Better defenses

So you have a wave of people running out just to get pushed back in after 3 sec, and you bet that wave will be the exception. Most of the time individuals will run out trying their luck just to get peppered into swiss cheese.

All this talk about buffing the defenders, does it not just change the attack/defender ratio of what is needed to win? The outcome is the same. Attackers gets through first line, then reach the point, then push defenders back. Then the defenders think "but-but the timer hasn't expired yet! that means we're supposed to be able to win! waaah this spawn camp must end, attackers should be forced back so we can get out and do a futile counter attack. attackers should pretend that they haven't won already, they should move back and give us a chance".

Thye best way to leave the spawn room is to do it before the enemy has invested it.

In other words, give battle to the enemy in route.

But the attackers always have a chance.
Attackers can set up their spawnpoints. The moment they would be "spawncamped" their Sunderer is destroyed. But due to the vehicle superiority that the attackers are guaranteed to have they can (hope to) replace it. The attackers also have basically infinite time to accomplish their attack as long as they arent pushed back. I mean look at a biolab for instance. Even after breaking through and being able to capture the points the fight can still take hours before they have a solid control of the points. And then... The defenders have mere minutes to reverse it, while the attackers just needed 30 minutes or waaay more.
And this is only made worse by the spawn system. You cant bottle up the attackers, its impossible. The attackers will just get a different spawn location. The defenders cant do this because their extra spawns will get hunted down and destroyed by the vehicle superiority of the attackers, assuming you can place them at all.
So why would they give the defenders, who already get but a teeny tiny amount of time to retaliate compared to the time the attackers get to attack, an additional drawback in a spawn that actually makes it EASIER to kill or bottle up the defenders? If you want the defenders to push back, then they need a fair chance. They already have time against them, theres no need to add a screwy spawnroom.

not really, my idea is that the enemies will no longer be able to camp the spawn,
the defenders will have more than 2 exits so camping will be riskier.

This.

It's not perfect but at least teleporters give the defenders another approach angle. Well, at least some of them do. A lot of bases that are prone to spawn camping definitely need one. There should also be a beginner's directive to encourage new players to go through teleporters. They are sadly underutilized. Same thing for tech plant and amp station tunnels but that's another story.

This argument is as old as team-based shooters. I remember this from Warbirds, and Air-Warrior 3. The proper answer has always been the same.

Wouldn't another approach angle be mobile spawn points from the next base?

Bottom line:

Don't make the enemy come all the way to your spawn in order to get a fight.

If you can't stop them from locking down the spawn room, fall back and counterattack.

It would. Good luck running a Sundy through a gauntlet of air, infantry and ground AV though. Remember, we're talking about a scenario where the defenders are being spawn camped so assume attackers have force multiplier out the wazoo.

If you're saying pre emptively pull a defending Sundy and park it next to the point then yes, that's one of the tactics me and my outfit employ when defending against a zerg. Again though, a pre emptive pull implies that spawn camping isn't happening. A teleporter gives the defenders the opportunity to mount a last ditch assault on point. How is that a bad thing?

I honestly don't understand why there's pushback against this.

This would be super helpful. Even if only to quickly fire a rocket at the harasser hiding in the massive blind spot with a PPA or whatever.

I wonder about including a sort of base-building option as part of regular bases.

It couldn't work exactly like the player-built bases -- we can't let people put up walls and block things off.

But there COULD be a number of "optional components" to a base which interested players can get Cortium for and construct. Like outside of the spawn room there are "optional walls" with "optional shield-doors" and so forth. The spots for them are marked out. You just need to get Cortium to the base to build them. Some optional turrets with optional AI-modules to automate them., etc.

I do agree that "base defense" is all too often all about numbers, with the defenders have no actual advantage.

(The base-building option would also mean that the defender advantage is temporary. Flipping the base should probably destroy all that stuff and it can be destroyed via normal damage, as well. But it might be a big deal for helping a small base defense team hold off a larger attack long enough for help to arrive.)

I've always been partial to disabling the bases spawn mechanics at a certain point into the base capture.

It makes all the futile defenders have to move on to either reform into a counter attack or go some where else, basically becoming useful again instead of crops to be farmed.

