Spawncamping Is Inevitable

That wouldn't work without the PS1 AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detectors. If you spread the bases out without the PS1 AMS, PS1 mines, PS1 spitfires, PS1 motion detectors then all that would accomplish is making the zerg spend 30 seconds longer between driving between one spawn camp to another.

That just makes it extremely difficult for attackers to get anywhere even when the population is balanced 50:50.

WWIIONLINE does that with multiple spawn rooms with height and view advantage, and it's so extremely hard to take a base it is a requirement to pre-camp a base. Pre-camping means everyone on your team zerg a base an enemy doesn't expect you attack at, spawn as many tanks as possible, drive as quickly as possible to get in a spawn camping position before the enemy has a chance to respond. Right now we sort of half-***** zerg from one base to another in a disorganized fashion, but due to difficulties in WWIIONLINE in taking bases we turned pre-camping into an artform, and to be honest it's not any more fun than what we have here.

There is no way to ever end spawn camping. if the goal is to hold the control points, and keeping the defenders off it is the way to do it...you spawn camp, or atleast camp somewhere near by. Its exactly how I take a base. take the points while I learn the enemy movements, once I have the point, I work my way near to the spawn room to ensure the enemy doesnt get out and cant get back to the point....its really pretty simple and nothing is ever going to change how this game plays out. Even when defending I work much the same way, killing attackers as I learn where they are spawning from and their approach path. Once that is figured out, its really just a matter of out shooting the enemy...and thats the easy part.

Not even if they removed the spawn building, we would still need spawn points, and enemies would camp those as they do in BF2...there will always be set places where we need to appear in the world...

This is the other end of the scale, one that we need to avoid as much as the end we're currently in.
There exists a middle ground where everything is acceptable.

I like to use one-point AMP stations as an example of a base done right.
The defenders are hard to camp in there as they have sufficient exit points, and (very important) those places are far enough apart individually to make camping them inefficient. (for this example imagine the spawn room is "north")
- They can leave the building itself to the south, east and west. Either into the open or partial cover of the buildings.
- They can rush the tower to the north and use the jump pads to spread out to the far east or far west.
- They can use the tunnels to reach the far southeast and far southwest, both which are also places of importance (main shield generators).
- They can use another tunnel to access the center (SCU, control point, both important) or the southern region.
- They can use the jump pad of the spawn itself to reach another entrance to the center, as well as a mediocre 360° vantage point. (meh because the AMP station offers good cover for ground troops)

On the other hand the attackers are not disadvantaged either.
- 4 important locations, which are all rather defensible on their own. The small generator shack less so, but the large one and the control point are easy to defend. SCU is defensible if you already have a good grip on the hall with the CP and manage to start an overload.
- All points of interest are spread out, a momentary setback will not destroy all progress the attackers have made so far.
- The exits closest to the important points can be easiely blockaded (tunnels next to generators, SCU tunnel, elevator beams from/to roof)
- Lots of cover to set up sundies, most of it even close to at least one objective. (possibly more with some... creative... sundy parking)

Basically you can't spawncamp defenders if they don't let you (or if the attackers don't have a silly numerical advantage).
At the same time the attackers have reasonably easy to hold objectives without the game degenerating into "dig in and hope you can throw more grenades into a chokepoint then they do" (*cough* most/many Hossin bases *cough*).

What if I'm on the other side of the spawncamp, forced to stare at those shields until the base timer runs down lest someone spawn in behind me and shove a Decimator up my exhaust pipe? This is simply unavoidable as long as the invincible spawn exists, you absolutely have to watch over it until the base flips or else the enemy will spawn in there and kill you while your back is turned.

Being the camper isn't any more fun than being the camped.

Nothing forces you to camp the base after dominance has been established. If you leave 55% pop, they're going to have a fun time keeping the capture point secure and you're going to have more fun at some other base, and all of you will probably get more XP as a result (the individual players of a battle will earn more at 55/45% pop than at 75/25%, and then the players who move onto some other battle are likely to find more XP elsewhere.)

Won't help. The people camping outside a spawn room don't want the region to fall - because that ends their nice, neat, cert farming activity. They want the cap to take as long as possible.

Many players DO leave, in fact, and most do not come roaring back into battle in a magic ESF that turns the tide and wins the region against a 100-enemy-Zerg.

And the fact that spawn camping happens the way it does is proof that YOU are wrong, dude.

Nobody is saying that offering your face to enemy bullets is a good idea. We are saying that a change to the game mechanics so that a spawn camp can almost never be broken would be a good change.

