Spawns DESPERATELY need a redesign...

[mrmrmrj]

Originally Posted by Tom Peters

You act like we're only complaining from one side of this issue.

You think it's okay that those tanks have to sit there bored out of their mind because they have to wait for the cap? NO!

Besides any of that nonsense, as previously stated, vehicles should NOT be able to see spawn rooms, it's just BAD BASE DESIGN!

The tanks don't have to sit there either, but at least by doing so they get rewarded with base capture exp.

For those who died defending and respawn not knowing that the spawn room is surrounded, click Redeploy.

I do not disagree that spawn rooms could be more optimally located in many places. I never disputed that. I just pointed out that if you don't like being surrounded by armor while in a spawn room, you have the easy option to re-locate. I guess my use of the words "it's your own damn fault" distracted from my obvious point. There is ZERO game incentive to sit in a spawn room surrounded by armor, so why do it?

The single biggest design flaws in the spawn rooms is not the fact that they are in the open. It is the fact that you can go on the roof and get stuck there.

Now, if we had EMP grenades, those stand-offs wouldn't be so one sided.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by mrmrmrj

The single biggest design flaws in the spawn rooms is not the fact that they are in the open. It is the fact that you can go on the roof and get stuck there.

Uh, WHAT?!?!

Dude, if you don't know how to get down from a roof safely in this game, you probably should just stick to Light Assault...

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by mrmrmrj

The tanks don't have to sit there either, but at least by doing so they get rewarded with base capture exp.

yeah, the bored campers get the "capture"xp and the real fighters who captured the base and went on to the next get nothing.

now that´s a great, fair and fun system!

the camping is unfun for all players near the spawn shields. no matter which side of the shields your on.
and most times i play, i end up rushing from one camp situation to the next. when i arrive the fight is over almost every time. (if there ever was any real battle)
that´s why i don´t play much lately. it´s hard to find a good battle, and when you finally found one, it´s over in 5 minutes. that´s not planetside, that is even more casual than arena shooters.

but are the devs still lurking here?
we keep on spitting out ideas how to fix the game and finally make it fun for everybody, but lately we don´t get any feedback from the devs anymore. they don´t even let us know if they are watching and aware of the problems we discuss.
is this just because they are too busy with all the gatherings coming up?
during beta the dev communication was far better.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Shogun

is this just because they are too busy with all the gatherings coming up?
during beta the dev communication was far better.

Given the staggering development that is the lattice -- which we were repeatedly told for months that it would never come back, was not on the table, etc. -- I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They *are* listening.

[Shogun]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Given the staggering development that is the lattice -- which we were repeatedly told for months that it would never come back, was not on the table, etc. -- I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. They *are* listening.

you might be right.

but it would really be cool, if the devs could drop by a little more often, just to drop a few lines on the constructive threads. like higby did once in the esf thread where he confirmed that he is watching the thread and is closely looking at all the suggestions.

we have some threads right now, that were extremely productive in creating possible fixes for several problems. like this one, figments idea of base redesigns, fixes for forth empire and so on. a little confirmation that all of those have been compiled by a dev to evaluate our ideas would really ease some minds for sure.

[Jonny]

First you say:

Originally Posted by mrmrmrj

The tanks don't have to sit there either, but at least by doing so they get rewarded with base capture exp.

...and then you go against your own point by saying:

Originally Posted by mrmrmrj

There is ZERO game incentive to sit in a spawn room surrounded by armor, so why do it?

So yes there is incentive. Most bases are quite open to vehicles, with killing newly spawned soldiers xp is a good place for them to sit while waiting for base cap xp. Both are incentives, but spawn camping is the problem here and its getting VERY BORING SOE.

Originally Posted by mrmrmrj

For those who died defending and respawn not knowing that the spawn room is surrounded, click Redeploy.

Thats fair enough and people should to that if overwhelmed, but they usually don't. Why? because for some reason unknown to me you can shoot out the spawn room shields, which for some other unknown design decision from hell, are re-enterable and often in one random spot which can be seen by vehicles and the rest of the base.

The point is they shouldn't have to redeploy - if the base is lost they shouldn't be spawning there in the first place.

Originally Posted by mrmrmrj

The single biggest design flaws in the spawn rooms is not the fact that they are in the open. It is the fact that you can go on the roof and get stuck there.