It also demoralizes the attackers because now THEY have to sit and defend a base capture with nothing to shoot at (if no defenders come back). Often times after a hard won spawn capture some ,if not most of, the attackers get bored and leave before the base flips. Giving the defenders better or more even odds to regain the base.

I often think they left spawn camping in for that exact reason alone. So attackers can play whack'a'mole while they wait for the base to flip. Rather than get bored and move on. Ultimately though Vets know not to get farmed, new players get camped and frustrated. It could use something.

Again, it's not bad that the defense broke(btw its 4 minutes, not 3 on any small base, 6 for large ones), the attackers have the upper hand in a new assault, they can drop, place sundis, get to points before a defense line is established, but defenders have a hardspawn that can't be removed (which is why the SCU is important) but attackers do, the major disadvantage in attacking nearly any base is no good way to attack it from any other base without a spawn, which is why biolabs are such ****fests because the defending team doesn't push you out, they simply push you back. I do agree that spawns should be more open, but not simply moving to the rest of the base.

Second paragraph was speaking on the stance from the attacker perspective, forcing yourself to go through chokes, just to kills sundis is often a bad idea and can be accomplsihed with other AV vehicles instead.

You seem rather close minded that defenses are only for infantry or attacks are only for infantry, there's always a sundi or gal somewhere keeping the spawns unless it's a biolab, and I don't have to tell you what base everyone dislikes.

Ideally, attackers should not be able to spawn camp. Holding the capture points and the few chokepoints around should be their only goal. But they obviously go further until they lock the spawnroom, because at this very moment they only have one chokepoint inside this base to hold, and it's a damn easy one with even pop, even without vehicules.

Technically, it's almost impossible to prevent such a thing. Mostly because of the terrain and relative position of the spawnroom with the rest of the base. The bases that overcome partially this struggle are often the ones with alternative exit (and far enough from the spawnroom), and the ones that are themselves rather safe from spawncamping (mostly when the spawn is on high ground, and some Tower Bases).
Some bases are so tiny that an alternative exit is not even to consider. Others are so badly placed relatively to the terrain around (or the capture point itself) that the spawnroom should move to the other side of the base, or just get burried.

One of the easiest solution (which means it doesn't require a complete redesign of a base and the terrain), is to discourage attackers to camp a spawnroom. Setting hard defensive lines, with turrets (and buff those terrible AI turret, they're worse than Vulcans...), bunkers and the like, to really hold the attacker away from the spawnroom, which let the opportunity for the defenders to take other ways to their target. At worst it will set a half-safe perimeter for the defenders where they're sure not to get instagibed. At best it will do its job and prevent any spawncamp from the inside (vehicles on high ground and air support will still be a thing, or should we add a skyshield ?). It could also give some priority target for vehicles, instead of directly killing people when they pop out of the spawn. I'm also all for more hackable/destroyable shielded doors that impede attacker movements inside the base. A postern would be useful for some enclosed bases (Esamir waves) to be able to get out of the walls without having to pass through the doors rushed by the attackers.

On a second note, still in a case of spawncamping (i.e. : all points held by the attacker), sending a ground counter-attack from another base is often out of the equation because of the sheer number of attackers holding the entrances, and the time you have to reach the points, let alone capturing them. Actually the best way to take back a point from the attackers is to pull a Gal with your squad/platoons and drop right on them. The Galaxy is the only vehicule that can overcome any defensive line with a low number. They can also reach their target fairly quickly, sometimes faster than pulling a sundy in the closest base.

There is really no substitute for keeping the bad guy away from your spawn exit.

You can make the exit, or conditions of exit, as elaborate as you want- there is still an exit.

If you make the bad guy come all the way to that exit in order to find a fight, he'll be waiting.

Yes, completely true! So by creating the option to use a drop-pod within the region you still have that problem!
Except you don't!

