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

OP seems to be looking at this from a lonewolf perspective.

Defense does happen when you are operating with a platoon or a squad. Right now it sounds like you are basing your view on single person viewpoint.

Randoms vs randoms is a completely different beast compared to when you involve organized platoons into the mix.



With this change we might aswell change the game into one small base instanced TF2 clone like loadout etc, with just more players.

see this is where you and i do things differently, when i was leading XOO i had a rule, you're all infantry until futher notice, that means.. if i say, ditch the tank and get in there, then you got in there or got removed, you can bring your tank if you're good, but there would be very few who remained in their tanks without a direct purpose.

The point i'm trying to make here is "if you're having tanks sit around and wait" then you're not using the full potential of that player.
if it's an infantry fight due to design limitation on the base, then drag the moaning MBT driver in there or get rid of them.

see, i do not believe it's C4 that's the biggest threat to AMS, it does some but i've seen more vehicle destruction of AMS compared to C4, but that might just be the 2 servers i play on who favors MBT's and libs over c4.
last time i did some math on it, C4 only caused about 5% of the total vehicle destruction, but rocketlaunchers and MBT heat rounds did the most damage to vehicles.

no i do not make it sound like you wanted it all in the wide open. i'm making it sound like there will be massive slaughter of infantry between bases because either you go in a gal or AMS or you pull a vehicle of your own, because you can bet your left pinky that the MBT and Lightning spam will be insane between the bases. a setup of 2-3 prowlers and and an ammo sunderer and repair sunderer and you got a very good fortified area, fastests reload, infinite repair option and ammo with very little to oppose it (i said little not impossible)
the point was still.. massive infantry farm and that is something i do not enjoy, since the devs nerfed the rocketpods etc etc i guess they sort of agree that a balance must be in place for it to be fun for everyone.

thank you but i feel that it was dead-on-topic since the point i'm trying to make is "you have to keep a balance, for everyone to have fun"
an implementation of the idea like i suggested might balance out the massive vehicle spam i predict with your idea.

sweet dreams, i hope you slept well.

Points for a very interesting idea.

I disagree with many that says that defending a base would become less important or that the game would become entirely offense oriented. Because if by loosing a neutral base to the enemy means that the next base will go neutral, that should translate into fierce defense of strategic bases.

Like in image nr 3 of OP's post, loosing that center base means loosing 3 bases.

One concern for this model is that the distance between the opposing factions could become too far, however Planetside 1 had several places where the distance would be equally far or further than what I can imagine it would be in Planetside 2. So perhaps it would sort it self out.

I also think it could be a really odd mechanic if by capturing a smaller outpost it would neutralize a larger one. For instance; capturing Hvar "gates" shouldn't neutralize the Techplant.

I would perhaps prefer a different approach;

What if by capturing a large base (biolab/tech/amp) you would neutralize all medium/minor points around it. However capturing a single minor/medium outpost would not neutralize a large base.

Capturing all minor / large points around it (cutting the base off entirely from friendly empire) would neutralize it.

Example; Hvar in this image would not go neutral even though VS has a base linked to it. Tawrich Tech Plant would however go neutral as it is entirely cut off.

This should encourage flanking tactics to surround your enemy. Also it would give the choice of either approaching the main base directly or if it is inpregnetable you could just capture everything around it. This would force the defender out of the base to either defend their connection to the rest of the empire or to simply abandon the "stranded" base. (no more Lone Biolab rangers deep inside enemy territory).


This would also bring a use for the Hexes that the map consists of. Today the hexes means little except to contribute to "capture continent" alerts where it is a % of map = win. If capturing all adjoining hexes would neutralise the base in the middle it would suddenly become very strategic to actually have land connect and not just lattice.

So take Hvar again as an example, VS has in this image stopped the TR from gaining the Tech ability from Hvar, however in order to neturalize it they would have to capture 2 more bases.

If only there was some way to disable the shields and spawning for an enemy control room. Like some sort of.....spawn control unit one could sabotage and claim the territory almost instantly....

oh wait...

