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

If it is possible, I'd love a "trial run" in a controlled location. But keep in mind that this is largely a server-side change and I worry that such a change would have to be "global" as it is a core mechanic of how captures are handled.

For example, the lattice system is really just a restricted version of the hex system. The two could exist side-by-side because all that was changed was to remove the registration of neighboring territories at the map level. The core mechanic which drives hex-to-hex linking was not changed.

So, I don't know if a "phased implementation" could be achieved, which is too bad, because I think that would help greatly in "green lighting" this idea.

Thanks for the support. I hope you come back some day.

I dun like it.

What were the dates you played PS1? From when to when?

Again, please continue this discussion in the thread you specifically made for it.

Please be more specific, and also read the revised version found here:

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/the-neutral-zone-system.174916/

and then make your comments there. I'd like to move the discussion onto the newer version of the idea.

Fine, without mentioning the PS1 AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detectors.....still won't work. WWIIONLINE already did that already, and "the neutral base in the middle" only empowered the zerg even more.

Whenever the Silo went empty in PS1, base became the "neutral base in the middle", guess who was advantaged in that situation? The side with the higher pop. What exactly are you trying to accomplish here with this idea? Make it even harder for the underpopped side to get anywhere?

Breaking the zerg is a different thing altogether. This mechanic is not designed to break zergs other than to force them to split and attack multiple bases whenever the lattice splits. As long as there is an incentive to form into a huge mob, then that will continue to be the case.

By "silo", I assume you mean "tower". The problem with the Tower Model of base capture is that simply defending will not win. You can't man the wall and hold-out. PS2 also has this same problem. Even if you have a base like a Biolab, the enemy can just keep coming. The ONLY defense is and Offensive attack. In PS1, it was an offensive attack on the tower itself.

The Neutral Zone system sets up a definite beginning and end to each base conflict. It becomes possible for one team to actually defend the base to win.

What is accomplished by this idea is listed in the new thread:

1. Stop spawn room camping / Stop spawn room heroes
2. Stop "Alamo" stand-offs (marathon defensive farm sessions)
3. Better E-Sport support (Decisive rounds & Centralized Conflict Area)
4. Expanded Battle area (fights occur inside and outside bases)
5. Battle-map shows contested areas more clearly
6. Increase Strategic Meta-Game

To help under-popped empires would require a different mechanic completely. This idea does not address that issue. I covered a system which would help population balancing here:
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...-and-break-the-zergs-with-3-easy-rules.65995/
If you want to talk about population balancing or breaking zergs, then make a thread for that or comment on the system I specifically proposed for it.

Ok ill be more specific, first of all the spawn camping will be TRANSFERRED to the next base. Since by not letting the enemies to get out will not let them take the other base back. When multiple facilities direct to one, all the facilites will be made neutral therefore making it forever long to get there to defend/attack. It will only be attacking which will kill the diversity in gameplay.

Now that's constructive criticism. I like it! It makes me think more about my idea. It helps me refine.

Let's think about your first point. Who gets the short straw? The average zergling who's not following orders isn't going to forego the capture XP. So you're going to have to order someone to do it. And THAT is good teamwork. If an organized platoon is splitting duty, and two squads are held at the base to ensure the capture and two squads are sent forward to disrupt reinforcement, then that's the kind of thing we WANT to see in this game. Currently, there's no division of labor because locking down the spawn IS securing the capture. They are one in the same. But under the Neutral Zone System, you are going to require command and control to execute that same feat.

And you're going to be splitting your forces. Committing all of your forces to spawn disruption leaves the target base open to a flanking attack. Especially if the other empire can horn in on the action and drop a team onto the point from the air. That's specifically why I included the option to allow a third party to attack an unconnected neutral base. So now, instead of 50+ players standing around looking at the spawn room, you're looking at a much smaller group. To be effective, even against an uncoordinated force, they themselves will have to be highly coordinated and efficient. They are going to need their own spawn ability since you can no longer use the capture AMS as the suppression AMS anymore. We're talking about real tactical diversity here, IF it is even utilized by the target base defenders. This doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

If one step further needs to be taken to ensure the fight revolves around neutral zones, then here's an additional wrinkle: No XP anywhere BUT in the Neutral Zone. NOW, if you are going to suppress the spawn, you are doing it SOLELY for the tactical advantage, and you are gaining nothing. That will put an abrupt end to the "I'll just go farm at the enemy base" mentality. This to me seems unnecessary, a bit heavy handed, and will certainly be unpopular with pilots. But, it's there on the table as an option.

You're second point was a little unclear. I assume you're talking about an instance like this:



Where the VS have just taken Vanu Archives and are now faced with securing the next three territories.

