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

My favorite points to this idea:

This would smooth out the battle flow and solidify some kind of metagame. It emphasises team coordination because roles such as sundy/galaxy driver plus escort and defense will be a much higher priority. More attack and defend targets opens up the possibility for 'special operations squads.' Instead of camping the spawn room you need to hold the point as well as attack the enemy AMS and defend your own AMS and Galaxies.

Neutral territory front-line. Relying on galaxy and sunderer spawn and defense allows each faction to hit the base from a different angle. This spreads the battle out across the country allowing more diverse and interesting terrain to be your battleground.

Decisive battles. Currently every battle de-volves into wishy-washy spawn room camping. When a battle ends in a decisive victory it pushes the opposition back into a defensive position. I that emphasises base defence by having clearer 'push-pull' offensive and defensive stages of battle. That's meta baby!!

Vehicles as transportation. You have to travel a short distance to get to the battle if there is no AMS setup. The extra vehicle and foot traffic increases the open-world randomness of two squads or platoons crashing into each other. Instead of teleporting everywhere you get to experience the immersive open world. This is an MMO afterall!

Only suggestion... If a base flips neutral perhaps give a short 1min spawn grace period for the previous faction owners. Just for a small defenders advantage and give time to set-up the AMS.

The current spawn system is broke and I don't think there is any way to salvage it. A game centered around spawn camping is not good design. Something like this has to happen! It would give so much more meaning to this game!

Hmm, off the top of my head, I think it would be better to make the major facilities immune to becoming neutral.
These are places with a lot of defenses set up and it seems a shame to waste them.

wwiionline already did this, only thing it accomplished is made zerging easier.

This is a great idea, but a few things need to be changed:

1. While you wouldn't be able to spawn at a front-line base, it should still remain in the ownership of the parent faction. They still get the resources, they just can't spawn there. Also, it would still be the faction colors. The idea is that spawn room camping doesn't happen, not that the facilities actually randomly become completely neutral-- that is taking it too far.
2. Tech plants, bio labs, and amp stations should still have spawns, and not become neutral. Rather than spawn buildings, they could spawn in the already-implemented tunnel system, spawn into an operational turret, or spawn via drop pod.
3. Small bases would need to be completely redesigned to be defensible.

Other than that, this idea is brilliant.

This idea needs more refinement, but quite possibly one of the most solid suggestions I've ever read. +1

I think I've just figured out "the missing piece" of this idea which is throwing people off:

Control the Point = Control The Base Assets

So, a base goes neutral, but whoever controls the point gets use of the turrets, consoles, and most importantly the spawn room. It's much like the Fryer Amp Station model, but for the whole base (for all bases that only have one cap point). For other bases, controlling the majority of cap points grants access to the resources. So, for example, if The Crown is the neutral zone, then an empire would need to hold 2 of the 3 points to gain control of the spawn room. That makes getting off the hill and down to the B and C points critical (currently defense of B & C are mostly reactionary without anyone staying close to defend them).

So now, people who sit in spawn will have a nasty surprise when the base flips control, the pain fields come on, and enemy start spawning in behind them. You simply no longer have the luxury of focusing on the spawn room, because if you stay in there, you're going to lose it fast. And if you cap the point, you no longer have to worry about surrounding the spawn room because it's YOURS.

Hacking resources still applies, but when the base flips everything flips with it. (Or maybe not...perhaps a hacked asset could be immune to base flipping back and forth - but this would require some additional flagging and checking, so it might be a secondary implementation after the Neutral Zone Mechanic had been in play for a while).

I love this idea and it reinforces the idea that the base is "in flux" and its resources are in contention. And here's the best part, all of these mechanics are already in the code of the game, all it takes is rearranging the hooks. I'm going to rewrite the original post to include this idea because it is a major part of the mechanic.

This idea wasn't made to address Zerging. "Making it stronger" is a bit of a reach in my view because there's not much change as far as reward / motivation. Zergs are still going to zerg, but now they won't be standing around peering into a spawn room and waiting for 4 minutes.

Breaking up zergs will take an entirely different mechanic that would be separate from this mechanic. I ask only that you take that into consideration when considering this mechanic. In other words, don't look at an egg beater and say, "This thing would be horrible at shaving my junk!" It wasn't made for that.

Then what was it made for, other than making zerging worse?

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


By the way, I have made a recommendation specifically about breaking zergs up here.

Here is the important bit:

This info is a bit dated, but the gist remains the same. If you wanted to start de-incentivizing players when there was more than a platoons worth, you'd adjust the static XP amount to 48000. Any more than a single platoon, and the XP reward for the capture starts going down. The numbers could be adjusted to whatever works best.

The best thing about this idea is that it doesn't STOP people from zerging, if they want to do it, or if it's the only way to take a base, then the option is still there - you just get less reward for doing it that way.

If you can't articulate why you feel that way, then the only appropriate response is:

I fail to see how this would fix anything. Of course it would end spawn camping and spawn room heroes, with nowhere to spawn(a step in the absolute wrong direction).
First I'd like you to give me reasons why your suggestion is better than the current one. I know it's just a suggestion and will never be implemented, but I want to know why every base should be remade, the resource system re-revamped, alerts completely ruined, how this wouldn't cause zergs, how this wouldn't make ghost capping exponentially worse, and why you want to get rid of fights completely. There would be no reason for zergs to go head-to-head when they can just race around and see who could back-cap the fastest. People would just go to a base, flip the point(assuming you still want objectives in the game) and repeat that nonstop, never encountering any resistance(that have no way of spawning). This would also be terrible for team-play. It ammuses me that you think the factions are teams, that everyone who chooses VS is going to work together. Wrong. They go out to shoot the blue and red guys, with little to no coordination. Sure, outfits would do well, but outfits work by themselves, not with other outfits.