Maybe spawn control units for every base? Makes NO sense for the big bases to have them, but the smaller facilities can get away without them.

This seems... bad. You can take a defensible base by just attacking the less defensible one next to it.

Unless the other team parks one sunderer near the base... then by the time your guys arrive from the base you just took, the other team has already held the cap point for a few minutes.

Doesn't seem like it's worth it. Annoying the few times your team doesn't have a sunderer, and mostly pointless every other time that it does.

Yes make the zergs stronger.

Why do all of your player ideas, and everything SONY does, make zergs worse? I dunno.

That non-PS1-AMS sunderer would last about 1 second long as soon as, well anyone arrives that outnumbers your side by at least 25%.

Frankly, this has not been my experience at all. What I see is defender camping the teleport rooms and landing pads waiting for the attackers to stick their heads out. It's really just a grind-fest cert-farm. Sometimes you get good coordinated attacks, but those aren't the Biolab fights that last for hours, they're the ones that end quickly because either A) the organized outfit takes the Generator and SCU and the defends just give up, or B) the defenders crush the max rush at the generator room and the organized outfits give up and redeploy. I've been seeing a lot of biolans fights where the defenders have a massive pop advantage but refuse to leave the dome and go flip the sub-bases simply because they want to keep the trickle of attacker coming. That's not "looking for a fun fight" to me.

No thank you. First, I don't want my ability to mount a defense "randomized". Second, how do you know where it's going to drop you? It could dump you in front of a cloaked SMG infiltrator with your back turned.

Plus, the logistics of implementing that are kind of wonky. For example, are you just going to have one big "Spawn box" that covers the whole base and you get randomly dropped into it? If so, now you have to build in an algorithm that will search for valid placed to drop you so that it doesn't bury you in the wall, or drop you from five stories up, or have you fall through the ground and plummet into dead zone below. There are all sorts of issues with that. The alternative is to have specific spawn locations placed through the map like an old school quake deathmatch level. But guess what? People memorize those places, and then they start placing mines on them, so as soon as you spawn there, you get blown up. Or they just camp the spot and kill you when you pop up.

The point is: there's an inherent problem with Spawn Rooms: No Matter where you put the exit, someone will wait by that exit to kill you.

The way my proposal addresses that is by moving the spawn location out of the zone where XP is rewarded for the capture. If you are going to go camp the enemy spawn at the next base, you are going to miss the capture points.

I don't think this is a fair criticism. This idea wasn't designed to stop Zerging or Ghostcapping. Currently, if a zerg rolls up on your base, and you've got 12 guys defending, it's going to fall anyway. The difference here is that instead of the zerg just circling around the spawn room, they are freed up to post up a real defensive stance.

First, it's wrong to assume that a sub-base gets fortified at all when it is capped. I've seen plenty of instances where the sub-based is being flipped before the attacking for can start the cap on the Large Base. Second, if they DO fortify, then that's a good thing. That's solid team tactics and should be encouraged at every turn. With every major base, there are at least three connecting sub-bases. If an attacker neutralizes that main base, the defenders will (generally) have a 2:1 advantage on spawns. Under the current system, those additional spawn locations rarely get utilized until after the base is already captured and by that time, the attackers are already pivoting towards the sub-bases which really negates their effectiveness. This system makes those defensive sub-bases the rally point for the defenders and allows the defenders a staging point which is NOT the main focus of the attackers DURING the main base fight.

Attackers don't "gain" neutral ground. They still have to fight for it. They get nothing if they don't capture it. In an instance where there is a fork in the lattice, attackers are put at a disadvantage because they have to cover multiple fronts or lose their spawn position for those fronts. This why I tossed out the idea of having a "quick cap" mechanic for "Double Neutrals". Let's say red Team neutralizes a tech plant and then captures it. They have to fight at both of the connecting neutral sub-bases now. Lets say they lose one of those fights and the Tech Plant goes back to neutral. Blue team now has a connection to the neutral tech plant and have cut off the Red Team from the second sub-base. Blue team could benefit from a quick cap mechanic on the second sub-base.

