Remove camping spawn buildings from meta game - Page 4

Miir · 2012-10-24, 09:25 AM

Having the SCU is by the spawn room makes a lot of sense. If you can push someone back to their spawn room then you should be able to end the threat by disabling the SCU.

The rest of your proposed design looks solid.

Figment · 2012-10-24, 11:04 AM

Note that if lagging doors is the main issue that we don't have doors in PS2, we can also have shields instead.

IFF-locked shields: Why shouldn't shields be hackable instead of doors? Not every building would need them. Interior doors could have similar replacements if there are locations where they're needed. For example, neutral blast shields that stop projectiles and grenades, but not players or small projectiles/lasers.

Maybe you can give infils and engineers with the hacking cert (including a Remote Electronics Kit (REK)?) the ability to temporarily disable and/or ENABLE them at other buildings and in that way help to fortify bases and outposts. It would make the hacking cert more attractive.

The shape of shields is also something you can discuss. Why is it a flat surface? Why not arced? Spherical? Cilindrical? Corners can be convex curves as well to create better outward angles.

I've travelled a lot on holidays across all of Europe and visited tons of castles, citadels and bunker systems from all ages. I loved analysing the building and keep layouts. The funneling systems, the variation of arrow openings and firing angles, the layout and firing angles within moat systems around star fortresses, where the various occupants were housed, location of the barracks, cellars, wells, etc wrt to the remainder. Entry points and exits. The walls always having no cover on the inside to prevent them being used by attackers, etc etc. EVERYTHING is usualy completely thought out to lengthen a siege.

Then there's PS2: It's literally knocking down open doors. Many of the small walls have no purpose and are often more advantageous to attackers than defenders, because they cover both sides, therefore trapping the defender, rather than obstructing the attacker, who can jetpack or fire over them, while the defender cannot fire back. The bigger walls have open maintenance tunnels or simply big holes in them. A lot of the bigger bases now start to slowly make more sense (aside from terminal and barracks placement). It's a good thing that you can place a Sunderer AMS inside to replace the barracks at this moment, because the barracks placement (certainly with respect to the SCU) is just asking to get taken out swiftly. In itself it's okay that barracks are close to the walls, but it's ironic that you now use an AMS to protect the CC, instead of the walls (as was the case in the past).

The Bio Lab (aside from the teleporters) now has a decent build for a defense. The only thing is that the flow from the interior of the court yard to the upper building is missing due to the teleport systems in place there. The teleports disjoint both fights instead of letting them flow from one into the other. An elaborate stairwell and catwalk system along the bottom of the Bio Dome could IMO provide an excellent replacement. Teleports should be more for empires that hold both sides of the teleport, rather than one side and these could be tied to infiltrators hacking as well.

There's a lot of potential again, but these bases have to be designed from a defender's point of view. The attacker should think in tools to dismantle the defensive position. The Jetpacker and infiltrator could have a much greater role in this. Same for transports: the Sunderer with a shield breaching role could really add, but it would have to lose the AMS role to a true AMS (groundbased AMS is a must, but can also be a semi-ranged siege vehicle, where the Sunderer is a close range siege vehicle in essence). The Sundy itself should be cheap. Till then, nobody is going to waste 400 points on a "Storm Ram"-Sundy when it can also be a very profitable AMS-Sundy.

Everything is connected in design, but I really hope that MMOFPS wargames base their systems with the idea of prolonged war in mind, not quick deathmatches.

[rambles on]

MrBloodworth · 2012-10-24, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Note that if lagging doors is the main issue that we don't have doors in PS2, we can also have shields instead.

Blacklight Retribution does doors in 2012 right. This includes hacking. We do not have to have the "Star trek" doors of PS1.

But we need doors.

Hmr85 · 2012-10-24, 11:20 AM

I love the look of the design Figment and I agree that if we can't get working doors that open and close then how about some shield doors you can disable through hacking?

Also wanted to comment that a complex Hacking system like what I see above for Blacklight Retribution would be awesome. (*Note I never played the game, but it looks cool from the image.)

MrBloodworth · 2012-10-24, 11:30 AM

Its a good system. Doors are eather hacked open, or hacked closed. Thats it. Not Star treck doors. No lag makeing doors seem open when closed ETC.

The hacking, is just a random number matching game. That could easily be expanded to include progression. IE: When locking with a high hacking skill, you add one more number combo required to open it. When Unlocking, high hacking skill could increase the time out timer.

Personal player skill, and progression. Also can be applied to hacking CC's instead of this mass on point BS. THAT is modernization and improvement of a legacy system.

FIN.

Fear The Amish · 2012-10-24, 01:30 PM

i think SCU's need to be put back in BUT with a minor change that when they are destroyed you can still spawn it just adds a 30 second timer or something along those lines. Also keep the open style of bases with a few changes barricade alleys so there are only 1-2 entrances, Make all doors to existing buildings only open to center, Place spawn facility as well as SCU in center of this enclosure. This would make the bases still have an open feel but make them much more defensible making them more conducive to attack/defense battles.

**Malorn** · 2012-10-24, 01:40 PM

Another idea for you...

When the new tug-o-war capture model goes in, perhaps halfway through a capture (like when the capture point has been neutralized) the defenders lose access to the spawn.

So while the fight is going on and until the attackers secure the area around the capture point for a certain period of time, defenders can spawn in. Once they have clearly lost control of the outpost then their spawn gets automatically shut down so those players can move on to other outposts, pull ams/tanks and try to push back instead of sitting in the spawn room getting camped or moving from one camped spawn room to another.

It also means that taking down the spawn is not an optional mechanic that could be abused (for further spawn camping), nor would there be animosity between the people trying to secure the objective by destroying the SCU and the people that want to not ruin "the good fight".

