[Suggestion] How to End Spawn Camping, Spawn Heroes, and Alamo Stand-Offs

Create "Neutral Bases" in between enemy territories.

Here's the rule:
If a base is captured, all adjoining bases that are not friendly become Neutral.

Here's what it looks like:


The first diagram shows a linear "Push Mechanic" to illustrate the movement of the neutral ground. In it, you see the red team and the blue team both fighting for control of the center base. When the red team captures the base, the Blue teams "Home Base" becomes neutral and the Blue teams "Fixed Spawn" is moved back one on the lattice line.

What this does is force BOTH teams to bring their "Mobile Spawns" up to the neutral base, giving both teams equal footing. The current problem of base attack and defense is that one team has a indestructible spawn location causing the attacking team to neutralize it by surrounding and containing it. This is absolutely manditory for the attackers because the defenders have the ability to destroy the attackers mobile spawns. Now both teams must set up a mobile spawn location and defend it from attack. Both teams are on the offensive at the target base. This completely eliminates the "Spawn Camping" and "Spawn Hero" dynamics.

When a base becomes neutral, it will display the NS logo and all terminals will go white. Now how these base resources can be utilized is up for debate. I see two mechanics to use here:

1. They simply down work at all for anyone. (quick and easy)
2. All neutral terminals are "friendly" meaning destroying them causes grief, but they can be hacked to allow someone to use the terminal and once it is hacked it can be destroyed by the opposing team.
No matter which mechanic is used, the spawn room for the neutral base will be deactivated and the shields will be off. This means that the is no place to hide in the base.

When a base becomes neutral, there will likely be players there who just spawned before the base flipped. This is the "defending team" and they have a head start on flipping the base back to their empire. It will be up to the "defenders" to get the base ready to defend before the "attackers" advance from their previous conquest.

The second diagram shows a more complex lattice system. In Figure One the Blue team are attacking the neutral base. In Figure Two, they've captured the neutral base and you can see that it has had no effect on their other connecting base. The red team however now have a neutral base with three connected territories. This makes re-securing the base critical or Figure Three will happen and the blue team will neutralize three bases at once, taking a huge bite out of the red teams resources.

Here is a mock-up of the Indar territory map showing Neutralized bases:


As you can see, this clearly shows where target neutral territories are. There are several interesting scenarios open on this map:

1. Scarred Mesa - This becomes a completely different fight with both Empires trying to gain access to the mesa at the same time. I can see the VS bringing AMS and tanks to the base to the mesa to set up a spawn camp (a completely new use of the words) by the jump pads while the NC attempt to hit quick with galaxy drops followed by a heavy armor column to destry to VS spawn camp.

2. Vanu Archives - If the NC are able to reclaim any one of the connecting connecting territories, then Vanu Archives will go neutral. The NC will have to rush the archives before the VS can re-secure that strong-hold and the VS will need to bring reinforcements from Snake Ravine to quickly bolster the number for defense.

3. Mao Tech Plant - Here we see the TR closing in on the tech plant from two sides. This bring up an interesting mechanic for "Double Neutrals". Should a neutral territory that is only connected to one empire and another neutral territory be a "fast cap", allowing it to be flipped in 30 seconds or less? That would be the case for the Mao Watchtower.

4. Xenotech Labs - One major complaint from players is that there is not enough "open field fighting". Xenotech is a perfect example. Here the NC have just taken Regent Rock and neutralized Xenotech Labs. Where before, the focus of the NC would be to surround and attack the spawn as fast as possible, now they must contend with the counter attack coming from Crossroads. This creates a completely different dynamic than the usual scenario that plays out here. Sometimes this happens with the curent mechanics, but when it does, it ALWAYS catches the attacker off-guard when a counter attack comes from Crossroads and it quickly becomes one-sided push back. With the neutral ground mechanic, a counter attack from Crossroads is a certainty and the NC will have to arrange their force on the Regent Rock side of the Xenotech to protect their spawns. They will also want to meet the TR coming from Crossroads out in the field BEFORE they get to Xenotech to cut off their attack. This will lead to better battles out in the open on both sides of Xenotech.

Other Random Thoughts:

This completely changes the complexion of all major base fights. Now a large base get neutralized and enemies from attack it from both sides. There becomes no "home field advantage".

