Since this game's release the developer's have consistently been focused on two things, in almost every single update: I. Hackers. Despite the community's vicious accusations that nothing is being done, I do hear the 'Powers-that-Be' over and again claim hearty attempts to stamp this out, as it is something that needs stamping upon. II. Camping/SpawnKilling/etc.etc... More than almost anything else every patch seems to 'reduce spawn camping' or 'nerf farms' whatever jargon you wish to call it. As I've stated in other posts: (http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/game-update-04-coming-soon.99770/page-30) the key to success is to define the desired model and engineer the system to support that model. Perhaps I am missing something significant here, but the facts seem to display that the model is completely separate of the intended vision. Let me explain: In this game, the 'objective' is to hold hexes by hacking a base. Yet the game supports spawning at this base irrespective of the number of enemy players inside it, within a shield. One more time. The game allows players to spawn, protected, inside a base completely held by enemy forces. If those forces do not set defenses to keep the players inside that area, inside their protection, they will retake the base. The objective of the game is to take bases. Surely the point is clear now? As long as the enemy is able to spawn inside bases during the capturing process the opposing faction(s) must maintain pressure on them to keep the base capture from being thwarted. There is no 'cheapness' or unskilled play, it's a strategic necessity. Yet the developers have clearly outlined a vision that calls for an end to "spawn camping" and have seen fit to implement weapon-power-reductions to this end. When hit in the face, apply bandage to the knee. The developer's answer does not address the problem. I do not, ever, like to post "whining" posts, and surely not starting whole threads here defined as outlining a problem - without providing a solution. So here are some of the many that are plausible: Implement SCUs at the bases without them. This way spawning could be stopped by the conquering army. Simple. Stop complaining about spawn camping and accept it as a facet of the game. Sounds harsh but this is an option to consider, this would of course carry the penalty of ceasing "nerfs" in the name of such things. Create buildings outside of bases actively being captured that elaborate on the tunnel mechanic to get the defenders inside the captured base, apart from the 'main spawn room'. Of course this must be executed correctly or else the invading army will simply 'camp' the removed spawn area. There are plenty of other ideas, feel free to post your own, but as it is - the desire for the game's direction is at odds with the mechanics that rule the game. (I always try to put a TLDR section on the bigg'uns to allow those with little patience or time to get my point and to reiterate my hypothesis) TLDR:: PlanetSide 2's own rules support spawn camping and the Developers are enacting weapon reductions and attribute changes to reduce spawn camping. Along with some suggestions to 'fix' the camping issue.
Only looked at TLDR, so, They want to give the campee's more chances to stop being camped. As long as we know where players spawn there will be camping.
Phyr, I agree and if you have some time I suggest reading the rest of my post, it shouldn't be too much I try to space the sentences out well. I will concede that's a truism in any game, the problem here is: it becomes a tactical necessity to do so, else the 'campee's' will retake your base.
That would enforce the social aspect of the game, wouldn't it? In a game where a frightening number of players are 'lone wolves'. Doesn't make sense for an MMO..
It does for this one! And, honestly, I don't need a very meticulous argument here. If we say "but [some other game/genre] doesn't do it like that" or "that's not how it works in [some other game/genre]" then we're doing nothing more than being derivative.
