[Suggestion] Remove all spawn rooms! This will bring back that strategic part of the 2014 game...

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by RiP0k, May 18, 2022.

  1. RiP0k

    This game has become more of a dumb session game, which is full on the market. The only difference is the number of people playing in one place.
    Yes, there are big battles, but where do they take place 90% of the time? In the same bases, in the same premises, often according to the same scenario. Is it good? Is this how Planetside 2 was planned?
    I remember how in 2014 people got on foot or by transport in convoys to the next hex, without redeployment and join combat. And it was fun and epic.
    What DEVELOPERS are required of you to do is to remove all spawn rooms on all hexes. Leave only Warpgates.
    What will it give?
    Remember that you have such a thing as the Construction System. Yes, that very useless system without a purpose for existence. So. Leave all NCZ as is. Have the builders provide those spawn rooms. This is a very diverse logistical component of the game that now exists aimlessly.
    This will also give an incentive to defend the given base or fortify it, due to the lack of other sources of respawn and transport terminals.
    I understand that you seem to have decided that quickly getting emotions in the form of fast fleeting battles will make online more, and so it happened in the princep. But because of this, you lesh this game of the part in which there was strategy and tactics.
    Yes, it will be the same as now to have the advantage of zerging.
    But I think that pPlanetside 2 has lost the right path it started on.

    Another plus is that the Developer will no longer have to suffer with the revival system, because it will not be. In general, I think this is what PLANETSIDE 2 needed. It was part of its feature.
    • Up x 1
  2. Demigan

    This reminds me of when construction was released. It was amazingly popular for a short while and then people started optimizing it. The builders started building murder holes that werent fun to attack and the attackers started to counter by either not engaging or using cheese strategies. Any defenders for construction also vanished as it was a completely random chance that you got a well designed base or a few pieces of crap and got spawnkilled/camped.

    Your idea wouldnt solve any of the issues construction has and it would destroy the flow of the game. Galdrops would become virtually unstoppable and have an almost 100% success rate while vehicles would defend Sunderers that let the attackers freely capture uncontested bases. Infantry combat would be almost absent as either one or the other team has a vehicle presence around a base.

    If you want to alter the flow of the game it would be better to add more spawn options. The Forwards Station would have been infinitely better than the Router system, letting Medics deploy spawnpoints that players within a certain range can use so multiple attack routes can be set up or a spawncamp avoided. Routers should be altered to a point-to-point teleporter system so players can quickly reach certain area's, but the opposition can track down and destroy either end.
  3. RiP0k

    It seems to me the opposite. There will be nowhere to take vehicles except at a base built by a player or a base that was captured or hacked into their terminal. This will increase the number of defenders. And Galdrops will only work for a couple of hexes if they are not destroyed on the first hex. From which the infantry will have to use other vehicles to get to the next hex. As for closed player bases, no one will use them. Everyone will use, strengthen and protect only those bases that have the ability to use equipment terminals. And which have a more comfortable structure.
    • Up x 1
  4. Demigan

    Attackers move to a base. Where to defenders place their Sunderer to keep the infantry flowing?
    The defenders set up Sundies to keep infantry coming in defense. But the moment the attackers can set up their own Sundy, they have effective control to destroy the defender sundy in most cases.

    A Galdrop happens. The time it takes to organize enough players to move to that base through vehicles or aircraft would at best leave a minute or two for retaking a base.

    End result: vehicle zergs are supreme for unorganized masses, Galdrops for organized ones.

    Also without any actual information on PMB's its nigh impossible to know the state of the base. It may have a spawn, but what else? Is it just a tube and a silo? If its under attack, are you going to be spawncamped or have the attackers failed to pierce the defences? Is it a fully fledged base? Would anyone bother with a fully fledged base or would we see the equivalent of router bases (silo, spawntube, spawnpad hidden away)? You need more information that is available at a single glance.
  5. OneShadowWarrior

  6. Somentine

  7. Yaesu

    I can only see that as really boring. The action would be nil.
  8. Botji

    I am in favour of more logistics in most games, I do not think this would be a good change though.

