The godawful spawncamping issue - Page 13

Littleman · 2012-11-18, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Buggsy

You almost always lost with 3:1 odds even in PS1 base battles. But what PS1 did have was 20 mines, 10 spitfires, and 10 motion detectors 1 player could put down. That delayed the attack (before everyone had CR5 EMP CUD cheat), allowing more defenders to trickle in over a 5 minute time period to even the odds.

This is how the battles are now. The zerg finishes capping one base, and 40 players move onto the next base. There are 4 defenders at that next base. Spawn points are camped within 5 seconds of attackers arriving.

How it should be. Defense minded players like me make guesses as to which base the zerg moves onto next. We first deploy a cloaked AMS about 100-200 meters out of sight of the base we are defending then lay down lots of CE around the base so it isn't so easy to just move near the spawn point. Or we lay down CE around the cloaked AMS, to defend the AMS. Or we setup a cloaked AMS at a chokepoint between the base the zerg is capping ATM and the base we assume the zerg will move to next. This slows down the attack long enough for more defenders to move in.

Shoot, I forgot about CE, and I was advocating that on the official forums for a time too (again, no one noticed.) I want my PS2 back QQ

I do believe PS2 had spitfires during tech test? CE ain't no deterrent, but it will help impede the opposition's advance. I miss walking in a tank column with my trusty striker, dumb firing away at mines on the ground.

Chewy · 2012-11-18, 10:58 PM

Figment-

What you fail to see that we are trying to defend what we have already around us. Not having the perfect bases to defend makes a better player. Iv defended many outposts in the beta and even though it was an uphill fight each time. My squad/platoon would be able to hold ground for up to half and hour on the worst places or could be there for well over an hour. The key is to keep attackers out and to defend the base/outpost BEFORE it is attacked.

Think of it not like invading a land that was made to withstand the hardships of an endless war, but as a land that was made for understanding and trying to live ones life. Look to WW2 instead of the 1400s where there just wasn't a place like what you speak of outside of foxholes, trenches, and the odd bunker.

Hell, look around your home town/city and think of how to defend that. It would be hard as fuck to hold that ground if war broke out. Now think about if you where in command of an army in the middle of very heated peace talks. What would you make as defensive as you can if you had a limited time to do so on top of having to either hide the work form another faction or risk instant war?

In the backstory of PS2 it shows that the planet was found and lived on for over 200 years before the war. It wasn't till the later part of the 2nd century that riots and the peace talks started. Why would everything be made for war, if there wasn't a hint of it until the last 20-30 years?

Evolutionary · 2012-11-18, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

I think that if you cant keep the enemy armor and infantry out of your base then you have pretty much lost. Save yourself some further humiliation and stop spawning back into your defeated base.

Pretty much this

Furber · 2012-11-19, 12:15 AM

Taking the courtyard shouldn't equal taking the spawns. That's what many of us are arguing here, the spawn room shouldn't just be some arbitrary building somewhere in the CY. Put the spawn room inside the base so there's actually progression through the base to take it instead of tank spam around the spawn building. Preferably put it under ground beneath the main building, so it's naturally more defensible. In PS1 you took the CY with tanks, got out, manned up, and pushed through the enemy base to kill the spawns. Make attackers have to fight tooth and nail to oust the defenders, instead of giving them an easy winning solution.

Dagron · 2012-11-19, 01:17 AM

Yep, bases that can be captured in one crucial moment can be fun sometimes, but that's all we get right now. There is no base with progressive fights, there is no half capturing a base and then having to keep fighting to really own it. People keep saying they don't want bogged down fights, maybe because they've been traumatized by some other game, but the fact is that right now there are barely any long fights at all, and that little variation makes the general gameplay somewhat stale. We need diversity.