If your Empire is getting double teamed by the other two, this just simply doesn't change that and it wasn't intended to. When fighting out of your corner, you do get the benefit of the warpgate exception. This means that you CAN attack a territory AND suppress its defenders at the same time. Once you've taken the first hex back, then that automatically pushes the other empire THREE hexes back because you gain your first hex and you neutralize the second hex.

One thing that this DOES do is it take X nmber of resources out of circulation at any one time. Remember there was a big dust-up over the raising of the vehicle costs and many predicted it was the end of vehicle warfare in PS2. Well, that didn't happen at all. In fact, I personally feel there is room for more scarcity to be introduced and this system does just that.

I addressed this with the idea that neutral resources (Terminals and Guns) could (should) be hackable. So, for example, your losing your tech plants sub-base and you know your tech plant is about to go neutral. Well, this is a great time for Infiltrators to shine and earn an extremely important place on the battlefield. Defending infiltrators post up on the most critical resources (vehicle pads and top deck guns) and begin hacking them as soon as the base flips. Meanwhile, you have enemy infiltrators trying to push in ahead of the advance and do the same thing.

Once again, I find this to be unfair because that happens anyway. This isn't made to fix the problems with WDS or Zerg mentality. That is a completely different fix. Something that could be implemented in tandem with this idea.

For Example, Static Resourcing and XP. This idea makes each territory have a set amount of XP and Resources it grants to Empires that capture and hold it. For example, the devs decide that the optimum number of attackers needed to capture a base is 48 (one platoons worth). The Static XP for that base is set to 48000. That XP is then divided by all of the players who are there when the base is captured. If it's more than 48 players, they get less XP per player. The XP is also capped the other direction, so you set the Max XP cap at 1000, so if the base is ghostcapped, they don't 48000 for one player, instead that player still only gets 1000 XP.

Static Resourcing would act the same way, except on a continental basis. Each territory proves X number of resources which must be divided by all of the players. That way, over-popped empires have to split the resources between more players and that cuts each players ability to pull "force multipliers".

This has nothing to do with the Neutral Ground idea, but it could be implemented in tandem to address your concerns.

And it's a shame because as someone else said, they ARE a great place to fight. I'd just like to see them get better utilized for that reason. I think if both teams had the same situation when it came to capturing them, it think it would change the dynamic and open them up to a lot more internal fighting.

While it is a decent concept to put in, lets be realistic here. The main reason spawn door stand-offs occur is because a) you die so fast in this game b) there's barely any cover in the game, let alone near spawn doors and c) the people inside are completely safe and can farm certs all day.

Get rid of the ****** safety net idea and push people out of the spawn room. No more AFK's in WDS events, no more spawn room heroes shooting out all day, and no more stand-offs.

While the OP's idea goes beyond spawn rooms, for now just get rid of the ability to be able to shoot out of the rooms and give them lots more cover so people can ACTUALLY get out without getting shot.

I wish you'd elaborate more on your points.

I don't see how this is a "lone wolf" mentality at all. It definitely going to take a team effort to setup a "spawn camp", to secure the capture point(s), and mount a defense against the enemy that are attacking from their base.

I absolutely agree the organized outfit play is a higher form of conflict, but this doesn't change that. In fact, I would argue that it adds more tactical and strategic elements for those organized squads, platoons, and outfits. Someone else has complained about the asymmetrical aspect of base locations in respect to where the neutral base would be, but to me this is a great thing. It really makes each base a different challenge based on which side you are attacking it from. Great coordinated groups can overcome those challenges.

The last point is especially confusing to me. I'm talking about opening up the conflict area to encompass 3 territories. I don't see where you're getting the idea that this would turn PS2 into "Instanced Area" gameplay.