    Personally I think all spawns should be limited in number of respawns as well as number of tied/connected players to them, for example ignore how stupid the numbers might be for now but a Sunderer would be limited to 24 players connected to it, you set your spawn on it like a Construction spawn tube and when that is done you can spawn on it and take up 1/24 slots(redeploying would only be possible if it has available slots and you would then have set your spawn to that Sunderer), further the Sunderer only has CORTIUM to fuel 100 respawns. You would still be able to spawn on it when it runs out but the respawn timer would increase a lot to really limit any offensive push of infantry coming from it.

    Same limitations would apply to ALL spawns except for the Warpgates, with different spawns having different actual player slots and resource caps. Yep, even dev bases would have this limit and smaller bases would obviously have smaller caps on defenders tied to it while the big ones like Techs/Amps etc would have much larger spawns... smaller bases with the fancy spawn room reactors you can blow up would have 'better' spawns compared to equally sized bases without such reactors.

    The point is that while static bases have 'large' capacity for spawning defenders its still not unlimited, same goes for the resources they would use up spawning there and this would even be a good way of limiting ZERGS, you could still overpopulate a hex but you would need to either bring in additional spawns that are vulnerable and can be destroyed(reducing the zerg) OR relying on a constant bus transport line from WG/other bases/spawns to keep dumping troops on a base but they would all be temporary reinforcements since they might not have any available spawn in the base once they die so heavily contested bases would need a constant flow of troops from outside.

    It also makes siege warfare a viable tactic for both defenders and attackers, right now it can feel pointless killing attackers/defenders since they will just keep coming in unlimited numbers until either their spawn is destroyed or the base is taken to get rid of the defenders.. or if you overpop and lock the defenders into spawn and you end up glaring at each other for a few minutes until the base flips.

    Defenders would have a defenders advantage with (usually)unbreakable spawns and large cortium storage to fuel the defense but in the end they would still require resupply if the fight keeps going, that is something the attackers can stop from happening.
    Same with the attackers, they would need more than 1-2 Sunderers spewing out dozens and dozens of players every few seconds because that would not be possible, to deal with most bases and they would sooner or later need refueling and each Sunderer can only 'house' a limited number of players. Even if the defending faction would struggle to get rid of all the vehicles and Sunderers at the base a single tank/Harasser might be enough to cut off the Ants trying to get to the base to refuel the Sunderers so perhaps we need escort vehicles or more roaming groups of vehicles on the map to secure the backlines? Perhaps they do not get any supplies and the attack starts to crawl as the respawns slows down to a trickle which would let the defenders push out or the opposite and the defenders gets starved and just cant maintain the pressure and loses the points.

    I realize any actual balance would need to be really tuned but the idea is that a simple thing like adding limits to the already available spawns would open up a lot of different levels of a base fight aside from just piling people on the problem, it would make zerging much harder to do and instead of just a natural creation from lots of players redeploying it would be a legit tactic requiring setup and maintenance to keep it going. They would still form but would die out very quickly unless its being refilled. Imagine a zerg actually becoming something that is considered a skilled tactic?

    Perhaps we would even see outfits take specialized roles as Anti-Zerg outfits that focus on hitting the backlines and killing transport Galaxies/Valkyries to stop enemies from overpopping bases because transporting troops would actually be a big impact on taking bases, being one of the few ways to break the limits on how many defenders/attackers there could be in a base due to the spawn limits. If a base supports 64 defenders, dropping 11 extra each trip with a Galaxy is not a insignificant number in boosting the defense even if most of them are dead and gone by the time you return with 11 more.

    I could definitely see outfits specializing into hot dropping attacks/defense, some already do with point holds but with the limits on spawns this would be a massive boost to any attack/defense and it would be in the enemies best interest to intercept them before they drop further scaling up the active area of a fight instead of focusing everything and everyone on a base and its very immediate area.

    I just think that it would in general be a big beneficial change in how the game is played, likely would see a lot more player bases, Sunderers spread out around bases(even from the faction on defense) and so on just to be able to boost the numbers of active players in the fight with a spawn, even if they might have to run a bit to the base.