Maybe we could keep a few bases as a one tier fight as they are right now, but there should definitely be a lot more different bases where once you breach the outer walls you still have an interesting fight ahead of you. I don't know about most of you but i'd love to have some bases where you could fight for over several stages, like: after taking the courtyard the attackers had to work on breaching inner walls, then taking the main building and finally clearing the underground (of course not all bases had to be so complex, hell just a couple in each continent would already be awesome). Right now all we have is: breach outer walls, profit... there is not even the ??? step. What's up with that?

Figment · 2012-11-19, 04:59 AM

Chewy, we know what you say and we don't agree because it is a stupid thing to say that defense should occur outside a base only.

What the hell is a base for then, cosmetics?! No. It's a shelter and fall back point and should have internal fall back points too. Retreating into an outpost and digging in, biding time and launching a counterattack from within the outpost should be a viable strategic option.

And Littleman, your lack of insight in the consequences of combinations of base design decisions keeps baffling me. Are walls obsolete just because there are jetpacks and aircraft? No! No no no no no! Because you are facing tons of different units, many of which are hindered by even small walls! For air there is anti air defenses and they can work very well. So we have a combination there that can keep enemies out on foot, in tanks and by air. Combinations of defensive structures create a proper defense. One didn't just place tank traps on the beaches of Normandy to expect those to stop paratroopers! What a silly thing to say!

What we don't have is a way to funnel jetpackers or a way to man the walls and keep them off the walls. Why? Wall design is low, not steep (a lot of kibble on the outside to use for scaling the walls) and jetpacks can get up very high objects with ease. That and the size of the courtyard with respect to the amount of defenders (low density) and a non-central spawn (skewed density) just creates huge swaths of undefended walls.

What is funny is that you claim everyone used the same inventory setup or "they were useless" in PS1, an arrogant and stupid suggestion and insinuation. Probably you just sucked with other combinations, maybe you were useless who knows, but I beat HA users with ease with Sweepers and even Magscat Pistols, so let's not pretend everyone needed HA as long as they knew what they were doing. Of course certain combination were popular, they would always be because the amount of weapon combinations you could make were few! You compare ps1 where you had very few options to cert weapons and degrees and contextual weapons with where you would have dozens of gun options? The uniqueness in PS1 characters lay in far more subtle things: shifts in inventory over time, combinations of available inventories and the amount of ammo and ammo types and back up weapons in these inventories all differed greatly. Of course some inventories were used more.

You should realise that PS2 could lead to far more unique characteristics, but currently forces everyone to be the same setup to much greater extremes and you make it possible from the start. I mean, if you hate standard inventories, how the hell can you stomach every HA setup being 85% similar and every player being able to go HA in the first place? That Littleman, is called hypocrisy, working with two standards and rose teinted glasses.

You keep whining about nostalgia being the reason to want something just because you don't agree with the concept or don't see how it actually worked (I keep seeing posts of you that state ridiculous "facts" about PS1 without a proper understanding of why that happened, if it happened at all as you said. You keep making very shallow analyses of PS1 systems, ignore combinations of systems and ignore the context completely and then make denegrating comments). Also because you can't accept that someone else thinks it would be the better solution. You should never use the word nostalgia in relation to my reasonings because I -unlike you- are not biased. I compare the systems objective and the effects of the combination of PS2 mechanics leads to worse gaming experiences and more shallow and less unique game play and characters.

And that is not nostalgia, that is fact. We didn't get spawncamped this extreme in ps1 with the exception from Redoubts, which I've always (since 2004) have complaint about. If I were nostalgic, I would want Redoubt design too. Instead I hoped to never see such a horrible designed building again.

The TTKs are so damn low because of your obsession with having loads of soloable tanks because of a minority populace that you don't want to commit to the PS2's Lightning's AP and HE turrets. So your entire TTK argument falls flat right there. If the tanks were less in numbers and required more crew to man, the TTKs could and should increase. You mention the PS1 context of long distance tanking and tech requirements, but you forgot to mention we had about 25% of the amount of tanks too which made non-tank vehicles be able to fight them. The current Sunderer needs 5-6 clips of Fury mortar fire to kill a Lightning - and that's assuming the Lightning is stationary enough to actually be hit by a heavily arced mortar shell that hits far lower than where you aim, while the solo unit hits every shot. How about the lack of an alternative to solo tanks is an issue too in comparison to PS1 where APCs were a valid, though slightly less powerful counter to tanks?