battlefield 3, higby and smedly knows what is best for their game, spoiled consumers, give us more money, etc. etc. look anyone who played the first planetside immediately sees everything wrong with his, planetside did it right, and any if not all complaints saying it is bad tend to be people who are overlooking all the major flaws of this game and how it makes everything WORSE and probably never really played planetside before the bending if at all. Literally they could have just kept out the bending, remake planetside 1 on a better engine and everything would be perfect. instead they said "we want the battlefield audience" What does the battlefield audience mean? Well lets look at what happens when someone says they want the call of duty audience? They just make a knock off of the very product, and in this case this is really just an attempt to copy battlefield 3 but try to make it so the match never ends. So they made it so you can't continent lock because they said it was stupid, they said hacking was stupid, inventory and looting is stupid, they said the first planetside was stupid, doors are stupid, why bother putting water on our continents that is stupid too, why not make each continent a square map instead of being a continent because continents are stupid, we don't need more than one continent because that would be work and that is stupid. Literally at the beginning during interviews and such they said a lot of dumb things, I'm pretty sure their intended audience had no clue what this meant. They made a lot of half *** lazy decisions mainly because they felt making this game feel, look, and play like battlefield is enough to generate money, and honestly it is. They can say they are working hard, but being stupid isn't hard work. I give them credit, they're showed through early alpha pictures that they could have made the weapons less bland, along with a lot of other things, but granted at the end of the day they thought that was also stupid as well and scrapped anything and everything good. They used youtube celebrities to attempt to market this game, honestly it kind of disgusted me, since I didn't want to be associated with someone for playing a faction i liked. Can you imagine just playing a game, but if you joined this one side you are automatically claiming to like My Little Pony or joining another would claim, "I like to take dragon ***** in my orifices" I don't think any of them even played planetside let alone tribes or anything close to it, and I don't think they actually play planetside 2, they just made an account to sit on. To me its more of "less work for more money" is a very common thing from developers and companies, however an odd thing is they manage to spend so much money STILL its like being lazy costs more money anyways. Whole game is a huge disappointment, i hope higby and smedly loses their job to a more competent 5 year old business boy who spends more time being honest instead of spewing marketing nonsense.
I kind of want to bring us back on-topic of SPAWN CAMPING, here and as a PlanetSide 1 vet I can see that there was meticulous analysis of what worked and didn't in PS1 and a real effort to prevent that in this iteration. Such things can be seen in the simply terrible performance of the Jackhammer and the non-invincibility of MAX units. To quote the film 'The Lost World' "not making the same mistakes again... ..no you're making all new ones" The issues in PS2 are endemic to PS2 and the only "holdover" I see from the 'good-ol-days' that weren't so good, is the developer's micromanagement approach to balance. Taking community rhetoric perhaps a bit too strongly and reducing things right and left to please the plebs.
No... The problem is how the spawn mechanic and defenses are setup at all these locations. Also, with no reward for defending or breaking a turn over... The incentive is to zerg and attack versus defending and holding the line. The spawn rooms and control points are actually easier to camp... WITH VEHICLES. This is a bad design in general for defenders, because it doesn't allow defenders to 'defend'. Most of the small places are so damn open, the effort to try and defend is pointless, it is better to attack than defend and there are NO INCENTIVES TO DEFEND IN GENERAL. The answer to remove spawn rooms.... Let's just go one step further... REMOVE BASES. There is no point to having bases. This should just be people running around like idiots shooting each other, because there is no point in having base captures if there is no reason to defend. Capturing a base is just a 'break' from running from where you spawn to the fight anyways. Don't like that statement? Sorry, but that is EXACTLY what that comment is. The problem here is seriously any base defense they had right now, is broken. It leaves too much for defenders to try and hold at times unless the attacking force suffers serious handicaps, like how Crown hinders most ground attacks and any small, piecemeal air attacks. At the same time, the drop-pod mechanic/instant action needs to be adjusted so that short of a spawn beacon, you cannot drop ontop of an enemy base, but around our outside of it. Instant action should allow you to spawn at one of the nearby friendly vehicles or spawn points, not drop pod you into a potential hornet's nest. Base designs should make attackers, once they are in, defenders versus campers. Planetside one forced vehicle users to get out of the tanks and air and help push in with the rest of the infantry, it should be the same here for this game for taking control of the points and a lot of the smaller places should have more than one point to encourage people to 'work' at it., cause places like Broken Arch, and Xenotech suck for defense because they are too easy for vehicles to prevent defenders from defending not just simply because infantry can cover some of the areas. The current mechanic encourage bad players, and by bad, I mean, players not willing to do much more than fall back each time and just attack.
