Spawn limits

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by CipherNine, Oct 23, 2014.

  1. CipherNine

    What if every base had fixed spawn limit for each faction? This means that if number of active players in the region exceeds the spawn limit then players will have to wait in queue before respawning. Revives would also get affected by this.

    In order to avoid the queue they would have to spawn in previous base and use some kind of transport to get back in battle.

    What this accomplishes is that it spreads the fight over the region. Currently we have huge number of players spawning on the Sunderer and piling on control point. Player density is so large that fight degenerates into Planetside equivalent of Battlefield 3 64 player Metro. With spawn limits in place certain portion of the zerg would now have to use transports to get back into battle which opens up various interesting possibilities such as intercepting enemy reinforcements, open field skirmishes and at the same time it lowers player density around control points which allows flanking.

    Small to medium battles wouldn't be affected by this mechanic because spawn cap shouldn't be lower than 48 players per faction. Exact number however should vary from base to base. Crossroads watchtower can support more players than Ceres Farms for example so they shouldn't have same spawn limit.
  2. gartho33



    you lost me here... this is an action fps not an rts fps.... and that limits the game to mini fights.... where zerging turns into a constant wave for both attackers and defenders fighting over "neutral territory supposedly controlled by the defender....

    if you don't want to fight in a 46+ fight.... there are skirmishes going on all over the place... just press "M" to find an ideal fight....

    Edit: gota love that font size bug... hope this is legible....
  3. Degenatron

    I posted this in a similar thread:

    You could apply a direct nanite cost to the people spawning. Spawning at the nearest base would cost nothing, but spawning at an AMS would cost 50 Nanites. Apply that to all spawn locations:

    Base Spawn: 0n
    AMS Spawn: 50n
    Squad Spawns: 75n
    Beacon Spawns: 100n

    Something like that.

    I don't agree with limiting the ability of medics to revive dead players. That a core teamplay mechanic and medics shouldn't be punished for doing their job.
    • Up x 1
  4. CaptainTenneal

    I do think something needs to be done, the big fights are fine, its the gigantic fights that cause lag, and bring the game to a halt. I don't think it would hard to justify that, spawn tubes can only fit one guy at a time right? :)
  5. CipherNine

    Interesting idea. At the very least it would deal with grenade spam.
  6. ZomboWTF

    PS1 did it right, with NTUs and ANTs and base energy depleting when people are spawning, turrets are repaired and vehicles are spawned

    this simple form of limit is abhorrent, what are you basing your limit on? will it be restocked every day or only on factions capping the base and reset then? that makes no sense whatsoever and adds zero tactical play

    taking nanite costs for spawning everywhere but at the base would mean that attackers stand no chance if the defenders just keep rushing and tryharding
    • Up x 2
  7. CipherNine

    Lag aside, I feel some fights simply become too crowded. Lot of fights feel like BF3 64 player Metro CQ. Flanking is core FPS gameplay element and when number of players is too high you can't flank at that is when game starts feeling like WW1 trench warfare simulator with very little rushing and lots of grenade spam.
  8. ZomboWTF

  9. Shatteredstar

    Disagree. Spawns shouldn't be limited but put a resource reserve/slow generation on sunderers.

    That way attackers can lose access to nanite costing items just like defenders could (once resources are fully revamped)

    Would make for play where organized groups benefit much more than the Zerg because they would make more intelligent use of those resources (and require more planning for things like max crashing)

    Just spawning should never cost anything.
  10. CipherNine

    I think you misunderstood me. Idea is that fights feel the best and are most dynamic when number of players is within certain sweet spot. Spawn limit will equal to upper end of this sweet spot.

    Lets say spawn limit for Ti Alloys is 96. TR can bring 120 players and camp the control room. When TR players die they will have to wait in queue until number of alive&active TR players becomes lower than 96. If they wish to avoid the queue they will have to spawn outside the contested region and come back in a transport.

    Practical implications of this are:
    a)It lowers the players density around control point to sweet spot levels
    b)Fighting is now spread over the region as defenders can intercept incoming transports carrying "excess" troops.

    Of course same spawn limit applies to defenders.

