53 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Screech, on 24 February 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

What would be the acceptable disadvantages for not defending your landing zones?

When there are acceptable disadvantages for defenders leaving their base just to spawn camp then there can be acceptable disadvantages for not defending the drop zone. Likewise, there should be acceptable disadvantages for attackers spawn camping the defenders instead of going for the objective, although personally I don't see the latter situation as much of a problem even if it's still just as lame.

[Nightmare1]

I haven't had much trouble with spawn camping. I normally only see it at the end of a match when one team is on its last legs and there is enough disparity of force that the other team feels confident enough to spawn camp the others despite the threat posed by incoming Drop Ships.

As far as "a lot of players" goes, how 'bout quantifying that for us? Your blanket exaggeration is pretty useless and nothing more than emotional knee-jerking otherwise...

[FupDup]

One idea I liked that I stole from somebody else...

The attacking team should only start the match with a much lower amount of time, say 10 minutes or so (arbitrary number). Then, if they manage to destroy any generator, they are given 20 minutes bonus time. This means that if they derp real hard and can't accomplish much, the match will be over dramatically faster than usual, and therefore there would be fewer spawn camping opportunities.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 25 February 2015 - 02:37 PM, said:

One idea I liked that I stole from somebody else...

The attacking team should only start the match with a much lower amount of time, say 10 minutes or so (arbitrary number). Then, if they manage to destroy any generator, they are given 20 minutes bonus time. This means that if they derp real hard and can't accomplish much, the match will be over dramatically faster than usual, and therefore there would be fewer spawn camping opportunities.

Although... I don't think it would work perfectly though. I could see this affecting Boreal a bit... but not the other maps (it's difficult to get over the gate w/o JJs on the new map AFAIK).

Maybe the destruction of each gen has a limited timer boost, dependent on the number of gates opened?

[BlackSquirrel]

Necromantion, on 25 February 2015 - 02:29 PM, said:

Thats fair about the coordinated drops. Turtling would indeed happen with indestructible defenses, and already does with dropships as teams use them to eat away at enemies to weaken them.

Well honestly drop camping does nothing for me and the only reason we do it is to finish matches sooner. *shrug*

Well assuming it's attack you could just kill the OB. Defense and counter I get... but plenty of times I see attackers delay to farm kills.

[LordKnightFandragon]

TexAss, on 24 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

10xAC20s, 15MLs, 10xSRM6 and 12xSSRM2 for the dropships

case closed.

So basically the Union Class Russ mentioned in the Feb townhall?

[Mystere]

TexAss, on 24 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

10xAC20s, 15MLs, 10xSRM6 and 12xSSRM2 for the dropships

case closed.

TranslatIon: I want an invulnerability shield at my base.

[Mystere]

FupDup, on 25 February 2015 - 02:37 PM, said:

One idea I liked that I stole from somebody else...

The attacking team should only start the match with a much lower amount of time, say 10 minutes or so (arbitrary number). Then, if they manage to destroy any generator, they are given 20 minutes bonus time. This means that if they derp real hard and can't accomplish much, the match will be over dramatically faster than usual, and therefore there would be fewer spawn camping opportunities.

This does not help those who like to win by attrition. But if you can show that you yourself can consistently kill all 48 enemy mechs within 10 minute, ...

[BlackSquirrel]

Nightmare1, on 25 February 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:

I haven't had much trouble with spawn camping. I normally only see it at the end of a match when one team is on its last legs and there is enough disparity of force that the other team feels confident enough to spawn camp the others despite the threat posed by incoming Drop Ships.

As far as "a lot of players" goes, how 'bout quantifying that for us? Your blanket exaggeration is pretty useless and nothing more than emotional knee-jerking otherwise...

So you don't think people playing dislike getting spawn camped?

Then allow me to pose the question to you... Would you enjoy it?

Likewise let's say you're just beginning a new game I bet repeated spawn camping would skew your perception of said game.

Furthermore do we really even need to debate the merits of spawn camping? And is by saying "more than 1 person." seemingly invalidate the rest?

It's not as if this is a new concept? Spawn camping has been universally loathed in games since the dawn of multiplayer... So MWOs version is not superfluous?

I'm somewhat confused to what you're driving at/debating... Sounds to be adhomen at best.

Edited by BlackSquirrel, 25 February 2015 - 06:39 PM.

[Nightmare1]

BlackSquirrel, on 25 February 2015 - 06:37 PM, said:

So you don't think people playing dislike getting spawn camped?

Then allow me to pose the question to you... Would you enjoy it?

Likewise let's say you're just beginning a new game I bet repeated spawn camping would skew your perception of said game.

Furthermore do we really even need to debate the merits of spawn camping? And is by saying "more than 1 person." seemingly invalidate the rest?

It's not as if this is a new concept? Spawn camping has been universally loathed in games since the dawn of multiplayer... So MWOs version is not superfluous?

I'm somewhat confused to what you're driving at/debating... Sounds to be adhomen at best.

Just pointing out the useless nature of the OP. It sounds like a knee-jerk reaction to a recent loss.

"We lost! They spawn camped! Waah! QQ!"

I actually have been spawn camped, as implicitly indicated in my post. I wasn't excusing it; merely providing a different point of opinion. The OP posits that spawn camping is a widespread event that is rapidly rendering CW tedious and unpleasant. I am simply pointing out that my experience has been otherwise.

If you were less reactionary and more contemplative, you would have realized that my post never undertook to debate any "merits" of spawn camping. I merely refuted your notion that it was a pandemic without excusing it or condemning. I thought that spawn camping was deplorable enough that I did not need to add a disclaimer to my post.

