[Suggestion] How to fix spawncamping

Just thought of a way spawncamping could be fixed:

We know maps are able to detect the amount of players in a region right? I would suggest to keep the current spawn bunker system, but have maps take note about the way players and their faction are distributed around the region so that the game has the ability to know that it's been a few minutes since the high majority of the defenders have been pushed back to their spawn points (failed to protect the facility), and the attackers have taken control of the sorroundings buildings, to then give them the facility so they can come in and clean house.

I don't have the technical knowledge to know if this can be smoothly coded in the game but this looks to me like a simple enough solution to a problem that makes the gameplay slower, duller and more repetitive than it should be.

Hurrah for zergs, winning by just showing up everywhere all over.

You want something that will decimate spawn camping? Defender projectiles that strike enemies, by passing through the spawn shield, are no-xp OHK. That'll keep attackers out of line of sight of the spawns. If the buildings need to be tighened up to be less visible to the rest of the base from the doors, then so be it; we have lost cost barricades for that.

.

Why should the game encourage futile defenses? If the attackers have broken the defence and pushed the enemy back into the spawn room then the defenders have lost and it's just a waiting game. Putting deadly turrets inside spawn room just pushes the attackers back a bit but they will still be aiming their guns to where the defenders are coming.

What is up with this naive notion that a battle can and is supposed to be an even and exciting struggle to the very end? Any competition that involves progression will have it's fate determined early and the rest will be a waiting game.

Reminds me of when playing War Thunder. People who got their vehicle crippled in a situation they can't win will still try to repair their tank and hope that they will be able to shoot back, instead of just pressing 'J' to "leave" the vehicle. Most of the time the first shot will determine the winner in a duel, yet people insist on waiting until the 2nd (killing) blow.

Because even a futile defense can be fun? Why, instead, should this game encourage swamping enemy bases with bodies that don't do anything but stand around and be counted even more than it already does, and reward that kind of behavior by making the process go by even quicker, though the method to achieve it bears much less finesse than the base resecure, even if it is rare?

I dare say I believe there is more merit in bases taking longer both to capture and to resecure depending on the number of attackers and the number of defenders, respectively, occupying them.

The battle is what makes the game fun.

In my opinion the best way to fix spawn camping would be to make most spawnrooms bubbles or have whole walls be shields. Without blindspots attackers cannot force defenders into the spawn and cannot park or fly above them shelling the current narrow exits. The bases can be worked inwards from there.

I don't think that'd help. Players would just start stepping out to fire a coupe shots to actually get kills, which would just reward the attackers more by allowing them to get kills.

Come again?

Sorry, let me clarify.

The players might step a meter or two outside of the shielded spawn (or even just stick their guns through) so their kills would grant exp., as their bullets and co. didn't pass through the shield. This would make the exp-starved defenders vunerable to the kill-***** attackers.

Also OHKs aren't super fun for the receiving end.

Hm, you know I really like this idea. So you mean the spawn room can be left at any wall instead of just funneling through the door? If so part of me see that working quite well since it allows defenders far more options to leave the room and not get instakilled at the door, and lets you kill anyone hanging around hard to see spots camping away.

Would like to see any negative thoughts on this idea as it seems like it could be viable and doable enough.

Its the simplest problem on PS2:

Spawncamping is possible because the spawnroom exits can be turned into chokepoints by the attackers.

The solution is giving defenders unpredictable ways to exit, or offer enough exits (like AMP stations which are hard to spawncamp).
Droppods from inside the spawnroom into a few areas of the base, larger areas when outpopped. Teleporters to various underground mini bunkers each with multiple exits but without a means to return after exiting. Underground networks like at AMP stations, jumppads that launch players nearby but not on key locations etc.

Offering benefits like OHK shots but no xp to the defenders does not solve this problem as all that will happen is that the attackers will take a view of the doorframe but not the interior, and where not possible they will simply stake out all buildings and cover the defenders have to pass which means the peoblem has just changed position.

My new solution is dissuading zerging in the first place.

What's naive is thinking that zerging can't be discouraged in a semi-open world game so we should just live with it till this game completely burns out. The lack of competition is the number 1 thing holding this game back. Here are my solutions.

Balance world pop

• 10% XP bonus per 1% under-pop your faction is compared to the highest pop faction.
• 2 second re-spawn penalty for every 1% you are over the lowest pop faction.
• 5% nanite generation bonus for every 1% you are under the pop faction.
• -5% nanite generation penalty for every 1% you are over the highest pop faction.

Encourage balanced local fights: This is the tricky part and has to counter world pops, to keep under-pop zergs from dominating.

• 5% XP bonus/penalty per 1% under/over local pop
• 2 second spawn penalty for every 1% over local pop
• 10% nanite penalty/bonus per 1% local pop imbalance

Punishing players just for logging in is a bad way to balance stuff. PS2 at it's core is about unbalanced fights, there's always someone with more vehicles or players at any fight. Rather than punish players for Zerging, make fighting any type of overpop from small to Zerg fun. If that's done, then there's no problem anymore.

What I see on a daily basis for hours on end is three 96+ zergs fighting 1-12 defenders and rarely each other. I do like your base proposals, very much, but there's nothing fun or good about 15:1 odds for either side. You have to take in to account the Connery Factor, where you have platoons on one faction on the same teamspeak as a platoon on another faction coordinating to take turns throwing alerts for one another. That's the level of dip****tery that needs to be countered on this server. I can't tell you the amount of times VS or TR started an alert with 41% territory and ended the alert with 80+% territory, that's the level of stupid that needs to be countered. When you look at my proposal, consider the drastic pop imbalances I've listed, and realize that things would never reach that level to begin with, so it wouldn't be as punishing a picture as I've painted. You have to realize that "unbalanced" fights here are on a whole other level than what you have to deal with. Of course fights will be unbalanced, but they should never be Connery-level unbalanced.

Oops, wrong reply

I don't think you understood what i said.

The attacker should still have to capture points and if they can efficiently maintain control of said points for a couple of minutes and are able to push the defenders back the spawn room, the facility should be awarded to them.
If a small squad of players wants to go on a rampage capturing unmanned regions then so be it, it will encourage co-op and solo play for people that want, for example, cut a facility off from a tech plant making it easier for attackers to capture that facility.

And btw a bunch of players just standing around AFKing or just waiting will be easily spotted and killed and they won't be able to capture anything anyway, unless the defenders are actually defending.

I don't think that acting based on XP is a very good idea because then people will simply switch to whichever side is easier to grind with and make the whole map a giant stalemate.

I see the connection you're making with spawncamping but preventing zerging isn't really the topic of this thread anyway.

That's ... how it currently works?

Base design needs to be improved along side these changes, not just spawnroom&spawnroom movement design, choke points need to be away from the spawns near the objectives with alternative routes you can take, so both attackers and defenders can use them without the battle evolving into a spawncap 'just because' the attackers are holding the closest choke point to the hard spawns.

i mean some bases literally have a second spawn room 100m away from the main one, that is bad base design.

There will always be choke points however moving those points farther away from the spawn would be much better. The winding hallways of the PS1 bases were a grind however it was infantry/max combat and both side were on equal footing equipment wise. In PS2 its more muddled with near every base able to be shelled with impunity from range. Not to mention the ever present air farmer.

Redeploy somewhere else. Spawncamp solved.