    Now if you still think PS1 attrition system is better I'd be interested in your elaboration of why you think it is better.
  11. Shatteredstar

    Thing is with the actual resource system when it gets in place will likely push the game toward more gunplay and battle and less stalemates of vehicles camping outside with a super grenade max turtle inside.

    Sieges will also likely break quicker due to this and will cause less Zerg potential if the resources also are attached to sunderers since attackers will weaken the more time they push, AND if a base is depleted it will give a break while they need to refill the base to bring more armor or sunderers.

    This should help mitigate numbers a bit by slowing the Zerg and cutting down on log drawn out sieges that attract more and more and more people.
  12. Degenatron


    "Just spawning" would cost nothing. "Remote Spawning" would have a cost. Spawning at a base would be free - no limits. Spawning close to the front at an enemy base would have a cost.

    The resource limit at the AMS level won't have any effect on the zerg itself. A zerg doesn't win with consumables, it wins with sheer numbers.

    Imposing uniform costs to all remote spawns limits the ability to deploy AMSs and dump infantry close to the capture point.

    Additionally, there is a general feeling in the community that bases are not defensive enough. This automatically increases the ability to defend bases without major modifications to the maps. Since spawning at the base costs nothing, defenders can actually hold a base through attrition. The attackers, on the other hand, still have the ability to maintain the attack by spawning at their own base and shuttling to the front in transport AMSs and Gals.
    • Up x 1
  13. Degenatron


    I see now what you are talking about. The thing you have to understand is that some people love the big fights, and NO ONE likes sitting and looking at a "Please Wait" screen.

    Personally, I love massive battles. Especially when they occur in the places between bases. There are people who love BF3 Metro 64v64 24/7 servers (i don't, but they are obviously popular). The point is that it is not good too impose one persons arbitrary limits on the size of battle - especially if those limits are opaque.

    Imposing a nanite cost on remote spawning is:

    1) transparent to the players.
    2) allows players to make a choice about spawning at any time
    3) makes base defense a viable strategy
    4) drives conflicts into the open areas between bases
    5) reduces consumable spam
    • Up x 1
  14. Shatteredstar

    Imposing a spawn limit or nanite cost though would unevenly punish lower skill players also though and make factions with more low skill players actually unable to attack as effectivly. The good players also would get shut out by the more poor players.

    TTK and such are simply too low for that to work, breaking a base would be insanely difficult given how easy it is for the average player to die, not to mention spending the nanites for that would reduce vehicle and max use as a whole as well since win or lose players would be lacking resources when they did return to a base. If you're saying it eats from the AMS pool breaking a base would be incredibly hard given even during a Zerg how many people are dying.

    Consumables don't win bases? Losing access to all consumables, grenades, health packs, c4 wouldn't be detrimental when you're also losing access to MAX units as well? That alone gives a definite advantage to defenders as they only have to contest with infantry then, and no res grenades or EMP or flash or concussion?

    Bases will always be won by numbers but if numbers are even losing access to anything but the weapons you pop in with is a disadvantage. And if that same sunderers rolls to another base, the people spawning at it would be at a disadvantage vs the now fully equipped defenders. (Not to mention if they seiged the defenders out to run them out of resources, they couldn't pull new stuff from that base either when it flipped)

    Now if your issue is people redeploying and spitting out, that is an argument about redeploy not spawn limits

    We both seem to want to curtail the spamming of consumables and make it easier to defend against a flood, but I don't think the direction of the game is really to prevent players from being able to actively fight eachother either which if your new and average players eat up all the abilities to spawn at these remote locations, it will just aggravate the good players greatly since now they are being punished by lower skill players dying more (in the case of per AMS resources) or vehicle use and max use will drop greatly because people eat all their resources just spawning.
  15. Degenatron


    I agree that a "pop cap" or a "AMS Nanite pool" would unfairly punish good players because of bad players squandering those slots / resources. That's why the nanite costs should be imposed on the individual. And again, this cost should ONLY be imposed when players spawn at an AMS, not at a base. If you want to conserve your resources for attacking with consumables, then spawn at the previous base and get a ride or run to the target base.

    People complain about vehicle and max spam. It's generally accepted that the "chain-pulling" of vehicles and maxes is a bad thing. I'm taking it one step further and saying "chain-pulling ANYTHING is bad" - that includes C4, Med kits, and grenades. There SHOULD be limits.

