[Suggestion] Weapons lock in spawn rooms

If they wont then theres not much we can do as players to motivate them to do so

Its a mix of not wanting to risk losing points (As worthless as that is) and the current trend of camping that has become popular

The Devs will hopefully create a viable solution

Either way thats no reason to shoot allies even if they are being useless

Spawn room warrior and spawn room camper are both base design issues. Do you see very much spawn room warrior on hossin? not really the spawn room doesnt have a shot on anything most have hills with branching paths but its not that big of an issue because the bases also have multiple ways to leave the spawn room.

The issue with not being able to shoot out the spawn is you can be completely camped. A max at the door wouldnt even be the worse of it they could just stick a battle bus or 2 next to it and congrats you now have 4 people holding back the entire defense. The ability to shoot out the spawn is to give you a chance to at least clear the immediate area so you can push out camping the spawn rooms still happen but it usually requires overpop and a poorly designed base.

If your spawnroom is camped then 90% of the time the base is lost. Stop spawning there. I absolutely think they should lock weapons in the spawn rooms. There is no reason to allow a player to be invulnerable while able to damage enemies. Not to mention, it's boorish gameplay that generally only the bottom percentile of players even bother with. Just get rid of it. The decent players on up wouldn't even notice anyway. It would just make little Timmy and his bolt driver try a little harder, which is a good thing.

If it gets to the point of the enemy team having one MAX unit?

Yeah Hossin sort of addresses it, but it IMO does it in a really bad way a quite lot of the time (to be fair there are good bases there too).

What happens in many bases on Hossin is the inevitable attacker crossfire is setup just beyond the walls protecting the spawn room and the defenders end up pinned and farmed there instead of at the spawn room (which also, along with the trees, helps make Hossin an Air Farmers paradise as they can farm defenders there with ease).... so basically usually about 20-30m from the spawn room.

Hossin also has at many bases of the issue of having the spawn room and the alternative exit room right next to each other (which is plain pointless), and it is these bases where the stuff in the paragraph above happens most often.

The good bases on Hossin have the primary spawn room and secondary exit room well spread, and show how different the game would be if ALL small based had three seperate exits (a primary spawn room, then secondary and tertiary teleporter rooms) that were spread evenly around the base and capture point.

All bases already have that.

Lets say you have the Northern Warpgate on Indar. You're defending Howling Pass. You can spawn there. Or Abandoned NS Offices, Mao Southwest Gate, Mao Tech Plant (BONUS!: MBT spawn), or your Warpgate. Couple of other places you can spawn too.

I have yet to see an Attacker able to cover everything on a map, even when someone is being warpgated. Imagine the continent as one base if it makes you all feel better. And each base is Point A, B, C... and X, Y... and AA, BB, CC, and so on.

This has always been a point of HOT debate.

The way I personally see it, although i do understand the other view, is this:

If you are stood outside a spawn room shooting in, you have stormed the base > capped the point > pushed the enemy back to their spawn hence winning the base / fight.

If you are sat in the spawn room shooting out, you have been pushed back to your spawn room and locked in there. If you cannot find any path out of that spawn room that could allow you to recapture the point OR you don't see a large pop in the spawn room preparing for a crash you are helping no one and are doing nothing but stat padding (not the ban sort). Your gun could be used to defend or attack a base you actually have a chance of capping.

IMHO there is no tactical advantage to staying in the spawn room of a base you have already lost.

@OP - I feel locking weapons would make the issue worse in the manner it wont allow you to push out properly even when you do have the numbers to do so. I personally feel "spawn room warriors" isn't an issue solvable by the devs, the player base has this responsibility.

EDIT: I'm also going to add, this isn't CoD "camping" a spawn room isn't sitting in a corner waiting. It happens because the TEAM locked in spawn lost the fight. The argument "if you didn't camp people wouldn't sit in spawn" is totally invalid!

That's not even remotely the same thing though, making base fights better and more functional is a seperate issue to things like counter-attacking (something that is impossible to build into the game).

As by that logic there may as well just be 1 spawn room with 1 exit and nothing else at any base - that would NOT make the situation better.



There's not even any debate about how it works in practice; bases with 1 spawn and 1 well seperated teleport exit work much better than those with no teleporter exit or those with the teleporter and spawn right next to each other.

The only issue is Dev resources in doing it.

There's basically two issues here:

1) no base is ever retaken with no one in the spawn room (ok the odd Gal drop on a low pop fight, but in a high pop fight even Gal dropping usually requires people to then push out from the spawn room to retake the base and push the attackers back a hex), not to mention that forces camping the spawn room, are forces NOT sat at the Capture Point when a Gal drop occurs.