Actually, what players are saying is "change the game so NOBODY gets in the ridiculous spawn-camp-situation." They're not asking for a change that only makes them personally exempt. It's a question of fairness.

And actually, what your post is saying is, "the game IS broken so rather than acknowledge it we should go out of our way to play the game in a way that ignores the problem." That's kind of like saying, if the ESFs could not fly, to "just change your decision about using one and pull a different plane." Yes, that would work, but it is not solving the actual problem. It's skirting it while leaving the problem in place.

Your assumption that the places we appear in the world need to be "set" is wrong. Sunderers, for example, can relocate pretty well. Squad beacons can be placed all over the map. There ARE mechanics for letting people spawn outside of the known spawn rooms. They're just not implemented in a way that allows a camped zone to break free. Let's not confuse "we don't have a solution in place" with "there cannot possibly be a solution."

Wow, that could not be any more false. There is a reason people joyfully camp spawn rooms. It's because, by and large, they are going to be cert farming with ridiculous ease. And attacking should not be so easy that you never have to watch your back.

Yes, but even then, the areas around the sunderer are set, and once you know where the sundy is, its really easy to spawn camp in the same way we spawn camp the enclosed spawn rooms, except there its easier cuz the sundy is out in the open.

A game isn't broken because it allows players to make mistakes. Players are broken if they repeat the same mistakes.

It doesn't prove me wrong at all. It just proves that there are bad players, which hopefully we all already knew.

My ESFs aren't magic. They're the same as anyone else. Yet I definitely do kill sunderers frequently by doing this, and it's probably 3-4 times as likely to succeed as trying it as a cruddy infantry loadout (where you have to fight through those 100 players to kill it.)

Guess what happens when the sunderer dies? The spawn camp ends.

But in the end it's up to you whether to argue against me, or to accept that this is sound advice which literally makes you immune to spawncamping and helps you win battles that would be impossible to win otherwise.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I stumbled onto the solution in another thread (which we will sadly never achieve or get in PS2 because it's derp).

Because as I read the OP's post, I accept all of it, but there is still a solution, and it's so simple.

Makes the bases bigger (and more far apart please).

I mean much bigger, more suited for MORE control points and MORE Spawn rooms. Like larger then Tech Plant size, do this for at least ONE continent, where the Zergs and "Massive Battles" PS2 promises will not be condensed into tiny areas anymore.

Many bases on a single continent larger then Esamir's Tech Plant (separated by smaller outposts), will bring about upwards of maybe TEN spawn points - try and camp all of those effectively, forces will be spread more thin perhaps even focusing them to only capture half the base to try and overcome the capture timer more slowly, but more reliably hold it.
Defending Squads and Outfits can actively select one of MANY spawn exits across the base to overcome the attacking faction (For better of for worse, it really gives the defenders an advantage to pile out of one lightly defended spawn room).

Maybe the base I have in mind would be *too* big, for even a 96x96, so perhaps just 1.5-2x Tech Plant size, you don't want it to take 15 minutes to run across a base.

But I really think some of them could benefit from being this big... just for more Spawn Points and Control Points.

Please, poke a hole in this.

Edit: To accommodate such a number of Spawn Rooms, they need to be mostly the smaller rooms, like the ones at the Octagon.

all the spawn rooms could likely just be replaced with a teleport loop like we have in towers at the moment. spawn at one central location and use the loop to get to were you need to be, sort of like the tunnles at other bases. I hate to agree with tuco on this, but bigger bases wont solve all the issues, we really do need at least the spitfires and the mines back in conjunction with larger open spaces for tanks and infantry to play in.

One problem I can think of is that bases this large would be inappropriate for smaller 12 v. 12 fights. I can imagine that it would just involve running from point to point, with both sides never seeing the other at all.

funny comic, but I think that having a few larger bases would still help. as it is now a lot of these "massive battles" devolve into a big old choke point fest in the smaller facilities and space we have between bases.

****** lol, that comic is actually quite the amusement XD Kudos. But you're right about that... smaller fights could only progress so far before it's impractical to even consider conquering the next massive base (in fact, it could even deter people from bothering to defend such a vast base). Maybe control points could "disable" and "re-enable" depending on population presence in the vicinity of the base... or maybe it's just complicating it too much.

Good point as well, the Teleporters would be more efficient. I'll have to check the thread replies out for the Spitfires and stuff, thanks for responding matey.

If you're being spawn camped then you're doing it wrong.

1) Pull sundies and open up some other spawn options.
2) Admit defeat, fall back a base and either prepare a defense or start pushign back.

Sitting in your spawn room and waiting for the timer to hit 0 does nothing to help anyone.