Amp Stations would need the most retooling I think because of the generator mechanics. The new "Fryer Amp" mechanic completely works for this neutral ground idea though because it could still allow "fixed spawns", but the fact that they can be flipped makes them viable for this mechanic. For the old style Amp stations, controlling the generators could grant access to the central building. Holding three of the four generators would turn the main base shields to your teams favor.

This could end Biolab hold-outs completely. Now both teams must fight there way into the Biolab, and neither has an internal spawn. I see fights at first revolving around camping the teleport rooms, but then quickly evolving to cutting off reinforcements from the adjoining bases, with large armor battles raging around the base of the biolab to control the ground underneath and set up AMS.

Tech Plants should see the least change since both teams already fight their way into the tech plant already. A new mechanic would need to be fleshed out around the generators. Perhaps they could be changed to simply change the shields to become friendly to the empire that controls them. For example, the SCU could be turned into a third shield generator. Controlling two of the three generators makes the shield friendly to your empire. I'm sure there are dozens of things that could be done along those lines.

Warpgates - this would be the only exception to the rule for the time being. Warpgates would be immune to neutralization. attacks from warpgates to adjoining enemy territories would look and act exactly as they are today. I see no way around this until the global lattice is implemented.

Finally, perhaps neutral bases could be open to ANYONE who attacked them. So, even if a neutral base was only attached to NC and TR territories, the VS could drop in and capture the base. This hearkens back to the old days of PS1 where teams would drop in on bases and neutralize them to get a foothold on continents. This would be a similar thing where the third party could jump in and attempt to grab a foothold on a far side of the map.

I like this idea. The main problem (implementation wise) is that a number of bases would need redesigned as they're specifically built around the idea of defenders spawning inside.

I see two additional benefits to this:

1.) Transport would be much more valuable in this system. Sunderers, Galaxies, Harassers and yes, even the humble Flash.

2.) Battles would be more often fought in the area around the base. If we're attacking the same base from two different sides then that means there are battle lines drawn on the map; where your infantry and vehicles are pushing up against my infantry and vehicles. These are the most epic of battles.

Although, it seems like this could make the game almost entirely offense oriented, which isn't a great idea.

What happens when one faction is occupying one region's cap points, and another factions is occupying the adjoining region's cap points? Is it just a back and forth flipping between neutral and captured for both bases?

I image it would play out as repeated attempts to push out through the terrain between the two bases, so while one side attempts to recapture their base the other attempts to push toward that base and prevent the recapture. That's my interpretation at least.

It's an interesting idea, but one problem I see is when a tech plant becomes neutral, does that mean the faction who held in now can no longer spawn their MBTs?

What would happen if say you had a 48+ presence at a base and one connecting it got captured? The base along with any armor, air, or even infantry can't be spawned from that area until you cap the forward area again. Stalemates would happen as two zergs face each other while one 48+ capped their area back causing the other 48+ area to go neutral at which point they'd cap it ack and rinse and repeat.

Another problem is that implementing such ideas at this stage in the game would require pretty much changing a lot of major things from the ground up. Bases would all need to be redesigned, point systems changed, Alerts would need reworking, benefits of owning said bases, and even how the lattice is laid out.

And another problem is that it favors the attacker. If they win one area, they get more land, but the losing side loses two since they're losing what they owned, plus another base that now becomes neutral.

Also, a lot of people love the biofarms.

What I see happening is team A wins a base. Team B is already at "The Next Base" because that's where they were spawning. They run over and jump on the capture point, but that only starts the clock. They have to wait for the capture to go through to get their base back and flip Team A's "new" base back to neutral. Meanwhile, Team A knows this, so here they come. They only have a few minutes to advance on the next base and cap it. While Team B has a head start on the capture, they also have no "local spawn room" anymore - it went neutral with the base. The rest of Team B (that just got beat at Team A's new home) are now respawning a base farhter back. They have to hurry as well, so that they can get an AMS up to now neutral base.

Would Empires just "dig in" and let their bases flip back and forth? I don't think so, but it's a valid point. Perhaps the ability for the third empire to drop in and steal a neutral base would put an end to that. I think if that was actually happening, then it would mean that there was a huge open-field battle raging between those two bases. I'd like to hear what other people think about that. Honestly, it's not something I thought of.