2) PS2 has no population balance, so a lot of the time battles are Zerg vs much lower population - the best way to kill a game is to punish those that are already being punished by being outnumbered. This destroys servers and entire PvP games faster than almost anything else. In PS1 the same thing was true, however in PS1 the bases were very, very much in favour of the defender, much more so than almost any base in PS2 (probably the only small one that equals PS1 is Subterranean Nanite Analysis or BioLabs for bigger bases).




Also what is the alternative?

We've seen in Towers 2.0 that no way shields resulted in HIDEOUS camping by attacker which is why they were changed back in Towers 3.0.
Certainly they could go with PS1s system, but to be like PS1 ALL the bases would need to be completely redesigned to favour the defender (or else the game would turn into endless Zergs ghost-capping lanes and ignoring each other) as we've all ready seen in Indar with small bases with SCUs they do nothing to change the situation, they simple reduce the TIME spawns can be camped, nothing else gameplay-wise (I honestly thought this was the answer orginally, but having seen how they actually work in practice on Indar I know I was wrong).

I agree bases are never taken without someone in the spawn room. As you say, these "camps" are normally broken up by a gal drop behind them allowing a push. This then, as you say requires a push from the spawn room..... trouble is they NEVER EVER do! EVER because they are spawn room warriors.....

A good base defense at the moment is to have people on point and people on spawn, it is the ONLY logical way to attack. Where as sitting in the spawn room shooting out doesn't achieve anything in terms of defense.

The only time you see a turn in the tide is when a big coordinated group spawns in, maxes up a pushes.

Population balance has nothing to do with this issue. In fact quite the opposite...... if your overpopped sitting in the spawn room you are the WORST kind of SRW there is. You are literally giving NOTHING to the fight.... you are ONLY padding your KD (which of course the reason people stay in the spawn room).

You are not punishing anyone....... They had the chance to set up defenses and keep the base, send pop to that hex etc etc etc they didnt. Now they are horribly out populated and stuck in spawn..... they lost the fight for that hex. What should you do at that point?

Redeploy!!!

We need to stop thinking about individual people in spawn rooms.... That is completely wrong! This game is about a LOT of players all over a very large map trying to take control of an entire continent, every gun counts in that battle. Dont let your gun be pointing out of a spawn room padding your KD and doing nothing for your faction.

The answer to this issue is the other way, make the loosing team in that hex KNOW they are beat. If the attackers spawn points are all destroyed they can no longer attack. If a defender is stuck in the spawn.... he can no longer defend!

This is why they started adding SCU's to some of the smaller bases.

If it was me, every base should either have an SCU or remove the shield from the spawn room at 10 - 20% time left to cap, then the defenders will know they have lost for sure. This will stop SRWs in their tracks and make them go and do something useful. Maybe gal up and try to carpet bomb a a sundy or two to break up the pop, perhaps go pull a sundy from the hex back down the lattice and secure an alternative spawn point to defend a base from, spawn to a fight you can leave the spawn room, go pull a vehicle there are MILLIONS of better ways to spend your time in PS than sat shooting out of a spawn room.

TBH..... Do you guys not get really, REALLY bored of shooting out of spawn rooms?

Its isn't camping if they have all the points! What are you suggesting? We just let the defenders back out of the spawn to keep the grinder going? NO that's counter intuitive, if we are going to do that we might as well just scrap the open world and lobby up with the CoD / BF crowds.

We need obvious win / loose conditions per hex. It does not get more obvious than getting your head blown off one step outside the spawn room.

I would stop being presumptive about other players and the undescribed experiences they went through.

I agree. So, don't do it ...

... and leave other players to do what they want. Encourage positivistic tactics without restricting negative choices. Without bad choices, good choices don't exist. This is where I disagree with you. If people are going to move, they must make that choice for themselves, otherwise they are going to resent the usurpation of their choice. Producing a rote mechanism is not necessarily going to encourage inspiration on their part and, more to the point, designing a catch-all algorithm for a cut-off is just going to deny people options for arbitrary reasons.

The main thing I encourage is reducing the number of ways we attempt to micro-manage unrelated players' gameplay experiences in broad strokes.

So, in closing, don't you yourself be the person standing there and shooting out of the spawn room. Be the person that is enouraging the tactical diversion, but not the person demanding it. That alone is enough.

Let me ask you something. How are attackers successful? Lets assume its an even fight. Why are attackers successful, even in bases with multiple teleporter rooms and exits?

Attackers do not have a spawn room. Attackers don't have shields. Attackers don't have protection from crossfire when they spawn.

But they still take bases. Why is that?

Because they get to pick and choose where they set up their spawns. They can spawn on the ground or in the air. Or simply ride in. But why can't defenders do this? More specifically since they can do this, why don't they?

Well the fact is, they do.. at least the smart players do. That isn't to say the ones in the spawn are stupid. They're not. They just have a different goal. That goal is to shoot at enemies without being hurt in return. That's their playstyle. They try to justify it by saying they're camped.