Elcyco described perfectly how the cert and class setup ruins tactical options: they will all grab your counters en mass and unlike in PS1, you can't rock-paper-scissor a larger group by using the appropriate tools or even the tactical option of denying them access to terminals, since everyone is an engineer next spawn without even requiring a terminal or locker - or time. That makes for shallower game play as every of these design decisions strips opponents from options to weaken, sabotage and outwit enemies. By providing everyone with rocks, paper and scissor you make it impossible for smaller groups to gain a tactical unit choice advantage at any time over a larger group. Like the dedicated medic thing, groups without medics are doomed while large groups can bring as much as 5-8 medics and keep sustaining themselves much more easily in comparison. In PS1, you could beat an enemy by picking out those that needed to die first, because the others could not perform that task and yes, that includes advanced medics, pre-BR40 (the PS2 system is akin to BR40, not to BR20 or even BR25, if you're a twit that only compares to BR40 as that was the latest status quo in PS1 that most people disliked, then you are deliberately deluding yourself). PS2 is a zerg game, PS1 was not and that has everything to do with cert/class, crew controls and base design. And yeah, other acquisition rules as well.

Another such example is that if you got an AMS at an enemy base, ANYONE, and I literally mean ANYONE can convert all local turrets and terminals to your empire by simply switching to "Snipefill" class and then later turning back. In PS1, this was done by specialists as few could afford even the five points into Advanced Hacking and these specialists would increase the options and effectiveness of your attack, but you could stop that by taking out the advanced hacker and terminals. In PS2, your empire gains full, permanent control over the terminals and turrets from anyone who touches them as an infil. That's an example of PS2 shallowing of game play and character uniqueness if I ever saw one.

And yeah, I've been argueing in favour of a large increase in mines (and a reduction of damage per mine) as well.

JoCool · 2012-11-19, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Beerbeer

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.

You mean, new, stupid people.

Honestly, I consider anyone who is too dumb to select another spawnpoint, when the one he just got killed at is camped, as a total idiot. Those are the minority, you really have to lack some brains to continue doing that. That's common sense for any 2nd-day gamer, even CoD players get it. BF3 players anyway.

Warruz · 2012-11-19, 11:54 AM

As many had said before the main problem is the flow of the battle. For bases having a spawn outside the center of the facility gives the attackers the ability to shutdown reinforcements to early in the battle when the objective is in the center. In my book the amp station is the worst offender.

What is simply needed for example the amp station is 4 spawns in total, 3 spawns in the courtyard that can be shutdown that make a triangle in terms of placement in the courtyard. this allows defenders to go to the part of the wall that is being assaulted. Then one that cannot be destroyed near the last capture point (much like towers are setup).

As of now towers provide the best in terms of spawn placement and protection , while they can still be camped they have multiple exists and are on the top floor which slows LA's to get up there.

In my mind bases should be 2 or 3 tier assaults. As you further push it should get harder to attackers to push. Tier 1 should be outside the base trying to take the wall and start the courtyard push. Tier 2 would be the courtyard and tier 3 would be inside. The problem now is tier 1 gets taken far to fast and tier 2 is just skipped entirely and goes straight to 3 which relies on a sundy otherwise it gets skipped also.

What id like to see with the spawn changes is also making portions of the walls higher for LA so they cant reach them, leaving them less spots to get on to the wall.

JoCool · 2012-11-19, 12:25 PM

Depends on the station. When you spawn, take a look around - there is often a teleporter in the spawnroom.