Also by creating enough exits, and slating the exits to the defenders, you can remedy this situation. Currently the defenders have barely any view of their surroundings around many spawnbunkers making it easy for the attackers to surround it and any defender showing his face will instantly be shot at by 6 or more guys. Now part of this design is to prevent spawnwarriors having too much to shoot at, but there are alternatives. The AMP station for instance are one of the best designed bases in that regard. The spawnroom has buildings that can be fought over by both the attackers and defenders, although it's still slated in favor of the attackers, and the spawnroom has 2 easily reachable jumppads as well as a tunnel system that can take you to 3 different points around the base. And the center tunnel system often has 2 gravlifts that take you upwards allowing you a bit more freedom in where you come up and requiring the attackers to have more people before they can bottle you up.

So why not put that in other bases? Put some tunnel and teleportation systems to defensible places far away. Teleport players to a small tunnel system underneath parts of the base and allow them a choice of multiple gravlifts to come up. This means the defenders don't have the option to shoot at enemies before they leave the safety of the tunnels and will have to go out guns blazing, but due to the amount of gravlifts and their position it could be nigh impossible to truly lock it down, especially if the defenders concentrate on one gravlift and overwhelm the spread-out attackers. This in turn forces the attackers to use different strategies: Stick to the points in an actual defense.

Doesn't matter what the actual time is, 6 minutes is tiny compared to the time the attackers get, and often need, to push forwards when there's equal numbers. So why not give the defenders a similar consideration? The defenders should at the very least have an equal chance to recapture the points. Since that's not possible right now due to the way the spawnroom chokes the defenders, rather than gives them the perfect platform to defend the damn base, the spawnrooms need to be redesigned.

The indestructible spawn is a requirement for the defenders to function. And considering it's current design, it's barely an advantage at all. The attackers will always, always start with a vehicular superiority. If they didn't have vehicular superiority, they wouldn't have been able to place the Sunderer, and they wouldn't have been the attacker but the defender.

The... 'disadvantage' of attacking any base is requiring a spawn...?
Are you seriously asking for bases that are so damn easy to capture that it doesn't require you to revive your troops through a spawn?
Here's another gem! "The major disadvantage of defending a base is that you need a spawn to do it!". Hey the exact same applies to the defenders! Only difference is that they have a pre-build spawn. This is ofcourse necessary since the defenders won't have the time or ability to pull new Sunderers if they were defeated. Imagine if the spawnbunkers weren't there, it would mean that the defenders needed to pull a Sunderer from the warpgate (or from the nearest large facility assuming that did have a spawnbunker) and drive it all the way up to their base. Only to have it destroyed seconds after arriving and deploying because the attackers always always always have vehicle superiority. Not only would the defenders suddenly require more time and effort to even get to their own base, it would mostly be a futile action and mean the attackers can steamroll an entire side.

The attackers perspective who's trying to destroy sundi's...? What the hell are you talking about.
Also as I already mentioned, the defenders need to work themselves through chokes just as much as the attackers, if only to reach the enemy sunderer or push back the attackers out of a vital area. And once the attackers gain control of too large a part of the base the defenders are instantly made obsolete due to the way the spawnroom forces it's own defenders through a chokepoint just to get outside.

Everyone likes Biolabs, that's why the fights there are so damn big. Ofcourse with great popularity there comes a lot of players who like to hate on it.
Anyway, I'm not close-minded. Infantry simply is the main way for the defenders to actually defend. The defenders just lost the vehicular fase, so they aren't up to the task to keep the attackers away. Now building up a new vehicular force and keeping it alive long enough to counter the attackers takes too much time and can still fail, after all the defenders failed the first time. So defense is primarily an infantry-oriented one.
But naturally you come up with some weird stuff. All this time I've been saying that the attackers have vehicular superiority, but here you are saying I'm thinking that the attackers are only infantry? Again you are just making things up as you go along.

If the enemy can overrun you with numbers both inside and outside the base, then really no amount of fighting is going to win it for the defenders... you're just outpopped. In that case the defenders have two options: get reinforcements or fight in another area.

Galaxy drops can clear a point, but they do have significant disadvantages. Defensively, a Galaxy drop means that the enemy still has their spawn logistics up; killing attackers on the point simply means they'll be back soon. And if they could take the point originally, there's no reason to expect that they won't be able to do it again.

To successfully defend a base, you need to destroy the attacker's logistics. And to destroy their logistics (and prevent them from coming back), the easiest thing to do is to counterattack in force with vehicles. The other option would be to fight through a base as infantry, which is problematic because you'll be fighting against the direction of the attacking infantry. You also can't really prevent new Sunderers from coming in as infantry, at least not as effectively as a mobile vehicle patrol would.

