildings, where you have lots of flanking and run and gun type of action.

But they seem to at times have forgotten that the idea of PlanetSide is to conquer, take and hold territory. In fact, how many times have you heard Higby say something like (approximation): "If you take a base, that base is yours till someone else comes and takes it from you, but they'll have to fight to get it."

If you then look at the designs of the bases, then the two philosophies don't mix. The description Higby gives is not that of a deathmatch run and gun map, but a conquest map. In a conquest map you have objectives to take and hold. Now, taking means that you need options, while holding - defense - means that you have counters against those options.

The problem is that they want to design the game as a game that feels at home to random shooter players (akin to CoD, or whatever other small scale map shooter you may think of) AND as a conquest game at the same time.

Essentially, you can have a bit of run and gun in areas of less strategic importance, but it is madness to have that design around objectives and vital locations.

Now, if we were to look at this video and check the types of defenses:

High ground - Not always present, but even when it is, often even higher ground is available to the attackers.
Good visibility of approaching units - No.
Moats - No.
Ramparts - Usualy not and they don't seem to be part of a planned defensive perimeter if they are.
High walls that are difficult to scale - no (jet pack can get over anything PS2 throws at you).
Few entrances - Can enter from any direction, doors on all sides of buildings.
Battlements - Partial battlements on large buildings. Remainder has to do with nothing or a railing the enemy can fire through but you can't really.
Parapets (high wall protecting the walkway on top of a wall) - No.
Wall walk - only on a very select few mediocre sized bases and the base walls, no where else.
Crenels and merlons - Very few merlons and only at base walls with filled space behind it so you still can't use them to hide effectivelly. Crenels are more like gates.
Machicolations or hoards (to target things straight down in safety) - No.
Draw bridges - No.
Gate towers - At large bases? More or less, but they're very open to attack as they have next to no cover
Gate door - Gate shield, only available at bases and even then not on every entrance to the courtyard
Portcullis (vertical sliding gate) - No. Though in essence like a gate shield you could fire through.
Murder holes - No.
Round towers - Yes! Well at larger bases. But the reason for being round is mostly a foundation strengthening thing.
Arrow and gun loops - No.

So anyone claiming that "merely being on the defense, is having an advantage" is complete and utter rubbish, because the only reason one would be in the advantage while defending, is if one is defending a fortified position that is designed around killing your opponents.

And that is exactly what PS2 bases have not been designed around. =/

Figment · 2012-11-18, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

What would that accomplish?

Let's see, no vehicle spawn camping, being able to use corridors and corridor exits as a defensive choke point, getting to different parts of a facility without being exposed to the weather (can get quite shelly this time a year) and spawning can be stopped completely, effectively removing the defender's ability to spawn at the base.

You didn't really need someone to figure that out for you, did you? :/

sylphaen · 2012-11-18, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by JoCool

If you get farmed at your spawn, it is your own dumbass fault.

The system right now is fine. Maybe could use a popup message on a player's screen that has been killed 3 times in less than 10meters from the spawnroom within 90 seconds, saying something "If you are being spawn camped, try to spawn somewhere else!"

Let's take an extreme case and see what an adequate answer would be.

Imagine that the outposts were just a flag. No buildings, no walls, nothing. Just bare terrain with a flag/capture point/whatever which keeps spawning troops and which you have to occupy for a while until it becomes yours.

The "if you get farmed at your spawn, it is your own dumbass fault" answer would still apply, just like it applies to anything: "it is your own dumbass fault if you lose", "it is your own dumbass fault if you're too dumb", "it is your own fault if X happens because you're dumb". The key point of that statement is not about the validity of a mechanic, it's about stating that people are dumb.

However, whether they are truly dumb or not, the real concern is:
Is it good gameplay ? Can't there be a more interesting and engaging way to play a game ?

Let's take the previous case of outpost with no walls. Would it be an improvement over the current gameplay ? If not and if building make the game more fun, why scoff at people asking for better buildings or a better structure for the capture of outposts?

It's easy to state that people who get camped are dumb. They are however smart enough to address and attack the correct issues i.e. game design, not stupidity. They are also smart enough to desire an improved gameplay i.e. more opportunities for fun and exciting fights per unit of territory available in the game.

Dagron · 2012-11-18, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by TheStigma

Would you rather fight for 15 minutes capturing an outpost or would you rather fight for 1 minute and spawncamp for 14 minutes to capture that same outpost? No-one enjoys the spawncamp. The defenders hate it, and even the attackers only put up with the tedium because it is an easy source of XP. If we take relatively simple steps to make spawns much harder to camp (especially by vehicles) then we get a double benefit of much more interesting base attacks/defences that actually is about fighting the enemy most of the time rather than waiting most of the time - and also it won't be nearly as off-putting to newcomers who just don't realize what is happening and just keep spawning and dying and get a real bad experience before uninstalling.

This is the issue here, fighting for 15 min vs fighting for 1 and sitting for 14, which a lot of people keep ignoring because they want that easy XP.

This has been posted in this thread over and over and they never respond to that argument, they just keep repeating their mantra "spawn somewhere else, spam somewhere else, his name was robert paulsen". Only a couple of them are actually using any arguments, but they still refuse to acknowledge that while long fights might be fine right now, most fights are gone faster than a fart in a hurricane.

Originally Posted by Figment

I'm done debating the "Defenders of the Status Quo", I'm not going to bother trying to convince people that think the epitome of fighting is camping a single shack and clicking a button 100 times and then saying "well yeah, but clearly you lost it by the time I could press my button so why are you using that facility for respawning if you could use another spawnpoint on the other side of the continent as well?" and think that is an answer.

QFT.

psijaka · 2012-11-18, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by JoCool

If you get farmed at your spawn, it is your own dumbass fault.

The system right now is fine. Maybe could use a popup message on a player's screen that has been killed 3 times in less than 10meters from the spawnroom within 90 seconds, saying something "If you are being spawn camped, try to spawn somewhere else!"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I see replies like this.

The point is not that someone might die a lot if they are "dumb" (or dedicated) enough to repeatedly try to break out of a camped spawn, but is that spawn camping is a pretty unsatisfactory means of determining the outcome of a battle over a base. Both from the attackers and the defenders point of view.

Or are you one of those people that likes to rack up their K/D by sitting outside the spawn room in your Magrider?

Kitsune · 2012-11-18, 11:35 AM

Not too much you can do about spawn camping honestly.

Give them multiple spawn rooms and people will camp those.
Giving them drop pods would just be annoying.
Giving them invulnerability won't help a whole lot. (unless it's stupidly long, 10-20 sec)
Giving them force-field windows would be exploited to protect control points.

Basically, if you got killed enough times to be pushed back into spawn, then you lost the point fairly. Defense could not beat the offense, simple as that.