This naturally puts the VS at a disadvantage, and that is the whole point. The VS zerg would have to split into 3 or risk having the Vanu Archives flipped neutral behind them. In the current system, the VS are free to hunker down in the Vanu Archives for a nice long farm session. The Neutral Zone System takes that away by forcing the VS to move forward or be moved back. In this instance, you see the NC clearly have an advantage on the center territory (Ayani Labs) while the TR have a connection to the northern territory (NS Secure Data), which doubles the threat there. Losing any one of these would cut the supply lines to the VS zerg and put Vanu Archives up for grabs. That makes this a perfect "stall" location for the zerg push. They'll have to coordinate, divide, and conquer or they'll begin losing ground. Once again, I don't see how this is anything but a good thing.

You missed my last point (Unless I didnt see it), it 'kills' deversity; Everybody is attack,
nothing else happens: Its attacks and counter-attacks. And again, you seem like a smart guy and all but how will newbies get a grasp on it? Seems very complex and may be confusing.

That "unpopular with pilots" is a much bigger deal than you realize. Air battles tend to travel across several hexes, and being denied xp just because your enemy decided to fall back is completely unfair, and would destroy the air meta. All airplanes would be good for would be farming infantry, which makes infantry more angry, which results in nerfs... you get the point. Furthermore, no xp outside of neutral bases also screws over snipers, infiltrators prepping a base for hacking, engineers with turrets or tank mines, heavies trying to lock on from a distance, people in phalanx turrets, skyguard maxes, people repairing their vehicles/healing freindlys in a safe zone... etc. Even if a different incentivization for people to fight in neutral zones is pushed, it still indirectly shoehorns people into playing a particular way, which restricts freedom and is bad for the game. Spawn camping is bad for the game, on both sides, but no xp except in neutral zones would not be a feasible way to fix that.

Sorry, I missed the last sentence. I think the disconnect here is that there is a new iteration of the idea. In a nut shell: "You capture the point and you are on defense."

The base acts as "yours" even though the territory is still neutral. The responding counter-attack comes from outside, while your side now has "home field advantage": all of the consoles, turrets, and the spawn room are yours. You are on defense. If they take control of the capture point, then they get the "home field advantages" and they are on defense. You must now fight your way back in. So the defensive aspect is preserved.

Actually, I totally get it. Like I said, I expect that it would be unnecessary. And I agree that it's heavy handed.

As for most of your examples, the XP would be based on the targets location, no the attackers. So if you are sitting in a phalanx turret at your base and you are lobbing shots at the neutral base, then you're going to be scoring XP. However, in that particular example, most phalanx turret have an extremely limited view and the vast majority of targets are going to be in the neutral zone. Snipers fall into the same category. As long as they are reaching INTO the neutral zone with their shots, then they are scoring XP. Reaching out, not so much. Many of these other examples are specifically related to defending the capture (HA & Engi AV, AA, ect.) which means you are working for the capture XP specifically. I singled out pilots because they do important work often far from the capture zone, and it certainly wouldn't be fair for them.

The alternative is to give XP bonuses inside the Neutral Zone. But, in my experience, if you are going to drive player behavior, sticks work better than carrots. So to achieve the same result, you'd have to offer some hefty XP bonuses. Again, pilots will feel left out because now it would be more lucrative to NOT be a pilot. However the converse side of that argument is that aircraft are huge XP pumps for good pilots already, it's simply leveling the field for ground pounders as far as XP uptake goes.

Incentive to form into zergs:

1) Base cap XP
2) Zergfits gonna do what Zergfits gonna do

The Neutral base simply makes it easier for zergfits, and that's all it does.

1. Of course it stop sspawn room camping when there is no battle.
2. Of course it stops....that, when there is no battle.
3. E-sport what?
4. what fight? A zergfit arrives, caps empty "neutral" base, and moves onto next empty "neutral" base.
5. It already shows constested areas as clearly as it can get. You've got population numbers. You've got "hey this base is under cap" warnings. You've even got little colored explosions. What more information do you need?
6. Whatever that word means.

It already is transferred to the next base.

Anyone who's ever tried to spawn at an adjacent base in a lopsided battle, like 2:1 or worse, and come in from outside is already faced with pre-camps from attackers who are bored. Shoot, even trying to setup mines/claymores in the adjacent base is a dangerous affair.

O....K. I'm...glad we're in agreement on this then?

1., 2., 4.:
It doesn't change the dynamic of zerging at all. It doesn't cure cancer, solve middle east peace, or feed the children of the world either. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T PUT THOSE THINGS IN THE TITLE.

You want to break zergs? That's a completely different topic. I've already invited you to discuss it on the thread I created for that very topic, and you have declined. I don't know what else you want.

3. "Support".

5. You're right. But every one of those examples revolves around action already being there. Neutral Zones show up even if no one is capping or fighting, which makes forming a strategy at a glance easier.

6. It means a lot of things to a lot of people, but here in this community it generally refers to the Continental and Global Strategic Game. It's just easier to type "Meta-Game".