Came in expecting garbage thread, was actually a very interesting suggestion. I'd be open to giving it a try.

+1

Not a bad idea really. Some bases would need reworked to have a fair fight from both sides, but not bad at all.

Quite an interesting read...this would definately be an idea worth exploring. Ofcourse it poses it's own issues but all in all, I like this idea more than I like spawnroom heroes.

Hire this guy already SOE.

EDIT: For this to work though, wouldn't making the 1 cap point bases into 2 cap point bases be mandatory?

Absolutely. This "encourages" empires to meet the enemy "at the gate" so to speak and not let them get close to the tech plant.

Well, both sides are going to start running low on resources before too long. And stalemates like this already happen - I'm thinking of Quartz Ridge and Indar Excavation Site as a perfect example where territories see-saw back and forth. A >>possible<< solution to this would be an ever increasing capture timer for those bases. If it incremented up by one minute each time the two bases cycled, eventually one side would give out. I feel that is a bit too harsh though.

One thing the devs have proven is that they are willing to change things up. If I thought this would fall on deaf ears, I wouldn't have bothered. There are some "quick and dirty" fixes for the major base mechanics I've already thrown out there. The points system and alerts are already going to need to be reworked anyways. I looked carefully at the lattice for places where this would be a problem and couldn't find any except the warpgates themselves. I don't know why base benefits would need to be changed for this. What makes you say that?

Games should always favor the offense. Making it hurt when you lose is a good thing. It encourages people to get out there and defend. Especially when the loss of one base can mean the loss of control over two or more territories. It makes strategic play that much more important.

For all of the wrong reasons. It's is a seriously broken part of the game right now when you can have 90% of a continents population locked down inside of a base while the rest of the continent is lost.

Good feedback man, keep it coming.

Well presented idea but ...

This would be a giant buff to zerging, there is nothing wrong with having a fixed spawnpoint inside your own facility. Without this ability nobody would actually defend anything, essentially everyone would be attacking no matter what the situation.

Nerf to defensive gameplay.
Buff to ghostcapping as every joined base would be "easy grabs" with no ability for the defenders to spawn right there.
Territory would become essentially pointless.

Essentially this would dumb down the game and cater to ghostcappers and zergers. I guess this would appeal alot to WDS farming crew.



Sidenote: What is the issue with spawnwarriors ? All they do is sit there and be useless and mostly harmless. You actually dont have to step into their line of fire on most bases, this means they need to come out or bore to death.

i like part of the concept but here's where my cheese falls off the cracker. that also means that the tanks and harassers, libs, galaxies and ESFs will rule this game even more, because there is very little or next to no areas where they can't damage.

if this were to be implemented, then the HEAT rounds and other massive explosive rounds would have to be removed as to not completely destroy the infantry part of the game.
alteratively, open up the drivers-pit for bullets meaning, if you shoot through the windshield of an aircraft, there's a chance to kill the pilot, same goes for vehicle drivers who sits behind a glass pane.
the vehicle would still remain, unless flying of course, but would be without driver unless someone else takes the helm.

but nice idea over all. just some areas where you need more thought put into it to maintain a balance

Just gonna touch on this. People love it because its often the most fun infantry combat to be had. Great mix of rangers, elevations, varied areas. Its a playground for every infantry class and often a great source of income even for the losing side. People just LOVE these fights and the huge numbers and length of these fights prove it.
Its the game that is broken when it puts wants you to go for the aimless objective of ever driving towards the other guys warpgate
hat really has no meaning above just raw unadulterated fun to be had in Biolabs.

Look at the Indar map. Let's say the NC have rolled up one of their epic vangaurd zergs and they've just taken Indar Excavation Site. They have no choice but to split the zerg in half there. If they don't, if they all go one way or another, what happens? Indar-X get neutralized right behind them. And once that's capped, they lose whatever base they went to AND they lose Quartz becomes neutral. They get their spawn cut out from underneath them and they lose land behind them. This isn't specifically to break up zergs, I have other ideas for that.

One thing I disagree with you on is the idea is that there is "defensive play" now. There isn't. How do you actually defend a base? You have to attack the enemy mobile spawns, and then you have to attack the enemy's fixed spawn where they are coming from. The only exception to that would be the "biofarms" and that's less "defending" and more "exploiting for XP."

