Exploit or Legit Tactic???

I'm talking about spawn beacon abuse.

We all know that spawn beacons are a powerful tool when in the right hands. That's why their cooldown time is so long, so they can't be exploited!

Yesterday I was defending a one point base when an enemy outfit galaxy dropped on the point. No problem, we kill their gals. Then they put down a spawn beacon, no problem, we kill that too. But they kept putting down spawn beacons, as fast as we could kill them! At first I thought, "How many squads are we fighting anyways?! There's only like 2 dozen enemies here!"

Only later did I realize that the enemy outfit was constantly re-arranging their squads with the express purpose of circumventing the spawn beacon's long cooldown. As soon as we killed one beacon, a new squad leader would be appointed and put down a new beacon, so there was never a time when the attackers didn't have a beacon down.

Using this spawn advantage they constantly re-inforced the point, there was no time when they didn't control it, while we the defenders had to spawn some distance away. This tactic seems basically unbeatable, especially for one point bases where a gal drop is practically impossible to stop.

It was an even pop fight. Skill level was roughly equal. The defenders made no mistakes. So the enemy outfit won solely because of "gaming" the beacon's cooldown time.

What are thoughts on this? How can it be stopped? Should it be stopped?

this only happens with a well organized squad, i don't see the problem here
it's not like every squad can pull this off

i remember playing in a random squad once when the leader lost connection with a new BR30 leader
when the rightful leader logged back in he needed to ask for the lead back
we all know how this ended up, mad ex leader joking current leader
it was really hilarious

now let that squad change command for the beacon

I'd call it abuse, but it's not specifically against any game's rules, so it's legit.

It's not a matter of how often it happens, it is a matter of it happening at all.

It's definitely an oversight on DGC's part. The fix for it though? Can't think of anything that can't be worked around easily enough. It IS a demoralizing abuse of a mechanic, the sort of cheap $#!% that will convince someone every once in a while this game ain't worth any more of their money or time (like faction swapping sunderer TKs, rapid redeploying around the map, etc.) Try-hards will always do more harm than good in this particular game.

Sadly, controlling these rather toxic try-hard behaviors is even harder than usual because of the nature of PS2.

8 man platoons

GG's

yep it don't happens often this is why i don't see the problem
but if DBG wants to fix this, a 10 minutes cool down to change over a command should do the job

Please don't

This is why we need a squad cooldown. squad leader places it every members beacon goes into CD.

This prevents them from forming new squads to continue cycling as well

Ive seen this done in hossin LA suqads in trees and Indar squads

Its nearly impossible to combat effectively

I can't believe this nonsense.

What's with people going around accusing anything they don't like of being an "exploit" lately? This isn't even CLOSE to being an exploit, by no stretch of the imagination.

Yeah how dare those guys use tactics and teamwork to achieve a goal. This is Planetisde! We need to nerf that **** asap right?

You lost a fight because you didn't adapt. There is at least a dozen ways you could have countered that, probably more if you described the situation and population and assets available to you at the time. YOU didn't use them, THEY did.

Imho beacons should replace redeploy totally.

That's not a justification to overlook something if it actually presents an issue against a item's initial design philosophy. Now you should have to determine for how much weight the initial design matters.

The problem with the argument youre making here is it could be applied to anything

I could say The original ZoE was perfectly fine because it was in game and it was possible to stop a max using it.

The issue isnt possible or not but viability as far as counterplay.

Thats why things get buffed/nerfed/reworked

To bring the whole game closer to being on equal grounds for everyone

Wait, can't defenders use the EXACT same tactic they did? Can't they switch squad leaders and rotate beacons?

OOOPS! Your argument just fell apart. They WERE on equal grounds.

The design was to prevent individual players from spamming beacons. That's obvious.

To call this tactic, which has been used by organized good outfits for over THREE YEARS, an exploit or oversight is just silly.

Ignorance of something happening does not mean that it is okay. Both corruption and good intentions fly under the noses of people who are not in the political know all the time but that does not mean that the unseen channel automatically is okay.

The OP seems to express concern that this can happen. I too will express surprise that this is possible. In fact, after talking to various outfits and people in the game in general, this is absolutely the first time in the three years I have been playing the game, including talking with people about leadership concerns and the like, I have ever heard anyone talk about it being an actual thing (as opposed to a "let's make certain this doesn't lead to exploitative behavior" during a "adjust how spawn beacons work" thread).

I think that speaks more about you, your outfit, and those you play with than the game.

I mean....come on. Are you serious?

See this is the games biggest problem. People just want to mindlessly zerg, then they hate those who use tactics and teamwork to rise above it.

I thought of that already of course

It favors offense greatly since they dont have as easy to spawn points inside of bases as often and have more need for these things

Also while on the offensive it allows for easier cut off and lockdown into spawn rooms whree the defensive doesnt really have that same option

And the offensive is more likely to use it by far for these reasons

If pops are even, defense ALWAYS has the advantage. They could have parked a defensive Sunderer RIGHT on the point building. Just because most players are too stupid to do this, doesn't mean we need to nerf the other guys because they used good tactics.

I see it as a clever and legitimate tactic by a well organised squad/platoon. My tiny outfit gets beat all the time by well organised squads because they have the good sense and numbers to play tactically.

A few EMP grenades soon puts paid to any number of spawn beacons though.

The developers did make changes to the way spawn beacons could be shuffled in the past, in such ways that the kind of blatant acitivty the OP describes should not be possible, acting as if the way it was being used was not what was intended, so there is that. It's entirely possible the situation the OP describes actually contains elements he is not familiar with and did not mention - such that the said shuffling actually involved maintaining access to an equipment terminal, one of the few native ones or an AMS, and that helped them, or that they did keep brining at least one person back into the fight from some external spawn where the beacon was replenished. In any case, aspects of spawn beacons have been instituted in the past with the goal of not letting their use become explosive.

I congratulate the group the OP fought against if theirs was a juggling act more complicated than meretly switching around people to take advantage of beacons that magically appear in their pockets. At the very least, the strategy requires one person constantly paying to spawn point availability.

However, to say "we can't talk about it" is an attitutde I feel reproachable. All aspects of the game should be capable of being discussed when brought up and an activity or behavior defended if defensible. Saying "only a few people use it so it's fine" is a contextless generalization that neglects intent or impact. There is nothing untouchable, just either presented poorly or misunderstood. In the both cases, moreso the latter, the goal should be further enlightenment, not obscurity.