[Suggestion] Benefits of removing spawn rooms from all bases:

1. This will increase the value of the Construction System and allow allies to spawn vehicles away from Warpgates.

2. Allies will start defending player bases more fiercely.

3. Allies will start defending Sunderers more fiercely.

4. Allies will defend Router more fiercely.

5. The allies will try to keep the enemies from advancing on the next hex and they will fight to the last to capture / recapture the hex.

6. Big fights will no longer end quickly.

7. Probably the battles will take place on more bases.

8. I think there will be a fight with the Bastions and not a typical redeployment.

9. Let there be a zerg war, as for me it's fun.

10. Removes mindless stays in spawn rooms without the ability to exit and influence the capture of the base.

Downsides:

1: only bases where a PMB was build can be properly defended.
- building on all bases that may see an attack, including bases you just captured, would see most PMB’s never used wasting the builder’s time, and there’s not enough people willing to waste that time anyway.
- not building on all bases that might see attack would trivialize bases that are attacked. No fight would happen there and it would just be a ghostcap for the attackers.

2: attackers are almost guaranteed to have vehicle superiority, that’s why they can safely place a Sunderer and kill any defender sunderers. Even if a defender PMB was present it would allow the attackers to stop any infantry defense inside the base, trivializing attacking.

3: players would care about getting to the base that is being attacked, not the PMB itself. We see this with Sunderers as well, people are more interested in getting to the rest of the base than defending the Sunderer, which brings me too:

4: Sunderers wouldn’t see more fierce defense and we don’t even want that. Sunderer defense is boring and you might stand guard over something that is never attacked, making for boring gameplay and why players don’t defend it already. Putting more focus on defending them without making the defense fun just makes it a chore that pushed people away from the game.

5: cheese tactics like Galdrops become trivial attack methods. Drop, clear Sunderers and hold the base. By the time a proper new defense is set up the base is already captured.

Congratulations! Your idea would kill Planetside 2 in a month or two.

I want to see consistent competent base building (it does happen occasionally) before we are forced to defend player built bases.

This is totally fair. Bases would be built better if they were better integrated into the rest of the game. As things stand now there aren't many places to build where enemies can't simply go around. This lacking relevance means a lot of players don't care. My own solution, which I've stated many times in the past, is that we need more 1 minute bases around the map. If they aren't built on, no problem, it only takes a minute to flip them and get on with the next battle. Most sundy drivers won't even bother stopping for them beyond flipping the point. However if they do get built on then whichever team just lost a base has somewhere to spawn on the lattice, and the attackers must fight them there to carry on down the lane. Lowland Trading Post is one of the few places in the game where this has been done right.

I have been lobbying MMOFPS devs to move towards a full player driven mobile spawn system since 2002 in WWIIONLINE. The sad fact is game developers lack vision, and the greedy investors who finance game companies have even less vision.

Take away the spawn rooms??? That'll ruin my KD. WTH OP
Why not just do away with REDEPLOY? You could at least check a few of those bullet points off. Just my thoughts. Probably piss everyone off but would make things more tactical. Grab a Gal or Val and see sticks in the wind everywhere. Sundy's transporting troops again. Why that's unthinkable.

IMHO think it would be cool but many would say I'm a moron and would change the dynamic of the game. I think Redeploy needs to be nerfed to allow for a more tactical reassignment of forces within the hex system instead of just allowing for troops to move unhampered within faction owned areas without some type of deployment penalty. Limit redeploy to one hex at a time or join a stinking squad so you can redeploy on a beacon or on a squad owned Sundy or Gal. Just my opinion OP.

Probably one of the dumbest serious suggestions I have read in a long time, and your expected results are wildly detached from reality.

Could they change the game to be far more reliant on logistics and macro? Sure, but at that point they need to basically redesign half the game for an extremely, extremely questionable change.

One could say that these discussions accurately depict the issue of Oshur.

Not really. You need to look at the Oshur when he has all the bases of the same type. Either hexes for construction, or hexes with a developer's base.

Ah yes, because there are no questions to be asked about a system like that. Questions like “would it be fun to force players to defend EVERY SINGLE mobile spawn to prevent a single guy from hunting down mobile spawns in inactive area’s?”. Or “Sunderer garages are easily cleared by the attacker, do we need to redesign 90% of the bases to allow defenders a reasonably safe spot for their spawns?”. Or “what tactics would be standard in this system and do we want 24/7 Galdrops to win most fights?”