One thing I will say on that topic though is that I think this would make the "Round Leaderboard Scoring" feature which is really kind of hit-or-miss much more stable. When a territory is neutral, then the round is obviously "open". No matter how many times the point may change hands, the round is open until the territory is won by one side or the other. Right now, as it stands, the round only lasts as long a control point is contested, but we all know that's really only the tip of the iceberg. Just because the point is resecured, the round isn't really over, but it is scored that way. This mechanic defines a clear beginning and end to the round you can actually see on the map.

Actually, we're on the same page with this. When you're running a tight outfit squad or course you're going to give orders and expect people to comply. And with the current setup of the game, it makes perfect sense to bring in the majority of your crew into the base because that's where 90% of the fighting is going to happen. All you need to leave outside are some guards for your AMS.

Now think about how you would need to conduct your platoon under this new system. You'd NEED to divide your forces up into an "outside" and "inside". Transportation to the neutral zone becomes a major part of each base conflict. You'lll need your best tankers out there to staunch the flow of incoming vehicles and you'll need last line defenders to protect against galaxy drops. Committing all of your forces one way or another could be disastrous.

From a tanker point of view, I love this. I follow orders as well as the next guys, but that doesn't mean I have to like them. And I hate leaving a perfectly good tank behind because it's useless in a certain situation. What I was saying is that guys like me would have a reason to stay in those tank outside the walls of a base because there would be vehicle fighting going on.

On a gobal scale, I can see that being true because you get a lot of them blown up en route to the base. However, it's been my experience that one the AMS is deployed near a base, it tends to be blown up by C4. I attribute this generally to the defenders becoming "infantry-locked" in their mindset and they just jump over the wall and kamikaze the thing.

I see what you are talking about now. However I disagree that this is necessarily a bad thing. I've said since early PS1 Beta that more needs to be done to encourage the use of group transports. If it's a killing field for infantry on the way to the neutral base, then so be it. That's what Gals and Sundies are for: getting infantry to the base alive.

As far as the prowler setup you describe, that just sounds good ol' fashion teamwork to me. A setup like that SHOULD be powerful - a game changer in fact. But it can be that already. What I'm proposing here has no real bearing on that. That kind of teamwork can only bet countered with similar teamwork. As far as I'm concerned, teamwork should ALWAYS be the trump card. However, that said, I can see AV turrets or a couple of Liberators putting a quick end to that setup.

I did, thanks!

I agree about the balance, but I also feel there is a time and place for everything. What you are describing isn't unique to this idea. I don't even think it's particularly acute in this idea. To me, this tips back more towards an "Available Resources vs Scarcity" discussion that hinges around limiting the number of vehicles in play at any one time or allowing players to grab what they want, when they want it. Higby has said in the past that they don't want players to feel constricted in their play options, but I personally feel scarcity should be more prevalent as a core game mechanic to incentivize cautious use of force multipliers and restrict their dominance in the open field.

I absolutely agree that these resource mechanic have a direct impact on this idea, but no more than they do on the game already. From a personal point of view, and from the view of a tank driver myself, I'd personally like to see fewer vehicles available at any one time, and see far more "open field infantry battles" because those have been some of my favorite experiences in this game so far. I really feel the game shines very brightly when soldiers fight out in the open like that. And, given the right resource balancing, I think this game mechanic would facilitate that greatly. So I encourage you to compartmentalize those two game mechanics, and weigh this mechanic on it's own merit separate from the other on-going resource issue.

Bumping this thread.

Haven't read the entire thing yet but the more I think about the neutral base idea the more I love it. I think the idea really could fix a ton of issues that Planetside has.

No it won't fix anything, it would make it worse.

Spawnroom heroes: Stay inside cause its too dangerous to leave, and can farm certs without leaving. The solution to this is self explanatory.



Spawn camping: Happens because defenders are forced to leave the spawn room from a very limited set of exits. They perch in areas where the defenders cannot see them. They can see through the shields, and know when the defenders are near the exit, prompting a world of **** to be lobbed at the defenders the moment they set foot out of the door.