So in relatively even fights where the defenders have enough time, counterattacking with vehicles and destroying enemy logistics, followed up by a dismount fight into the enemy's rear is the most effective strategy for clearing a base. A Galaxy drop should probably only be part of that strategy, to disrupt the enemy or to buy time for the main counterattack.

I mean you're basically asking the base designers to pull their heads out of their *****. Which will never happen. Cap points about 150+ meters from the spawn with easy sundy access, teleporters 2-5 feet from the spawn that don't even offer another path/angle. Tower bases with ALL their points outside the tower. Ridges the enemies can just park sundies on with cover from the spawnpoint ?(Which infantry can't even approach from the base without walking a mile around because our soldiers are apparently functionally ******** and can't figure out 30 degree inclines.) Or because there is a literal WALL preventing defenders from just running up but doing nothing to dissuade the attackers on the ridge.

Gonna be honest if real life worked like Planetside and some moron offered me these base designs I'd chain him to a wall and order him beaten savagely every hour on the hour for the next year.

Maybe if all spawnrooms were underground. Like a basement or something. With 3 exits out of the spawnroom all leading to different areas of this basement complex and different parts of the base.
Maybe the spawroom wouldnt have a shield to compensate for being unspamable and harder to reach, but still have a painfield. Which would 100% remove "spawnroom warriors".
Also destructable "spawntubes", so that an overwhelming zerg could just rush in and end it instead of dragging it on.
And the control points would also be underground, meaning nothing could be camped by vehicles.
One of the exits would lead to the roof of a sort of "courtyard" area, where defenders could shoot down at attackers. Also the base would have an outer layer of ramparts with turrets.
The "courtyard" would have two large gates where vehicles could pass through.
There would also be an alternate enterance to the base. Lets call it "the backdoor". It would be locked but infils could hack it to open.
There would also be an SCU in the basement destroyable by damage that could be accessed by sneaking through the backdoor. Perhaps we could call it "the generator".
Maybe the base would also have a sort of cortium silo in the courtyard that needed to be charged, or else the defenders would be unable to spawn. (Lets call it "the NTU silo" for some reason)
So that no fights would end in a stalemate as long as the attackers could hold the "courtyard" with vehicles long enough.
Vehicles would still be useful for securing the "courtyard" and pushing defenders back into the base, but wouldnt be able to camp and spam causing less frustration overall.

Almost all the time when you get spawncamped, the enemy is numerous enough to control the outside area (and I can only think about Biolabs not being the case sometimes, thanks to teleporters from close bases). Being outpopped will always be a thing. My point was that it's ok if the attackers hold the capture points and the chokepoints, including outside exits, but it's not ok if they spawncamp. This just outright anihilates any possibility of internal retaliation, even with even pop if reinforcements get in to help. Just because the only chokepoint the attacker have to control is this spawn.

Galaxy don't solve the enemy spawn issue, but they overcome the "one chokepoint" matter. Which is already a big improvement in the ability for the defenders to actually retaliate, and perhaps recapture a point.

Destroying the attackers' logistic is indeed the primary objective, for which vehicule assault is the best answer. But if you're out of time (like often in this case), the enemy will still capture the base and then either repel the vehicule assault or take the defender role.

However I completely agree with you, pulling vehicules to harass the attackers before they get all points and spawncamp the base is clearly the best solution, because you got time, and the infantry inside the base is still operational.

Setting up stronger defenses for the spawn area (and not interfering with capture points too much, hopefully) could prevent the problem and let defenders enjoy several paths to get to their targets.Which keeps them operational.

On a side note, I don't like either that Gals are the best tool for any capture situation. They fly, they're rather fast, they're so sturdy that you can barely get two down with a full squad of AA (by the way it's worse now that AA turrets have a lower range, maybe significantly increase their damage against Gal ?). Requiring Air superiority to deploy them would really be the minimum to think about using them (so reduce Gal A2A dmg reduction ?). It would tend more to a Combined Arms game than a "one Gal to rule them all".