I simply disagree with you. I'm no fan of ghostcapping and I certainly don't think this does that. The reason ghostcapping happens right now is because defending is so futile, especially for smaller outposts. This mechanic actually makes those smaller outposts, and the areas around them the places you want to fight.

"Useless and mostly harmless" - there's my problem with them. I don't need people sitting in spawn while I'm busting my hump to try and save the place. I'd MUCH rather them have no place to hide, to be forced to fight in the open with me. You don't have to tell me about not peek-a-booing spawn rooms, I never do that. I sit back at the CP and let them come to me.

Want to stop spawn camping?
Make spawn rooms have no doors, just have a teleporter that spawns you randomly somewhere within 100m of the point.

That would work up until the zerg rushes that constantly happen and while that's happening, ghost capping would be occurring elsewhere.

For instance, Tech plants. Most have 2-3 connecting regions. Currently, in most of those fights, one of those is always under control by the enemy because they pushed in and fortified it. Under this system, the plant goes neutral even with having 2 friendly connections, even though it may be a faster cap for you or may take longer to cap by the opposing side. When all factions have a tech plant, and yours gets flipped neutral, you lose your MBT production instantly despite legitimately capping it. Why? Considering a large base like a tech plant should be a heavily fortified position, why does it make sense that it would go instantly neutral because of a satellite base? (I'll bring that up next quote) Why would that be fair to the side who just spent 45 minutes capping it only to lose it to a 3 minute satellite base that they can't get to in time?

As with the lattice, its problem comes in because of how the areas are laid out. Punishing for losing is one thing but there will be times where the enemy will instantly gain 3 or more territories that can't be spawned to because they're in neutral state due to having enemies two lattices away on either side of them while your side loses those all instantly allowing the enemy to force your side back further and faster. It will only encourage the other faction to run up and cap what's easy. while your faction just lost 3 bases. TR on Connery would probably stop playing at that point.

They should never favor the offense unless the scenario dictates it. If you own a castle, in this case an Amp station, biolab, or Tech plant, they should be heavily fortified structures designed to repel or hold out against a large force until hopefully a time comes where you can push back. If your neighboring village, in this case a satellite base, were to be captured, that shouldn't mean your castle loses all its defensive advantages which include turret control and various weapons to push back with. If you own a base on a cliff that enemies have to climb up to, it should favor your defense, not their offense.

There's also the problem of the zergs. If your faction's pop is 25%-30% and is the lowest, you'll almost always be losing land and doubling that rate seems particularly harsh. it would probably cause a large portion of those players to just quit any time an alert happened, or a WDS happened thanks to 4th factioners.

I will agree biolabs suck for that reason. People get sucked in to them and never leave and downright ignore better areas in favor of the almighty cert..

Here, I fixed it for you.

When it's a world domination alert, the more land the better

...also more boring

Well, yea and no. This doesn't change the INSIDES of bases at all. But it DOES mean that your tanks and vehicles will actually have something to DO at those bases. It stops being a "you guy wait out here while we go in" affair. Instead, the other empire is coming to set up THEIR AMSs as well, and all those vehicles are going to have to patrol around the base and try to cut off the flow of enemy out in the field. Meanwhile, they'll also need to defend your AMS also, so the infantry can spawn and get in there.

Right now, what's the number one threat to attacking AMSs? C4 tossing suicide bombers. Next would be HAs and Engineers. All infantry that are coming out of the base itself. This mechanic makes it so that now the main threat is the other empire trying to bring their vehicles up and park by the base. It doesn't eliminate the suicide bombers, it just makes the vehicle warfare outside the base as important as the infantry fighting inside the base.

I think that's a bit of hyperbole to be completely frank. You make it sound like I said to put all capture point out in the middle of open fields with no cover. What this ACTUALLY does is increase the importance of Gal drops and escorting your AMS to the target base. Both are good thing in my opinion.

I like your idea about killable pilots, it's just a bit off topic here. One of my all-time favorite games, Battlezone, featured the ability to snipe drivers out of vehicles with one shot. It was very fun and gratifying.


I am so tired now. It's almost 2am. I'll come back and check this thread in the morning.