I rarely have that problem. I don't stay at facilities where the zerg has won. I always despawn and go tot he next base to set up tank mines. About 1 in 20 times, there will be a cloaker on the adjacent base already.

Yeah it doesn't do anything but make defending an even bigger pain in the as.

What part of, "Attackers in MMOFPS always have the initiative" don't you guys get? Why make it worse? This makes it worse.

There is only one time I could recall, back in 2005 playing WWIIONLINE where I took the initiative away from attackers. I had spent 4 hours camping one of the towns with my 88 waiting for the enemy to spawn there. Then suddenly 30 tanks and like 5 trucks spawned there and started rolling away from town heading N.E.E. I took a couple pot shots at them, they killed me.

So I draw a line on the map, and figure they will have to go slow cross country for the next 10-15 minutes to get to the next town. So I call up the Breakfast Club, "hey you guys got 10 minutes to setup a defense at X base, cause there are 30 tanks heading that way from Y direction." They did and wiped them out with less players than there were attackers. Attackers/zergfits are so lazy, and expect little to no resistance, that's why they never do recon. Well almost never do recon.

It was pure luck. I could have spent 48 hours there and the enemy could have never spawned, not to mention that there were no roads between town A and town B, which would have cut the drive distance in half making interception even more difficult and time sensitive.

Nobody plays like that because it's manpower inefficient; I was just screwing around trying new tactics.

What about making a balance. For instance, here's the big issue I saw here. Some of our facilities, do favor a strong defense. Others, are lattice webs. Take the crown for instance. That place would be neutral 24/7.

So... instead of all of the adjacent facilities being neutralized upon a capture, make it so that only small outposts are neutralized (or just downright adjust it to each specific individual facility).

Basically, it would play out like this. If someone takes the Crown, all adjacent enemy facilities are neutralized. If a faction reclaims one of the adjacent facilities however, the Crown itself isn't neutralized. Instead, some version of the old influence thing could come in play here.

Or, possibly, one alternative (that in consideration, doesn't make any logical sense), is that the more adjacent enemy facilities to a large outpost, the longer respawn time for that large outpost becomes.

Now... there still are a few issues about this. What about small outposts with generators? What are they good for now? They're just an obstacle if they're neutral.

What about Quartz Ridge? Obviously, taking the excavation site isn't the way to neutralize that, but Indar Comm is.

And Phalanx turrets in general? If bases are neutralized, when are those things EVER going to get used outside of warpgates?

This idea sounds nice at first, but the more I think about it, it gets worse.

Let me recap: The problem you want to solve is how to get rid of the frustrating experience of players getting locked in the spawnroom.
Once a spawnroom-lockin happens, only few players can be bothered to get out and fight, instead they choose to shoot from the inside. This behaviour is completely rational. It is also rational not to drop back to the next base and get a vehicle because enemies are RIGHT THERE to shoot at without risk versus a high risk of wasting resources for a vehicle that won't last long against a large group of vehicles just waiting for you to come.

Why is the general idea of neutral bases bad? Because it doesn't solve the problem it tries to solve. There are still spawn rooms that can and will be besieged simply because it's logical to do so. It's just a matter of having a few libs camping the spawnrooms ahead of the target base.

The problem is a simple risk/reward consideration and you will only get people to take the risk, if the reward is appropriate.
Now, how to solve the problem?

1) Have low reward for low risk: Remove XP rewards for kills while inside the spawnroom, but not the ability to do so.
2) Have high reward for high risk: Give a hero XP bonus for people going out of a locked-in spawn in face of certain death.
3) Besieging the spawnroom via tank/lib bombardement minimizes the risk for the attacker while giving normal XP for kills. Increase the risk for besieging the spawnroom: Introduce a phoenix-like weapon for all factions to kill vehicles from inside the spawnroom, that costs lots of resources but can one-shot kill tanks and libs within 100m.
4) Alternatively increase controllability of drop pods (again) and provide teleporters into the sky, so defenders can use drop pods at any time without beacon from inside the spawnroom. This puts you as defender at a clear risk (attackers see you dropping) but it gives you the chance to blow up vehicles around the base, including flying vehicles.

One example for this are fights about main watchtowers like Crossroads. Once the siege is on, players are really reluctant to invest resources into maxes because the risk is high to get killed and NOT GET RESURRECTED. This has been cemented by the increased time medics need to revive maxes, putting the medics at high risk. But without maxes, There's no chance to break the siege via liberators and ESF. So, to break the circle I often announce when I'm running as medic on the watchtower platform so the choice for other players to take maxes gets easier. Of course, this problem is systematic and can't be solved by individual initiative alone.

The problem will persist as long as besieging a spawnroom minimizes the risk and maximizes the rewards for the attackers while it maximizes the risk and minimizes the rewards for the defenders to go out and push back.