    It would de-centralize everything and create lots of smaller fights in and around the "main" fight which might be a normal base but both attacker and defender faction would want to own the territory around it to put spawns there and keep supplies rolling in, there would be fights over them that might be equally as important as the fight over point A inside the base.

    I can at least dream, the CoD damaged playerbase that requires action within 10 seconds of loading into the game would not survive the change even if the general experience would likely improve a lot since everything gains a bit more purpose like this and epic fights would not be 100+ players bulldozing into a single room but fighting a massive battle both in and around the base instead which makes every single player and what they do actually matter just a little bit more + vehicles really gets a promotion in importance of actually taking and defending bases.

    This was my Ted talk, feel free to grab a TL;DR before leaving and do not use the fire exit, it leads to a airlock out into space.
  9. Demigan

    I dont know why people keep proposing this, it would destroy the game.

    - any large equal fight would automatically be punished just for being large.
    - the attackers have a massive advantage. Its much easier to spawn new Sunderers or resupply your Sundies than it is for the defenders to do so. Thats why they are defenders, they dont control the surrounding base anymore.
    - it would cause flow issues as captured bases would likely have run out or be low on cortium, forcing people to abandon the fight and go somewhere else.
    - promoting lots of small fights in a game that is only still alive because it offers a unique large-scale combat scenario, need I say more?
    - it would increase the focus on cheese and farming infantry even more, not a good idea.
    - you insult everyone who disagrees with you by default (CoD damaged playerbase).
    - Zergs tend to have positive KD ratio's, making it easier to drain the cortium of the opponents. You just supercharged Zergs.

    If you want to stop Zergs you dont add this vague population limit, you just make sure its fun to fight them regardless of how many allies you have. New spawn methods, goals that change based on the population difference, easier access to certain things like vehicles when outpopped, lowered nanite cost when outpopped, longer capture times when the defenders are outpopped etc.
  10. karlooo

    The game is already destroyed to the worst extent. They are trying to save it.

    Like you can't destroy the game more than it is now.
  11. Somentine

    lol how so bro
  12. UberNoob1337101

    Half of Oshur follows this philosophy and is one of the reasons why it's the worst continent in the game.
  13. RiP0k

    Oshur's problem is that there are many hexes that are designed for construction. They do not have full-fledged game bases created by developers. Because of this, these territories pass in minutes. Moreover, there are still respawn rooms on this continent. Because of what, everyone respawns on them and not on the player's bases. Because of this, there is no reason to use the player's bases and defend them. So do not equate Oshur with this proposal and do not set him as an example. Oshur works like any other continent.
  14. Botji

    While I wont disagree with this take on it I want to add that the LACK of hexes is an even larger problem, everything is so isolated and you generally only push down a single lane of hexes which means the population gets concentrated into big doom zergs battling back and forth and there is little to no space to build on that is not directly in the line of movement and player bases can hardly hold off 1-2 Lightnings for any duration of time, when there are 10 Prowlers looking at a PMB it just melts away in seconds.

    I was quite excited when the Devs did their test run on Esamir with the broken WG area, that was amazing and had so much potential but the difference and reason it was good that the devs seem to have failed to grasp is that it was the BIG OPEN TERRAIN that made it good, not small pockets of islands. You need lots of terrain to work with to make base building interesting and lots of terrain is beneficial to vehicle play too since you could drive around and make flanks and such.. GL doing that on Oh-Sure.
  15. Demigan

    Ofcourse you can destroy it more!
    Sink even more wasted time into building continents that suck balls!
    Drop in PS1 stuff without any regard for PS2's design
    Double down even more on the Platoon/Outfit systems and the capture-the-continent gameplay
    Revert to the earliest construction system
    Double down on the NSO system and waste even more time and effort
    Double down on the idea that there has to be a flow across the map, which only promotes making bases easy to capture and defending a losing game that isn't worth it.
    Boost zergs even more
    Remove all spawnrooms