Maaaaybe the lack of vision isn’t where you thought it was? Maybe you should expand your vision and ask some hard questions about spawns? Or look at game design and realize that both spawn options have advantages and disadvantages which need to be taken into account and can offer their own unique gameplay? A truly visionary man would see where you’d use one system over the other, and that you might also be able to combine it in places to have a hybrid system. But I guess that’s too much to ask.

After all, this is a fun gameplay - being in the spawn room as a dummy at a time when the zerg surrounded this spawn room without the ability to get out of it. Or constantly leave the hex when an enemy Bastion stops above it and spams with fire to an open point. Or constantly quickly ending large-scale battles (THE FACE OF THIS GAME) because of the U button. Or maybe the fact that all the battles in prime time take place on the same bases. Yes, this is "FUN" gameplay.

Oh yeah, most fights can't start because the base owners have time to respawn in the spawn room and destroy the enemy's mobile spawn point before more people come to this hex for more massive brawl. From which the battles do not move in most cases on a huge map (also a feature of this game).

Hard respawns in appropriate locations are essential.
If there are no, few, or far hard respawns to move people to the desired location.
It will spoil the convenience on Play.

This is the problem with Oshur. Oshur is close to what is being discussed above, and is therefore described as such.

Additionally, Oshur is prone to large-scale link cuts.
If it is one that breaks the link from the fleet carrier, it is closer to the submitter's ideal situation.
Probably few people would find this enjoyable.

I too think the situation would be as Mr. Demigan describes.

The respawns that players build are very unstable, being able to be destroyed by just one person or indestructible with Zerg.

And all of these consume the player's energy on the play.
It can be called self-sacrificing, dedicated Play. In the absence of these people, no enjoyable combat will occur.
It is difficult to expect those people to make the effort during off hours or when other continents are waiting in full situations.
Especially if you are primarily a solo player, you will probably rely on hard spawns or respawns set up by others. The same goes for beginners and those playing with Alt characters.
This situation would be very difficult to play with.

The reality is that many people give up playing and log out because of this problem.
That is one of the reasons Oshur is unpopular and why hard respawns are so important.


I am not arguing to attack you, but rather to point out the problems with the game, including Oshur.
I hope the issues are addressed and the game becomes more a fun and exciting.thanks.

That is a failure of how they designed the spawnrooms, not of the idea of a permanent spawn room. Many Techplant spawnrooms avoid this by not being a chokepoint against the defenders. They have multiple exits that offer access to many parts of the base, making it very hard to spawncamp them. They aren’t perfectly designed but can be improved, like the gravlift that helps you up on the wall near the generators don’t let you see if enemies are above and put you in a bad position (large COF little mobility) when you exit. But that is solvable by replacing it with a stairs and a faction-specific shield for example.

Ending the fight just because the attackers managed to destroy the spawns of the base isn’t a good design. It forces the defenders out of the fight and mounting a defense becomes almost impossible. Fights will peter out quickly as spawns are destroyed, players leave for other fights and its too hard for new players to join the fight.
The U button can and will be used in the mobile spawn system too, in fact it will supercharge the galdrop method of attack.

The construction system isn’t inside the base you are defending. Attackers by default have vehicle superiority, thats why they can safely get their Sunderers into position. So mounting a timely defense from a construction system while your opposition is already spawning in the base you want to defend is a non-starter. Especially since by the time you can replace your own mobile spawns to retake the base you also have the power to attack the enemy Sunderers, ending infantry fights as we know it.

Isn't the essence of the game in PS2 team play? The lack of spawn rooms will give solo players the ability to see team play as they can create any kind of mobile spawn points. The same builder players with new buildings who have a safe spawn point will be able to at least help their faction. And provided that this builder will make a bad base and it will be destroyed, then he will try to make the base better and more comfortable for protection. And due to the lack of respawn rooms, people will start to appear on the bases and these bases will begin to fulfill the most logical purpose for them. There are currently the following mobile and non-mobile spawn methods: Galaxy Spawn, Galaxy Drop, Sunderers, Logistics Implant, Squad Spawn Beacon, Squad Summon Storm, Router, Elisium Spawn, Bastion (which I haven't seen it used that way), ANT with the delivery module. As for me, the revival rooms are just garbage, without which it would be better. And add logistics to the game. People will more often use transport to move between hexes, as was the case in 2013-2014. (At least on Werner). The problem in Oshur due to building hexes is another garbage (as long as the buildings are vulnerable). In the game, hexes are not needed for construction. They need to be replaced with game bases without respawn rooms. And to reduce all construction restriction zones, they are senselessly huge. Also in the game, garbage is OS of 2 types, Flail and Bastion's guns. It all just spoils the interest in the game for everyone except the users of these garbage things.