Explain to me why, how and when it sounded a good idea that any defending empire would/should/could loses TWO BASES after ONE SINGLE attack??

I mean... wow.

That would turn into an INSANELY turbo boosted ghostcapping zergfest.

It would purely and simply kill the game.

Nowhere and nobody to defend, except behind the shield of your warpgate.
Or would that also turn neutral? XD

I completely 100% agree with this idea and think it will not only solve a big problem with the capture mechanics but create a whole new set of dynamics in the battlefields, resulting in the need for much more strategy when engaging neutral territories.

Strangely, it's the first time I want to like a post more than once.

Ok, that's much better. So right out of the gate you say it won't fix anything...except exactly what I said it's intended to fix. So, that's a little back-handed. You act like AMSs don't exist at all, which is wrong. If it's ok for one side to have to bring an AMS, why not BOTH sides? On top of all of that, four posts above your first post, I added an extra rule to the mix: "Owning the capture point grants access to base resources." So that eliminates the whole "no place to spawn" argument completely.

Now I'm going to take each one of your other points in order:

The reason why I feel my idea is better than the current system is that it completely takes the focus off of the spawn room. In the current gameplay, the primary focus is "Lock-down spawn room first, worry about the capture point second". The Neutral Zone System removes the spawn room from the equation, making the capture point the primary focus for both teams.

This game is built on community suggestions. This dev team has the best record of listening to, responding to, and implementing community feedback, of any other developer I've ever seen. If a good case can be made and supported by the community, then it will at least get consideration by the dev team. And at this point, that's all I'm really hoping for.

There is no reason to remake any bases. This system fits onto every existing base type and layout.

This doesn't change the resource system at all. A resource revamp is already in the works, but I don't see this impacting that at all.

How would this ruin Alerts? The only thing that I can see changing in the alert system is that it will be possible to have a fourth state for a facility type on facility alerts - that being neutral. But that in itself adds an extra level of strategy to the meta-game, and it offers a "last minute" option in that an empire can try to neutralize a base before time expires which means the defenders don't have the luxury of sitting back in the base assured they can just "ride-out" the end of the alert. That's a good thing IMO.

Zerging is the result of not having diminishing returns for over-popping an attack, not because of the mechanics of capturing. Like I told Tuco, this idea isn't designed to address zerging and so it's unfair to heap an unrelated problem onto this idea. Not every idea posted on these forums has to fix zerging. However, I did post a previous idea I had put forth on toning down zerging in a reply to Tuco's post. Check that out. It could be implemented in tandem to alleviate that concern.

Ghost cappers can be dealt with in the exact same way as before: Go there, kill the guy, resecure the base. Even better, you could see the likely targets at a glance.

This doesn't get rid of fights, but then I don't consider one team staring out of a spawn room while another team stares in a "fight". This actually makes fights bigger in that it opens up the conflict zone to the areas around the base. Both sides are going to have to bring mobile spawns up to the front line and that's going to generate much more fight around the base. That's a good thing.

Your hand-wringing over zerg back-capping smacks of frustration with the WDS system. And I don't blame you for that, but I don't think you should be taking those frustrations out on my idea.

Your cynicism towards you fellow players is kind of sad. Maybe YOU don't work with other people, maybe YOU don't use proxy chat, maybe the outfits on YOUR server don't coordinate, but that has not been my experience at all. I always say, "Teamplay is always the trump card". If players aren't working together, they SHOULD get beat, and beat hard. Unmercifully. I've got no sympathy for people who can't work together, especially in a game that is based on working together.

Well, first, they aren't "lost", they are "in contention". And the mechanic works for both sides. Capping a base that lays on a forking lattice actually ends up making things more difficult for the attackers. They now have to attack and win both bases simultaneously. The worst case scenario, your empire wins The Crown. Now you have up to FOUR territories you must attack all at once, or risk having The Crown be flipped neutral right behind you.

Spawn rooms aren't helping anyone defend anything right now with the exception of Biolabs. Biolabs are the only places where the base itself is defensible enough to allow the spawn room to resupply defenders faster than an attacking force can kill them. That's why Biolabs become these isolated marathon farm-fests which serve the wider empire in no way at all.

Hiding behind the warpgate shield, or in a spawn room is NOT defending.

But to answer your question, yes eventually the idea is that warpgates would become neutral too, when we have enough continents.

Still, why any defending empire would/should/could loses control of TWO BASES after an attack on ONE territory??

Should we instead remove spawn rooms from every bases and replace them by sunderers hangars only?
That would be the ultimate "anti-spawnroom-camping" solution!

Also I apologize for commenting within the comment, I can't reply to every paragraph one at a time, editing the rest out, repeatedly, for a post this big

No, and I'll tell you why. Instead of think of a conflict zone as the point between an attacking AMS and the Spawn Room, think of a conflict zone as three connected bases. For example:



For Xenolabs, everything between Regent Rock and Crossroad is "in play". You're going to have players spawning at both territories and making their way to Xenolabs. Both empires are going to be trying to set up AMSs near the base, and both empires are going to be destroying those AMSs. So, spawn rooms are still necessary.

And like I posted earlier, "Own the point, own the spawn room." So, while the territory is neutral, the empire in control of the point gains the ability to spawn there to help defend against the other empire. Meanwhile the other empire need only worry about attacking the control point because capturing that flips the spawn room to their favor, so they don't have to worry about spawn-locking the other empire.

As to your "one for two" question, my reply is "Why not?" It makes regaining that one base all that much more important. Neutral territories start neutral, but the second the control point is flipped one way or the other, control of the resources goes to that empire. So, if you just lost, at least your empire had people spawning at the base that just went neutral and they can get on the point much faster than the other empire and start gaining resources and a spawn location.