You can't camp a continent unless the pop is something like 10-10-80

If attackers can take a base without a spawn room. So can a defender. They just choose not to.

This is a player issue. Defenders can roll in with Galaxies and Sunderers just like attackers do.

The only change a dev should consider is set it to detect when a certain number of spawn deaths happen and then broadcast to the defenders, "You have been over run! It is recommended you redeploy (U)." This way newer players don't get the bad habits of some of the 'vets' who stick around with sniper rifles in the spawn room.

I'm not presuming anything..... this is how Planetside works..... Attack base or defend base sure there are thousands of ways to achieve both, being in a spawn room shooting out achieves neither!

With my point i am talking about a FACTION as a whole. They have a map, can see caps, can see heat for the battles so have plenty of time to react! No opinion here, and certainly nothing to debate.

I'M doing the exact opposite.......

The way i see it, those people could be out helping their empire. For every SRW not in the spawn room, they could be in a tank, or gal dropping, or in an ESF etc etc. This improves the experience a little for everyone (including the SRW).

Like i said in my post, I understand if they want to do it.... i just don't understand why you would want to do something so boring in a game so vast.... unless your padding your KD. Can you think of a reason to sit in a spawn that helps your empire or would those people be better in the actual fights? Yes.... if you are in a spawn room shooting out you are not in a fight. You have lost the fight for the hex and are simply farming.

Again... is farming an issue? 100% not if that's what floats your boat.

Again..... I ain't going to be yelling at you in proxy for being a SRW. If you find it fun to stand in a 0 danger situation emptying your gun that's your choice. Hey its your free time, waste it how you want. I waste mine playing the way i like to play.... so why shouldn't you waste yours how you want? Fine by me.

I wont be doing that either, i have my outfit for that. Don't have time to baby sit people who wont listen anyway because its always someone else's fault.... "these guys camping my spawn room"...

Two easy things they could do. Lock weapons in spawn rooms, and increase agony zone around spawn sites. Gets rid of campers and heroes. third option would be to add a timer to spawn rooms to apply defenders agony after a minuet or so.

I agree. And lately it seems to the thing for BR less than 10's to TK you while you looking at your menu sorting loadouts or whatever.

Numbers, almost always numbers, not Sundy placement, in fact usually numbers of Sundys too (with backups).



This isn't conjecture, on PS1 when the spawns went down most of the time there wasn't a glorious counter-attack, you just lost the base. Only once numbers built up enough in the lane was the tide turned. It is always numbers.

People didn't "choose to fail" in PS1 anymore than they do in PS2, it is just numbers win in Planetside (and indeed in any PvP MMO - assuming other things are equal - obviously one side being super-organised means they can hold or or defeat greater numbers of non-organsised players).

And if they are outnumbered they will lose, just like the did in PS1.






However none of that has anything really do to with better base design, I get that you think there should be no spawns in PS2 or something, but that is never (ever) going to happen so it is a bit pointless discussing it.

Now you're being dishonest. You know numbers aren't always why Attackers win. Many of us have been able to assault a base with less numbers than the defenders and still take the base.

In Elder Scrolls Online, Cyrodil (a PVP map the size of a PS2 continent, complete with latticed bases). Doesn't have spawns for defenders or attackers. You ride in on a horse from a base a few hundred meters away. Attackers and Defenders seem to do just fine.

But this isn't about PS1 or ESO. Its PS2. In PS2 we have the ability to pull Sunderers and Galaxies to spawn in if needed.

Doesn't matter what I want or what you want. What matters is what a player can do.

A player can use a Sunderer, Galaxy, or Valkyrie to defend with as well as attack. Those that don't use the options that are already available to them deserve to be camped and farmed. But I'm willing to wager that was the idea all along. To sit behind a shield with impunity to pad stats. If they truly wanted to defend the base, they would use the options.

I'm not going to believe that after three years, the average player hasn't figured it out. They aren't that naive, and neither are you or the other supporters of a spawn shielded room. Just dishonest. And that isn't me calling you all liars. Just that you are concealing intent and agendas. You're not stupid.

>Pop drops day by day
>OMGLOL let's make spawn weapon lock
>So much important in 1-12 fights

I dunno about that, I spend a lot of my solo time defending (it is the best way in PS2 to get a fight tbh), and almost always I see exactly the same thing.

Zerg hits a base and spawn camps, defenders start to dribble in, initally they cannot break out of the spawn (they don't have the numbers), the numbers fill up (this is the point someone usually starts shouting in /yell about charging out).

