The godawful spawncamping issue

[brighthand]

Originally Posted by Figment

Of course you lost that base, under the current status quo due to base design not providing you with options.

What is incomprehensible is people thinking that's how it SHOULD be.


What's the point of designing a combat game and a fight over a control point, if you actively discourage fighting over the control point?

Might as well just make it instant flip then. But I guess that's kinda lost on the people with a pragmatic defeatist attitude towards a status quo design. :/ A siege is excellent, a camp is not.

I agree with you and all other posts like this. As beta testers, we are taking part in game design, and should be able to spot a poor mechanic, and give feedback as to how to improve it.

Spawn camping is lame, and game mechanics should be inherently deterrent of it- which is not the case in PS2, which currently promotes spawn camping as one of the primary means of achieving success in the game, along with undermining any form of defensive effort.

We DO see the devs make an effort to improve defensibility of bases through some reworks of the layouts, additional cover, and added turrets, but we are not quite there yet. The spawn camping plus porous base peremeters (in regards to the amp-stations), still are both very prominant features in game that undermine the much needed defensibility that would give this game a significant boost in playability.

I think a simple solution would be to place the spawn tubes INSIDE the base that people are trying to defend and let the attackers break their way into the bases itself and neutralize it. As for the ampstations: some proper walls around the edges so that LAs -if they MUST hop over, can only do so at known, predictable spots that are still diverse enough to leave room for uncertainty and strategy. -And have some underground/basement areas where important things are

[Figment]

At babyfark: In PS1, as long as there was a second on the timer and you started resecuring with a second to spare with regards to your hacking speed, the base was NOT lost.

In my case, this was 21 seconds left on the clock (Expert Hacking).

Hence the most frantic fighting took place in the last minute of the fight, especially if you got the spawns back up in the two to three minutes leading up to that moment and surprised the enemy with a sudden surge in spawnees.


Last minute resecure adrenaline rush just feels so good. :x

[Aaron]

Yes, when the spawn camping happens the base is technically lost. However, I don't believe that is when the fight should stop and be uninteresting. The devs don't want this, and new players won't want this. If that is what the devs wanted, they'd implement a mechanic to end the fight officially. Something to indicate that "You don't want to fight here. It's over, and it's boring."

I remember Higby saying that this is a game where something like a 50 vs 200 fight would still be a fun fight. Why should it not be?

Anyway, an idea that might help:

The main spawn could lead to an underground complex which connects to various bunkers in the base courtyard. Perhaps you could shoot out from little firing slots, but the enemy wouldn't be able to enter them. From those bunkers, you would be able to escape the spawn-camping to roam the courtyard. There could be some tower-like bunkers overlooking the main spawn entrances as well.

In that case, the attackers might be more focused on staying on the point instead of camping the spawn (as there would be many places they'd have to camp). This would also give the defenders more options for organized pushing attempts.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

If your defending forces have been wiped out and your only spawn area has been surrounded by a force strong enough to keep you contained then you have lost the fight. Sure your still spawning and running outside and dying in a hailstorm of bullets but this fight barring a last minute counter attack from outside forces is done with.

There is only one defense in a defend the base action. Then its over, and you spend the next 15-20 minutes being spawn camped, our, you move on. Leaving the Attackers standing around for 15-20 min.

This is 100% about base design. The problem is, this happens RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

The Spawn room should be the last reachable thing in ANY base or outpost. Right now, the base design asks defenders to fight an overwhelming and better equipped force to even BEGIN to defend.

If you do not repel the attacking force in the first assault ( AKA your first death ), you loose. Because moments before you died, that spwn point was already being camped by every tank and Engi Turret in the area.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by Chewy

Quitting IS a tactic, one that must never be forgotten. To "quit" a battle is called making a retreat and can/has saved more lives and won more wars than you will ever know. Not every fight needs to be a Thermopylae pass.

I know that, i should have been a little more clear. I meant quitting as in "screw this base, we will just sit here for 15 min while they camp us... let's find a real fight somewhere else". If you read the last paragraph of my post you will see that i said something like "they should be given a choice to retreat and regroup or try to stick it out, but the choice shouldn't be made for them the instant the outer wall shields drop".

The whole problem we've been complaining about is that it's boring, not only for whoever is being camped but for those camping as well. If the game gave the defenders some hope of turning the tides at this point, they might decide to stay and everyone could still have a fun fight even if they ultimately lose the base. As things are, we often instant action into bases, die instantly and get stuck in a spawn room.

Edit: Btw - that's pretty lame for us, now imagine how any new players would feel about it.

Originally Posted by Aaron

Yes, when the spawn camping happens the base is technically lost. However, I don't believe that is when the fight should stop and be uninteresting.