If your empire holds over half of the capture progress its a safe bet you've established control over the outpost and the fight is pretty much over. While you finish the cap it gives the previous defenders an opportunity to set up at their next outpost, pull vehicles, or even try to counter-attack.

Other methods of improving the situation would be to add more cover around parts of the spawn building, or even Stronghold-like walls to both protect the spawn area and give defenders a solid position with which to attack out of, instead of an easily-camped room.

MrBloodworth · 2012-10-24, 02:01 PM

I Dislike any idea that cuts off the possibility of a comeback. Its the base layouts. The spawn should always be the last reachable thing in a base assault. Look at ANY standard forward base protocol and the barracks are next to the command post, in the center of the base. Layout 101.

The Current outpost designs ask defenders to walk across an entire base, normally from its out most parameter, through tanks and aircraft to even begin to reclaim the capture point. Vech terms are the same way. By design, the bases put defenders at a disadvantage, not only do they not hold the courtyard, they also have the challenge of getting through the entire attacking force TO defend.

TBH, knocking out a spawn gen is a act of mercy.

Figment · 2012-10-24, 02:02 PM

I dislike the idea of the game telling you you've lost while you're still in the fight.

I'll ffing decide for myself if I've lost. :P Besides, if you want to stall or resecure and you have a chance at that but just need a little more time as you're almost blowing up that enemy (Sundy) AMS, you don't suddenly want to lose your spawn to an arbitrary rule you can't really work with.

50% is just a number. But in PS2 I've also saved bases that were 95% red. Couldn't have done that without a solid spawn (and despite of Mishi Overwatch camping in a Magrider from the cliff on the other side).

And besides Malorn, How many bases in PS1 were saved by getting the spawns UP with 1:00 on the clock?

Miir · 2012-10-24, 02:52 PM

I'd like to try out the tug-a-war model Malorn suggests as a replacement for the SCU.

However we still need better placement of spawn rooms so they aren't easily camped by vehicles.

Summary of ideas I've liked in this thread:

Bring back SCU or new tug-a-war model to remove the prolonged campy ending.
Tweak base designs so spawn rooms are more protected from vehicle spam.
Add tunnels or additional methods to move around a base without exposing yourself to vehicles.
Remove scoring kills from people that have just spawned for a period of time. Discouraging camping/farming.
Have a minimum range in which you can deploy AMS's from each other.

Whiteagle · 2012-10-24, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

If your empire holds over half of the capture progress its a safe bet you've established control over the outpost and the fight is pretty much over. While you finish the cap it gives the previous defenders an opportunity to set up at their next outpost, pull vehicles, or even try to counter-attack.

Perhaps, but is there anything notifying the greater faction of this?

Often times when I've decided a base is a lost cause, I have to return to the Warpgate and shout about it over Regional Chat just so people know what's going on.

Originally Posted by Malorn

Other methods of improving the situation would be to add more cover around parts of the spawn building, or even Stronghold-like walls to both protect the spawn area and give defenders a solid position with which to attack out of, instead of an easily-camped room.

Yeah, it's almost as if you should have been considering this in the FIRST PLACE!

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I Dislike any idea that cuts off the possibility of a comeback. Its the base layouts. The spawn should always be the last reachable thing in a base assault. Look at ANY standard forward base protocol and the barracks are next to the command post, in the center of the base. Layout 101.

The Current outpost designs ask defenders to walk across an entire base, normally from its out most parameter, through tanks and aircraft to even begin to reclaim the capture point. Vech terms are the same way. By design, the bases put defenders at a disadvantage, not only do they not hold the courtyard, they also have the challenge of getting through the entire attacking force TO defend.

TBH, knocking out a spawn gen is a act of mercy.

Indeed, there are already far too many things that favor aggressive attacking in this game, especially with most base layouts making it easier to simply counterattack after loosing the territory then entrenching to defend it.

It really paints Planetside 2 as more of a "Team Death-match Shooter on Really Big Maps" then a "Planetary War of Continuous Conquest" when all the game mechanics discourage digging-in and holding ground.

Crator · 2012-10-24, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

It really paints Planetside 2 as more of a "Team Death-match Shooter on Really Big Maps" then a "Planetary War of Continuous Conquest" when all the game mechanics discourage digging-in and holding ground.

Do we even officially know what they are planning? I don't. I want to know though.

schlikbolt · 2012-10-24, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Do we even officially know what they are planning? I don't. I want to know though.

i dont think so. however, im not sure what i would prefer tbh

MrBloodworth · 2012-10-25, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

It really paints Planetside 2 as more of a "Team Death-match Shooter on Really Big Maps" then a "Planetary War of Continuous Conquest" when all the game mechanics discourage digging-in and holding ground.

This is what we have in practice.

IMMentat · 2012-10-25, 01:07 PM

what I think is needed are sensible spawn buildings, 2 ground floor exits on a small room usually surrounded by easily cut-off terrain is a foolish place to put a spawnpoint.

The pattern becomes,
spawn,
shoot out of shields,
step through shield,
#tank cannon to the chest#,
watch yourself crumple into a foetal position in slow motion (probably 1-2 seconds after the sever decides to tell you that you have died),
repeat until nauseum.

IMO a layout akin to the PS1 towers would be best, 2-3 story building with several elevated firing positions to help neuter tank door-camping.
Alternativley put a man-cannon/launcher system onto the spawn points (think of the accelerator jump pads on the amp station/base wall but have them start from inside a shield bubble on the spawn roof), that way a respawn wave would at least have a chance to counter attack instead of getting tank-spammed.

second option, 1-way teleporters leading to 1-3 small but elevated/submerged guard/sniper/bunker buildings spread around the local area, shielded to prevent instant death by vehicle but vunerable to troop access (similar to the anti-vehicle shield on an amp base).