When the station is under attack, spawn an AMS, put it into the V-bay. If you play alone with the Zerg and there's no Outfit on your side that has the slightest meta value, it's a lost cause anyway.

Littleman · 2012-11-19, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Fluff and stuff

Wasting your time bud. This is my last post to you, because this back and forth will change nothing, and I've done enough of the talking to a self-indulging-brick-wall on the TERA forums. Too much tippity-tap, not enough doing other things also-not-so-productive.

The class system keeps those HA from being eternal self-healbots. They can have medkits, but those won't save them during a heated fire fight unless they can retreat into cover. They also sacrifice other tools to use them (I know, negligible with a rocket launcher in hand.) Also, they can't drop an ammo pack at their feet and keep the rocket spam going all day. They're the shock troops, but they offer no support to their allies. I drop 'em left and right, despite all this. Trying to find where the "everyone's the same" and "rose-tinted glasses" comment directed towards me comes in. Sounds like you're desperate for a leg up in this argument. HA is popular and this should come as no surprise because A: most people like killing things and B: few people actually like playing support.

What I see are six different classes with six different playstyles to maximize their potential. Weaponry could use a little more variety (in looks and animation even, especially the rocket launchers,) but otherwise, it's more variety than I saw from the average player in PS1.

Anyone that walks into this game and instantly resorts to "this worked in PS1" is a fool in the wrong place. It's good to look at PS1 as reference where massive numbers of people are a concern (inventory systems do no concern massive numbers of people anywhere near as much as surface base design and capture mechanics do.) What isn't good is looking at PS1 and asking for just about everything about PS1 being ported over into PS2. Different era, different game. NEXT was scrapped for a reason. The truth is we only have PS1 to really look at for how an MMOFPS works. Expecting all of those systems to work here, in this game, is unreasonable.

Could we have had driver/gunner MBT's from the start? Sure. Insta-seat swapping would have just forced the driver to park to fire away. The majority of them do that already without the necessity of seat swapping. Could they have brought back the old tanks, mechanics and all, sure. Hrm... last I checked most FPS' today with vehicles allow seat swapping, driving-and gunning-though. I'm pretty sure the majority of players today actually don't want nor are accustomed to driver/gunner tank variants.

The walls you're asking for would be too high to be effective for infantry to fire from. Additionally, raising them out of the reach of the LA sort of defeats the purpose of the LA. They're not just about firing from rooftops, they're also about ignoring ground set obstacles that impede just about any other ground asset. The only real valid problem with the walls is that they cover too much friggin' ground to hold, AND they have those god awful jump pads only the invading force ever abuses. This is a base design issue on the overhaul level. It won't happen for some time until we're looking at brand new, smaller bases from newer continents that can be subbed in. If ever.

You'll note that VS MAX units ala PS1 weren't much of an issue with base defense, not because they couldn't hack anything, but because infantry were generally concentrated enough on the walls that a lone VS max wouldn't turn out to be very devastating. Wall height was never the problem with PS2's base defense. Wall LENGTH is, as you so rightly pointed out.

As for your MBT's: too bad. They're here to stay, but at least the driver/gunner variants we'll eventually get should be better overall. Lightnings can still be pulled without a tech plant, so dedicated tank commanders likely will invest into a Lightning on the side just in case. Considering the AP cannon hits like a Vanguard's, and the front armor makes it about on par with a Prowler in terms of durability, it's a fairly solid back up tank that still doesn't quite out match an MBT. At least it's been elevated out of their shadow as an always available tank to compensate.

Also, while requiring driver/gunners would reduce the number of MBT's on the field (a shame we'll lose those that want to only MBT and control both at the same time, but **** 'em, right?) I really don't expect the difference in numbers to be all that great with few tank spawn locations and longer distances back to the front. A LOT of the tanks I saw in PS1 weren't done by squaddies or outfit mates, but one random grabbing another random out of necessity. I often saw these same drivers stick to fighting on foot when they lost their tank on the front line.