Then one of two things happens:

1) there's enough numbers and everyone sweeps out and clears the campers (and if there are enough numbers and/or there is an Outfit counter-gal drop the base is retaken).
or
2) the numbers don't really build up enough to break the spawn camp and people randomly charge out, die, charge out, die, then just start shooting out of the spawn.


I can honestly only think of a handful of times, I've seen, when there's genuinely been enough people in a spawn to clear a base (a spawn can be jam packed full and there still not be enough and it hasn't happened - and most of those times are when there was a very late deployment of defender numbers and usually in bases where once a spawn camp is well set up it is hard to break out.

And almost always when people are in the spawn firing out, they'll have already died 2, 3, 5 or 10 times already trying to get out and are just making the best of it by that point.

And the thing is 2) may happen once, twice, three times as consequtive bases, but then eventually the numbers fill up enough (or the enemy Zerg wanes enough) and it is reversed and the lane starts moving the other way.




A lot of people seem to confuse not being able to retake a base with not trying, most of the time it has been tried, it just hasn't worked and that's just PvP; usually ~50% of the time on average you do lose.

I really think it does, as people simply don't play when they are being Zerged with no possiblity of fun or comeback, and this senario happens a lot in PS2.

I often see 1 continent full, 2 contients locked and the 4th continent with 1 faction having 40-50% of the population - which essentially says (under a underdog = doomed system) to anyone that cannot get on the full continent you may as well either play the overpopped side or log off - neither option being good for the game.

A game that effectively says to underpopulated factions "you have nothing to play for, you cannot win, you cannot even get some kills" simply ends up with 1 faction and then those players also log off because fighting no one soon gets boring.



Any PvP MMO should be massively encouraging any underdog faction (be it in general or just on a continent) NOT punishing them, as it is the only way to retain player numbers.

The thing is though this was the case in PS1 and glorious counter-attacks happened pretty much as often as in PS2.

Which is to say IF the numbers came to the lane for a counter-attack there was one, and if they didn't there wasn't.

Players weren't seemingly encouraged at all to counter-attack, they just moved to another lane where their forces were strong.

The big difference in PS1 however was that bases were much more defender orientated than in PS2, much more so.


(tbh I used to think SCUs in every base was the answer, but then when they put them in some small bases on Indar I realised they actually changed nothing, people on both sides still acted exactly the same way as they did in non-SCU small base (exactly) the only difference is the amount of time they did it for was shorter - and that both sides had more waiting around time - the attackers at that base, the defenders at the next base)

The thing is though if you deploy into a spawn room, see it is camped then redeploy somewhere else immediately, and everyone does that, no base would ever BE defended.

More over if that happened all the time why would anyone bother to redeploy to go and defend in the first place (rather than just sticking with wherever their Zerg is)?

As I mentioned above in a large scale PvP game simple statistics suggest you (or rather your faction) will lose ~50% of the time in a remotely balanced game, in fact the 3 faction systems is basically designed to work around that ratio. Which is to say if you're winning somewhere you're most likely losing somewhere else.

An organised group of players will be able to beat more than their number of disorganised players, certainly.

But with two equally organised group of players the one with the most numbers will win.

It is always numbers in the end.

PvP in ESO or indeed DAoC which was the first PvP MMO to have a similar system or Warhammer Online which had a similar system is a bit different to PS1 or PS2, although even in ESO you have "teleporters" (shrines) to help you get around.

And again (like PS1 and unlike PS2) "bases" in ESO/DAoC/WAR were/are much, much harder to capture.

I'm not saying it isn't possible to build a game with no spawns, but rather that PS2 will never be that game now.




In all those games PvP was as much about rolling battle as taking a base, but then in all those games TTK was/is much higher than in PS2 and rezing was/is more effective. Also there was/is no air or tanks mowing down infantry in the open (there is AI seige weapons in ESO [and in DAoC and WAR as certain points], of course, but they are nothing like as easy to get, move or as effective as say MBTs in PS2).

In PS1 you would get open field battles occasionally, but they were almost always at something like a bridge choke point (which PS2 doesn't really have) where they'd be an AMS at either side.

In ESO/DAoC/WAR I'd would never expect to take (or lose) as many Keeps in the same amount of play time as Bases in PS2, not even remotely as many.

They aren't going to remove spawns, they don't have the Dev resources to do so even if they wanted to, and I don't remotely think they do.

They might however have the Dev resources to put 1 spawn and 2 teleporter rooms in every small base.

Could they change PS2 into a completely different game? Yes. Are they going to? No.

Lets say for the sake of argument they will do that. But it takes a few months.. for whatever reason.

Are defenders supposed to sit in their base's spawn and go 'ho hum.. I sure wish them teleporters were in by now."?

That's ridiculous. Like I said, it doesn't matter if they remove spawns or not. My statement still stands. Defenders have options available, nearly an infinite amount of options, limited only by cooldowns, nanites, and imagination.