Actual solution to the problems put forward by the OP's topic:

• Nobody gets to shoot through the spawn room walls/doors/windows. Nobody.
• Defenders can see through the spawn room, the entire spawn room. As in, through the ceiling, floor, walls, the entire room.
• Campers cannot see into the spawn room at all. Not even motion sensors. There is no visibility into the spawn room from the outside.
• Make the spawn room able to be exited by every direction, not just 2 murderholes.
• Put a quantum teleporter in every spawn room that will teleport the defender to a random area inside or outside of the base. This is a necessary countermeasure for if the spawnroom is horribly camped.

Absolutely terrible idea, because this means that the zerg which probably outnumbers the defenders 2-1 (usually the case) and already has it's tanks set up now gets to immediately mobilize out to the next base, while the defenders who just lost now have to try and pull armor, organize, and move out. This means there are essentially no more 'zergbreaker' bases left, and zergs will basically get to roll straight to your warpgate.

Hey thanks for the bump man! It's much appreciated. I haven't had much time to read and write these last few days, but I've been meaning to address the last few posts.

To me this is one of the most exciting prospects of this mechanic. Look at bases like Scarred Mesa where each empire must attack the base in a completely different way. With the current system, what happens? Generally the attackers park next to the jump pad, that turns into a massacre at the top-side jump pad, and so the attackers then pull an air swarm to spam the defenders into submission. With this system, both the defenders and attackers are going to meet each other at the base of the mesa. The defenders will obviously get there first and so the attackers will have to come break up their spawn camp. Meanwhile, the attackers best bet to get on point fast is to drop in from the air. This builds a completely different dynamic. Every base will present a new logistical challenge to both the attackers and defenders.

You know, I agree that is the weirdest aspect of this mechanic - however there is a good explaination....NANITES! No, I'm kidding. Actually, we already know that we are fighting over nodes for a global information and resources system. This actually marries with that concept well because the three systems can't "touch". As a defensive measure, when a adjacent base is detected, the network disconnects from both empires, causing it to go neutral. yes, it's a bit of a "Nanites" kind of answer, but at least it explains the behavior.

My bigger issue is consistency. The rule needs to apply across an entire continent. It's bad enough there needs to be an exception for warpgates, but I'm hoping that can go away when enough continents come online.

But look closer at this image, and you begin to see the problem with having to surround a base to neutralize it: The Lattice itself. It doesn't just "encourage" flanking, it "DEMANDS" it. In fact, the lattice prevents the "surrond and neutralize" from working at all. In this picture, if you wanted to surround Hvar Tech plant and capture it, how would you?

The lattice line that links Hvar Tech to Allatum Bio Lab is inaccessable because you can't capture either Hvar or Allatum without it. But even if that link connected somewhere else, that would still leave the VS needing to go all the way over to The Crown to get the backside flank on Hvar. In the end, what this means is that the devs would have to do some major lattice redrawing. It could be done, but I try to avoid such things in my suggestions because changing code is far easier than changing game assets.

I think that it's important to not fear the "Neutralized" status too much. Yes it takes the benefit from the rest of the empires territory, but if the consoles can be hacked to allow spawning, then it still functions as a Tech Plant.

I've actually been thinking about this. It was what I was going to originally going to suggest. The problem that I saw with it is that it doesn't really change the "stand outside the spawn, hide inside the spawn" dynamic. Look at Amp stations and Biolabs. Once the enemy have surrounded the spawn room, the blowing of the SCU is just a formality. Every once in a while, you'll see a big push to resecure the SCU, but even those are short-lived.

The idea here is to really shake things up and put both sides in the same situation of capturing the base. Right now as it stands, defense only happens in Biolabs or where a QRF swoops in and overwhelms the attackers superior numbers. Rarely does the defense come from within the base itself. I'm simply looking to acknowledge that fact and institutionalize it.

I think one of the reasons why we have so many spawn warriors is because the bases aren't really worth dying for.

The game doesn't really encourage suicide rushes either. In fact it punishes them with both no EXP and statistics. And you can't get a base back without someone to eat the bullets for the team