I'd agree with your/Elcyco's class spawn argument, if terminals weren't hidden behind door shields along with the spawn tubes. As for the rest of that paragraph, PS1 was pretty zergy too, don't even pretend this wasn't true. I'm calling BS on the comment that one couldn't do everything in PS1 by the way. I mean, yes, before BR40 they couldn't, but it was a hard restriction. People shouldn't have to roll alts to enjoy every aspect of the game.

The standard grunt, as anyone that has played PS1 should know, countered everything. They could heal and repair themselves. They could fight vehicles, and they could fight infantry. All at the same time. PS2's classes can't do all of that at once. The player has access to all of it, but it's all neatly sectioned apart from one another like dining utensils organized in a drawer. Unlike PS1's set up, the classes prevent one from bringing a spoon, a fork, and a knife to table. They will always have the choice to switch out in the event the dish demands another utensil, but they can't have them all at the table at the same time. It's inconveniencing, but it's not unnecessarily restrictive either, like PS1's system of picking a knife and that's it, you're stuck with tackling your soup with a knife.

For infils, I too believe it's along the lines of BS that an infil doesn't first need to cert into hacking hardware to do so. Though along those same lines, it's easy to counter with a counter hack. Requiring hacking certs doesn't exactly add depth however, it just adds prerequisites. Classic engineering deployables, such as spitfires, ample quantities of (not so insta-gib) mines, and motion sensors add depth. Soldiers will need to watch their feet and check corners when moving through enemy controlled territory, preferably clearing each deployable safely along the way.

Arguably the infil has the motion sensor now, however. Speaking of which, more/completely solid cloaking at the expensive of larger weaponry adds depth, and so does dark light but only if the best cloak is sufficiently invisible enough to warrant it. However many infils hated darklight. I guess they never much enjoyed the thrill of the hunt(ed,) which adds depth to the whole stealth routine from my perspective.

MAX units in themselves add depth as being the heavy armored juggernaut of infantry (currently as of beta: laughable) that in PS1, couldn't do anything outside of kill, kill, KILL. While I was one to cal doors "stupid" and "unnecessary," I had realized that doors were one major roadblock to MAX solo domination in PS1. Where the rexo could easily hack the door (if he was bright enough to bring a REK, like ALL soldiers should...) the MAX unit was fubared by 3 inches of steel. However, once that door is open, infantry now have to fire away, or in typical, moronic fashion, turn tail and run if they're not packing a rocket launcher. They still couldn't hack the next door or even the control console however, keeping them to a juggernaut role. Currently, they're like, bigger, slower, clumsy and ineffective HA.

MBTs with directional armor have more depth now. My first instinct is always to fire away at a tank, like a bad zergling, but I stop myself and ask "can I get around behind it?" I'm am greatly rewarded by a two shot kill if I can work my way around the target. Likewise, a tank driver needs to be aware of where they're parked and/or heading into to avoid smart asses from tossing explosives into their rear vents.

MrBloodworth · 2012-11-19, 04:04 PM

Littleman, I disagree with just about everything you said.

Why is PS2 like it is? Battlefield. Don't kid yourself.

Sturmhardt · 2012-11-19, 04:14 PM

Yeah... I couldn't have written that much wrong stuff if I wanted to....

Littleman · 2012-11-19, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Littleman, I disagree with just about everything you said.

Why is PS2 like it is? Battlefield. Don't kid yourself.

I'm amused that people still think it's a bad idea to follow the examples of success. If you don't like battlefield, don't play battlefield. Why is this so hard a concept to grasp? Because PS2 is the only other MMOFPS from PS1? Go play PS1.

So many do like battlefield. Maybe, just maybe, Planetside 2 isn't the game for you. No one promised every FPS, much less this (MMO)FPS would be to your liking, and there's no way to make any game, to everyone's liking. Live with that very real fact.