I tried to be as positive as possible about your opinion, and I also tried to think of rules, etc. that could be established with only WG as the hard spawn, but I couldn't come up with any.

The prerequisites for players to participate in this initiative are quite strict.

The player must have completed all upgrades for the Thunderer, ANT, Gal, and tanks, unlocked all construction , and be skilled in the operation and specifications.

In addition to this, the fact that it forces team play is a cause for concern. It is probably not viable.
I believe that a game group is basically made up of a collection of solo players.
The proposal in your post assumes that there is a large number of people "at all times" who are under full command and who will follow it with complete certainty.
Currently the only time zone where such players are available is during prime time.

Also, the forces must always be even. Any bias immediately means a losing battle.

Even more, it must be able to withstand the daunting element of defensive standby.
As mentioned in the previous section, player-based spawning is very vulnerable without constant protection.

Well-prepared and defended points are often ignored and no fighting occurs.
In my experience, pickup groups have a lot of leavers in this situation.

The proposal assumes that it is possible to set up a player-made respawn at will, but this is probably also difficult.
As pointed out above, the game flow is unusually fast because the destruction of respawns determines the winner.
Regardless of the acquisition of bases, an invasion by the majority-dominant side is expected to overrun all areas in an instant.
I do not believe that the inferior side in this situation will be allowed to build a player base.

I am somewhat concerned about the number of players in the original situation, and therefore I am of the opinion that this should be increased,
The proposal in your post will inevitably only involve the current number of experienced players.
So I disagree with the submission proposal on the grounds that it will not increase the number of players.

--
That would be a problem as a usual rule.

But what if it is limited?

For example, if the alert is currently a tie, Sudden Death will be initiated, but it might be fun to replace this.

After a draw, the hard respawn stops functioning, and from that point on, the players fight for position for about 15 minutes,
with the rule that they do not wait for the capping timer, but immediately become occupied.

In the case of this rule, spawning an already built player base is very advantageous.
It would also be nice to be able to instantly set up constructions during this alert.

Zerg groups that gather all the numbers as in the past will be at a disadvantage.
It is necessary to distribute an appropriate number of forces in all locations.
How about we do an arbitrary number of base caps with this, or the faction that occupied more after the time limit wins.

The situation in which tie games occur is one in which the territories are equal and the forces are equal.
Under the situation, this could be a good match with a sense of speed.

We can do a trial run of what would happen if we implement the contributor's proposal without too much impact.

“Teamplay” is not a magic word that instantly makes everything good, especially when that teamplay is caused by unbalanced gameplay forcing one side to put more teamplay in unfun gameplay.

It doesn’t matter if the players might learn how to build better bases if the core issues remain: the only way to defend a base with a PMB is to move through the vehicle area, which means once again that infantry vs infantry combat would barely happen inside bases since they would all rely on Sunderers. And that assumes the defenders even HAVE build a PMB, since as mentioned most PMB’s would never even be used if you pre-emptively build them simply because the fight doesn’t reach it.

The idea of no hardspawns has been around and every single update that gave us more “mobile” spawns like you want it has failed miserably. Like the PMB-oriented cap points which suffer the exact problems I keep mentioning: if you do build there, there is a good chance its never used. Most people don’t build there and its a pushover base where the defenders cannot mount a proper defense before the attackers have capped it and moved to the next base. Since we could consider the supporting hardspawn as a super-PMB in this case which lets the defenders create a vehicle force to fight back we know that switching the system to a PMB defending a base without hardspawns would fail just as miserably, if not more so.

The idea sucks. It always has. There is no indication that any of your idea’s about how it will function will actually work out, quite the opposite in fact.

Construction bases are a joke in this game. Want that, go play Rust, Scum or something else.

Once again PS tried to be to many things. Boring Roadmap this year, but I don’t have to keep saying it, the dwindling population speaks for itself.

The really boring thing about this game is the current fights compared to the fights of 2014

At least the DEVS are trying. I don't keep track of population. Never have. There have been ups and downs for this game over it's lifespan. Will it end at some point....sure. But not today baby. The game still rocks and even with all of the other options out there we keep coming back and we keep subscribing. Matter of fact when I get off work tonight gonna play on Connery. Don't really pay much attention to the nay sayers or those who prophesy about the demise of this game. Many have come and gone yet we are still here. I'll continue to play, continue to support by subscribing, and continually praise the hard work put into this game by everyone on the Dev side of the house. Looking forward to the future and what lies on the horizon. Semper Fi fellow Auraxians. See you PLANETSIDE