Totally off the mark there too. One of the biggest design flaws is exactly that...the roof doesn't matter its part of the same bad idea that defenders should sit at one point and keep shooting the attackers. Where the hell is the fun or gameplay there?

Whats needed is some kind of fight for the base that is a struggle for both sides, doesn't involve vehicles and progresses or regresses towards a final objective.

Base spawns need to have no option to shoot attackers from them, and should be drop down non re-enterable rooms. They also need tubes to bring defenders to outer parts of the base to defend the perimeter or escape to mount a counter attack.

I'm trying to think about the base gameplay PS2 is desperately lacking and come up with a proposed solution/s which I'll hopefully post soon.

I love this game but i'm getting so so so bored of arriving at base, spawn camping, capture, repeat.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by Jonny

Base spawns need to have no option to shoot attackers from them, and should be drop down non re-enterable rooms.

Well no, it's not a problem with being able to shoot out of and re-enter the Spawns, the Original Planetside had that as well...

...It's where the Spawns are placed that's the problem!
In PS1, you were always underground, with hard right angled exits that would prevent clear line of sight to and from the tubes.
Even if an attacker was camping you, they'd have to do so from one end of an Infantry tunnel (or the top of a stairway in the case of towers) with a constant stream of small arms fire.

Even if we replaced the Original's motion detecting sliding doors with Factional IFF Shields, this design of right angled exits underground still works as it only grants positional advantage to Infantry firing at one end or the other.

[ringring]

I really don't understand this 'mustn't be able to shoot out'.

If you don't like being killed by folk in the spawns that's entirely in your hands.

If you want the folk in the spawns to come out so that you can kill them, well why would they oblige you?

There's nothing wrong with it, as long as the spawns are in a better position so that the defensive fight lasts longer ..... and look at the new Esamir that was shown on FNO about 3 weeks ago, the bases will be changed.

[Jonny]

I think it's a bad idea because it encourages this weird hide behind the shield fighting. The real gameplay should be around the base/on the battlefield not to and fro poking out a shield. I agree with placing the spawns underground and having various coridoor and fast tube exists to discourage spawn camping. I also like the idea of a main objective that when destroyed disables defenders from spawning, but working towards this objective could be generators which allow attackers to advance/more options of attack.

I'm not against spawns being re enterable all together, if they are constructed the way whiteagle mentioned. The spawn camping/shield fights need thinking about. What could both parties be doing instead...probably having more fun in a real tactical tug or war to capture/defend the base.

[Figment]

The main reason this fighting from behind the shield is promoted is because there is no additional buffer zone between the spawn area and the outer combat area.


The shield IS the entire "indoor-outdoor transition zone".

Which means that if you DO NOT sit behind the shield, you instantly die and you will lose.

If you DO sit behind the shield, you will not die, for a while, but you will also lose.

It's no-win, no-win situation.


Given a same type of base (thus same type of hardware available) a lot of people can comprehend this hardware advantage:

...................................<--x-->
Friendly Base - Near Field - Field - Far Field - Enemy Base
Friendly Hardware Adv........Even...Enemy Hardware Adv

But what they fail to see is that it is actually expands like this:

.................................................. ...........<--x-->
Friendly Courtyard - Friendly Base - Near Field - Field - Far Field - Enemy Base - Enemy Courtyard
Enemy Hardware Adv....Friendly Hardware Adv...Even...Enemy hardware Adv.....Friendly Hardware Adv

Because once the courtyard is lost, defenders lost the benefit of nearby vehicles (which they held in the field). All that they have left is infantry. At that point, there is no combined arms defense, but there is combined arms offense. In other words, the attackers have the hardware advantage (and probably are in control of the vehicle facilities that are usualy part of the courtyard).


If you had a progressive indoor fight zone for infantry, where the order of danger is:

......................................<-- x -->..../ High Ground \
Spawnroom - SCU - Indoor - Objective - Indoor - Outdoor - Enemy AMS
...........shield.................................................Attacker Hardware Advantage

Then the defender would have a bit of an advantage. Mostly because taking out the AMS should be easier than taking out the SCU and the defenders would start holding the "right hand side" indoor area.

Instead, we have:

.../ High Ground \.........<-- x -->
Spawnroom - Outdoor - Objective - Enemy AMS
...........shield....Attacker Hardware Advantage

Which isn't defender friendly, at all, hands the logistical advantage to attackers and can never lead to fair fighting over the base or outpost.