I really don't care if you disagree. the simply answer has been, from the start, this is not Planetside 1, and I like it that way. Coincidentally, I'm not the only one, and we'll see tomorrow how many people that didn't play PS1, really care for what was PS1.

EDIT: Oh, so this is what's on the 14th page. Is this forum just setting up the next page despite not having anything in it?

o

Figment · 2012-11-19, 06:01 PM

Cut the crap Littleman, you know you're now resorting to making up arguments as well and simply trolling for the sake of trolling.

Stop the flamebait with the "go play PS1" rubbish - we're here to play a proper PS2, not something that tries to do it half arsed. BF3 is the least liked BF game in history, DESPITE of being so overhyped it sold millions. It sold 4 million LESS than BF2 on PC, despite being its successor.

Did BF3 sell well on consoles? Yes, but you have to realise that in 2005 when BC2 launched, there was no console called a Xbox 360 or a PS3 with few alternative high profile games. In the meantime, BF3 was promised to be BF2 and much more prior to release - which got it to sell very well, after which it turned out it wasn't... So even comparing BF2 sales with BF3 sales is not really fair.

Yet here you are, wanting to compare the sales (note, PS2 is free) of a 2003 pure subscription pre-WoW MMO, too-high-tech-for-low-end-PCs of 2003 and all the surrounding context details (hardware, internet connections, amount of online games, subscriber program, marketing program, failing game balance revolutionising expansions, lack of support, etc etc etc etc) with a PS2 game launch in 2012 that is actually on Steam from the start whereas PS1 never was due to the DX version it used (Steam required games to at least have DX9 or better).

Riiight.

Also realise that none of those consoles ever had PlanetSide to up the sales and that PS was even a bit older than those games so it wouldn't be realistic to have expected that - and even then, the consoles wouldn't have been able to handle it as they won't be able to handle PS2.

Also realise that you claim that PS2 players will make a conscious choice for a game with mechanics that YOU support BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT IT TOO *that is your claim after all*, yet if you look at Hamma's video and commentary on new players that even play PC games for the first time, let alone MMOs for the first time and that he even has to tell them how to hold the keyboard and mouse, that that's not a very realistic statement, at all.

Those people have NO idea what mechanics PS1 uses.

Those people have NO idea what mechanics PS2 uses.

Thus those people have NO idea what mechanics are better when they actually start playing PS2!

The main reason for them NOT to pick PS1 is that it's not really on offer and if they do come across it they only look at the date and graphics to form a first impression, they won't judge it by the actual game play. They would judge the book by its cover, not its content and fact of the matter is that the presentation graphically between PS1 and PS2 is a world of difference. That doesn't mean that it's actually better in game mechanics! Not in general, but certainly not in detail. As such in 2012, of course people will pick PS2 over PS1.

It's the new version, new is per definition better right? That's what you've been saying all along. Everything old is in any way, shape or form obsolete in a new context, isn't it? Oh but hey, BF3 is new, no wait, it's actually old by now in pc standards. So it's obsolete? ALL it's mechanics must be obsolete by your definition then? Or are you a hypocrite afterall? Who'd have thought.

Hey Littleman, ever played Commandos 4? It's three games on from Commandos 1. Must be better right? Oh wait, it's got a lower rating. That can't be right, can it? It had a 3D environment instead of isometric view like all its predecessors, yet somehow scored lower and was the last Commandos game in a line that sold millions before? Weird that all reviews rate this fourth FPS title lower than all its isometric predecessors while clearly trying to copy the success of CoD and MoH of the time by going FPS... Since 2006, they've not published new games in this series after they had been making new ones every few years...

Also funny how most reviews and reader ratings of PS1 are in the order of 7.5-8,5 on release. Must have been a completely horrible game that...

http://www.eurogamer.net/games/planetside-pc
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/planetside
http://www.ign.com/games/planetside/pc-15582
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/g...-ReReview.html

So cut the crap already and go find a toilet that will take it instead.