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

There is only one defense in a defend the base action. Then its over, and you spend the next 15-20 minutes being spawn camped, our, you move on. Leaving the Attackers standing around for 15-20 min.

^ This is pretty much the core of what we've been complaining about.

[Mox]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Or you could ----- SPAWN SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!
Its not like an old MMO where you bound to a spawn point.
If someone is farming you at a spawn that means you are too dumb to regroup at a position that hasnt been over run.

I agree on that. If the base is taken you shouldnt spawn there.

The problem with the base design is that the spawn points arent located in the core of the bases. Except in case of the biodome the spawn are outside the mainbuilding. Therefore it happens, that the spawns are already camped before the base is overtaken. The placement of the spawns even foster that a base is taken sooner.

Solution of the problem:

Dear devs, how about locating the spawns in the inner core of each base? (like in case of the biodomes)

[yonman]

Another possible solution - have more than a single spawn room in facilities. In some cases these rooms can be arranged to form a crossfire which can be the basis of a rush to resecure.

[MrBloodworth]

I am completely convinced they want this.

Its Session based design in a Persistent world. They want churn, they want movement, they want constant action. To the point of detriment of play in many cases.

Its part of the "No hour long fights" mentality they have. When for many, epic long slogs at bases were what was fun. Now, you do not even have time to mount a re-secure. Its over already.

[yonman]

btw, the militaristic and ordered outfits go directly to spawn camp with vehicles. After the base was cleaned and the defenders herded into their pen, they assign the boring duty of holding the CC to the new kids and settle down to farm.

Like it was said ... Certs are Certs.

[Figment]

What makes it so annoying is that you feel like the military of the future is utterly inept in base design.

Everything from Roman, Chinese and crusader castles to Vaubain's star forts to the Maginot Line to the Atlantik Wall to you name it... All have been forgotten in the future? :/

Don't know about you lot, but I expect a defensive position to be defended.

[MrBloodworth]

Its arena and Death match world design in a persistent world.

Does not mix.

[Fear The Amish]

Originally Posted by Aaron

Yes, when the spawn camping happens the base is technically lost. However, I don't believe that is when the fight should stop and be uninteresting. The devs don't want this, and new players won't want this. If that is what the devs wanted, they'd implement a mechanic to end the fight officially. Something to indicate that "You don't want to fight here. It's over, and it's boring."

I remember Higby saying that this is a game where something like a 50 vs 200 fight would still be a fun fight. Why should it not be?

Anyway, an idea that might help:

The main spawn could lead to an underground complex which connects to various bunkers in the base courtyard. Perhaps you could shoot out from little firing slots, but the enemy wouldn't be able to enter them. From those bunkers, you would be able to escape the spawn-camping to roam the courtyard. There could be some tower-like bunkers overlooking the main spawn entrances as well.

In that case, the attackers might be more focused on staying on the point instead of camping the spawn (as there would be many places they'd have to camp). This would also give the defenders more options for organized pushing attempts.

see my problem with this is you are making it like a tower... oh noes now i have to move half a squad into a basement and camp a tunnel... you know how easy that would be for attackers and wouldn't alleviate the issue. Now yes you could make them shielded but here is the problem. what this leads to is 1 guy sneaking out and because the cap is so open and you have to crowd it 1 Grenade and a single guy just wiped out a squad and took back the base that is stupid. Because the Cap points are even more open and susceptible to camping then the spawn rooms.

you are all trying to find a way to make point defense more of a priority, and spawn camping more difficult. Here is the problem the current bases on Indar and Esamir make this extremely difficult. Yes i would love the old PS1 style bases but i don't see them redesigning every base in the game for this. Luckily they are already Amerishing up the bases on Indar making defense more of a priority.... Until then i will use my go to line you lost, it is time to do a retreat to the next most defensible point and try again.

[MrBloodworth]

"Spawn somewhere else" is a horrible suggestion for such an obvious flaw. Not only does it not address the issue, it attempts to trivialize AND justifies the bad design.

Meanwhile, it still makes for some really terrible game-play. You will never see the epic comebacks from the original.

All that matters is Mass of players, and who camps better with tanks. Real fun there.

[Crator]

We're not here to shut down conversations about a bad game mechanic just because that is how it is. We are hear to talk about bad game mechanics to try and come up with ideas to fix it.

So saying "Spawn elsewhere" pretty much shuts down the conversation and suggests that the players just deal with it until the DEVs figure something out. That's not why we discuss things on the forums.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Exactly.
In the three months i played this beta i took part in maybe a dozen successful retakes opposed to the hundreds and hundreds of captures.