    On top of that, I'll go one step further - the farther you go from your warpgate, the slower your resources should regenerate. That means that driving deep into the enemy territory gets harder and harder.

    Now, I'm not talking about "losing all access to consumables". Nanites would still come in - even at the edge of the enemy warpgate - and that means access to those consumables would still be availible. What I'm talking about is "throttling" that access.

    And the idea here is to transform the strategic use of an AMS from "Park and vomit attackers onto the point" into a "burst of re-reinforcements".

    Additionally, the numbers I put out for the cost of respawns are just initial spit-ball numbers off the top of my head. Those numbers could be tweaked to find a balance. also, they could be affected by things like Locked Continent Bonuses.

    As far as the use of Redeployment, I don't think that should be curtailed. Players need the ability to move around the map to have fun. Running from the nearest base is one thing, running across the continent is another.
  16. ZomboWTF

    so you want to force people to further limit their playing field by making it harder to go further into enemy territory?
    that would be too harsh of a limit, why even have warpgates when you cant push a faction back to them?

    you shouldn't be punished when you are pushing the enemy back to the warpgate, this is a game of numbers, not a racing game where the 1st place gets a handicap
  17. Shatteredstar

    It seems we kind of have similar ideas, we just differ where we want the hit to be.

    How I see the use of personal nanites is that especially for the average player in the normal base siege they'd probably lose half or more of their nanites in the course of fighting. (You know these people, the ones who die and die and die.) they don't have the knowledge or coordination to know to catch a ride or will give up and log off when they can't spawn or switch characters. The other issue that presents is swapping to vehicles or max to respond and try to break a stalemate MUCH harder.

    Say I've been fighting back and forth and having a bad night Id probably burn down my nanites to the point that at 450 a max suit would be out of reach. (Which I still say is way too much for how easy you can be killed), or after a long base battle even if I'm spawning at the base I may not even be able to pull a sund or gal, which similarly if people should go back to the other base, if they've been battling and then the sund goes down, will they have the nanites available for more sunds and armor/vehicles to support, or even the rides back.

    The limit you're proposing is charging players the in game cost or extra time AND the in game resource if they are expected to pull vehicles to get there (or hoof it I guess but that has never really been all that viable for base to base effectivly).


    I'd rather see the abilities of the attacking force weakened in some fashion as a kind of "you're weakening because of how well they are defending) but not completely breaking a siege simply by a very strong turtle by the defenders.

    Perhaps mixing the consumable aspect with tweaking respawning time. Maybe something like tacking on an extra second based off how 'depleted' the AMS is but we are kind of getting into that punishing everyone for bad play.

    Losing consumables of course does only have a moderate effect on the skilled players is why that seems a decent thing, still adding like 3-4 seconds or so to respawns or something might also give defenders more breathing room to push out.

    You could implement things like undeploying the sunderers will let it recharge quicker but cannot be within x range of another deployed sunderers or it doesn't charge.

    Maybe a shared nanite pool for attackers in a hex divided by sunderers that recharges more slowing from distance from warpgate (similar to the idea you mentioned) it would make attacking bases further out certainly more difficult as you lose tools to fight with and on site maxes would be less used by attackers deep in, but skilled groups and good play will still let them fight and win, instead of being forced to fall back because they CANT maintain a fight anymore.

    I don't think we are going to be breaking zerging completely though unless the lattice system gets a rework to help spread out fighting a little (tiny bases should not have lattice line!!!!!!!) but players shouldn't suffer hits on their own resource unless they actually spend them knowingly, the average player isn't going to know and recognize a system that charges them just for spawning or really want to deal with it if they eventually run out. For the average player why go back and get a ride? I got my hour or two maybe of play, log off or switch chars.
  18. LibertyRevolution

    I do not want tickets in this game. I like that dying in this is meaningless.
    If there was a ticket system like BF3, then I would actually have to play more cautiously..
    I play this for fun, if I wanted to play like a tryhard, I would just fire up BF3..
  19. WarmasterRaptor

    Wait for the implementation of power with the second phase of the resources revamp.

    You'll get your spawns limits ;)
  20. Shatteredstar

    Well do we know if power will stop spawning or just prevent use of anything consumable/terminal use?