The point of my post was more to call you out for cluttering up the forums with yet another QQ style piece of Griefing. Perhaps you actually do have most of your matches end in spawn camping. I highly doubt it though. As for myself and my Unit, we do not see widespread spawn camping. It is frustrating when it happens, but it is hardly common occurrence.

Your call for map reworks to prevent spawn camping is akin to developing a solution for a problem that does not really exist, or is so minimal as to be a fringe issue. It would divert resources and distract attention from more important things. Your call to expand and randomize the drop zones is also poorly thought out and will penalize the potential victims of spawn camping as much as it will aid them. Your swipe at premades was rather poor too. Premades shall always hold an advantage over pugs. Likening this and spawn camping together to make a "kicking people while they're down" accusation is rather a low blow and highly reproachable.

Finally, I believe the word you were searching for when you wrote "destroy-able" is actually "destructible."

Anything else I can explain for you?

[AEgg]

If the enemy can push up far enough to spawn camp and not die immediately to the dropship, you had no chance of winning to begin with. Them spawn camping just saves both teams a bit of time.

Spawn camping is annoying in other games because of two things. One, you have infinite lives so it doesn't save any time, and two, it can easily be done by a team or individual that's less skilled than their opponent. Neither of those is true in MWO. Here it simply ends what is obviously an uneven match quickly so both teams can go off and play another game, hopefully that's a better match to their skill level.

To be honest I see it maybe once every dozen or so games, which is hardly commonplace. That is, unless you seriously consider the attackers walking out to the defenders spawn when the defenders have like six mechs left and the attackers have 30+ spawncamping.

[Tenka]

I consider myself fairly new to CW having played somewhere in the region of 20ish drops now. I've never spawn camped, or been spawn camped, unless the match was "essentially over anyway". I don't see the big deal honestly .. CW is supposed to be for the serious players who want to co-ordinate and be part of a team.

If you are being spawn camped then the mission is a loss .. its that simple. Take it on the chin, move on to the next game. Some people should just stick to skirmish/assault/conquest PUG if they cant handle it.

[Pjwned]

Mystere, on 25 February 2015 - 06:31 PM, said:

This does not help those who like to win by attrition. But if you can show that you yourself can consistently kill all 48 enemy mechs within 10 minute, ...

Winning by attrition would still be very possible after the gates went down, it would just let people move on from an extremely boring match if their team can't even take down a gate generator in 10 minutes. If you would still have a problem with that, then I don't have any sympathy personally.

[Joseph Mallan]

spottiedogman, on 24 February 2015 - 01:18 PM, said:

But no one cheats in this game right

I'm sorry how it it cheating to kill your enemy in a ambush?

[Widowmaker1981]

Its a problem with Sulfurous and not the other maps - one of the defender spawns is incredibly close to the gate, and in a reasonably direct line of advance for the attacking team - its actually quite hard NOT to spawn camp at least one lance of defenders on that map. All the spawns on that map should be moved MUCH further back (which would mean the map needs to be extended, so probably not going to happen, sadly)

[Lily from animove]

Screech, on 24 February 2015 - 01:09 PM, said:

What would be the acceptable disadvantages for not defending your landing zones?

whats the brain of a dropship pilot that has a 2x2 km area to drop his load right inbetween the opponents?

fixed spawns are a game design as a cause of an abstracted RL behavior (bringing troops to battle). And no one would put a pointless low amount of his guys into such a situation.

all we need is dynamically changins spawns dropping people somewhere else at least like 800m away from the ball of death, better would even be 1000m or at least behind some cover.

Edited by Lily from animove, 26 February 2015 - 02:59 AM.

[Mystere]

Pjwned, on 25 February 2015 - 11:55 PM, said:

Winning by attrition would still be very possible after the gates went down, it would just let people move on from an extremely boring match if their team can't even take down a gate generator in 10 minutes. If you would still have a problem with that, then I don't have any sympathy personally.

I'm opposed to such artificial time limits and mechanics because they are just that: artificial. I'd rather have matches be governed by much simpler rules and just leave the players to their own devices.

Also, I wonder if people realize the can of worms this will open: defenders have 10 minutes to waste all 48 of their mechs. People now endlessly and loudly whine about generator rushes. This proposal will just create the defender equivalent: 4 potential waves of "defend the gate" rushes -- something much much easier to accomplish in 10 minutes. As such, we can all expect more endless and much louder whining as a result.

Sometimes, simple game rules are better.

[Lily from animove]

LordKnightFandragon, on 25 February 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

So basically the Union Class Russ mentioned in the Feb townhall?

cool, so you simply get sniped to detah form 500m away where ac's miss you when you run, where srms and ssrms will not have range.

laser with range are due to instantbeam anyways the only properly working weapons.

[TexAce]

Mystere, on 25 February 2015 - 06:26 PM, said:

TranslatIon: I want an invulnerability shield at my base.

No but the enemy should think twice about standing near a landing dropship, it should dish out tremendous (close-range) pain. This removes spawn-camping and gives the incoming forces a second to breath and adjust after being dropped.

Edited by TexAss, 26 February 2015 - 08:02 AM.

[Screech]

Lily from animove, on 26 February 2015 - 02:59 AM, said:

all we need is dynamically changins spawns dropping people somewhere else at least like 800m away from the ball of death, better would even be 1000m or at least behind some cover.

How would you be able to do this in Sulfer Rift? It really is the only map that has any legitimate issue with spawn camping yet I don't believe there is enough room inside the base to make your proposed changes.

A better idea would be to change the CW design concept of having the majority of base fights being done inside rather then outside. Currently bases are more akin to a prison then a defensible position. If we made manning the gates a legitimate defensive position rather then choke points inside the base you would have a lot less QQ regarding spawn camping.