291 replies to this topic

[DustySkunk]

Mystere, on 03 April 2015 - 08:26 AM, said:

Let me ask you a question. If attacking the enemy's landing zone is not a legitimate tactic, what is the purpose of those weapons carried by drop ships? Are they just there for "special effects"?

That is a legitimate point. Personally I would like to see the drop ships be a little more deadly. Not death machines, (they certainly shouldn't fight the battle for you) but a reason at least to find cover nonetheless. There isn't much scary about a few MLs at the moment unless you have open STs or a CT. Can we agree that this would be a good change?

Scoops Kerensky, on 03 April 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

you've gotten personal with your attacks instead of addressing an argument like he has and only given more legitimacy to his argument. The 'bullshit tactic' only happens when one side is massively outplayed in terms of skill and leads to the same result with or without spawn camping (the team getting spawn camped loses) so it is not an actual issue.

Given that Liesmith and I's team are often the ones doing said spawn camping we are grateful that it exists because it lets us find a new match quicker that might be more well rounded. Trying to 'fix' it will likely only introduce actual balance issues to the game mode.

I'm sorry if you feel that I have gotten personal with my attacks. I always endeavor to keep a cool head here on the forums. I just do not appreciate the assumption he was making that because I'm here talking about spawn camping I must be a horrible player. Admittedly I have said some things earlier that may have been inflammatory and I apologize for that. For some reason this topic is getting me heated and I'll do my best to reign it in.

I can appreciate the fact that when a team is in a position to spawn camp that they have total control of the map. I can also see the desire to move the game along to find a more equal matchup. I would have to ask though: if the team that is in a position to spawn camp is that overpowering, would it really take that much longer to finish the match by fighting? In the match I referenced in an earlier post about Ghost Bear, the match was still over in 15 minutes even though they allowed us to fight it out. I would also say that matches can turn around. By removing the possibility of combat you also remove this possibility as well.

My main point I've been trying to make on this thread is that fun is important, and when you are in a situation where you can't fight back the game is no longer fun. Furthermore the way CW is right now this situation can happen to anyone. If there were small fixes that could be made (like stronger dropships or multiple landing zones) so that this is much less likely to happen, doesn't everyone gain?

[YCSLiesmith]

Scoops Kerensky, on 03 April 2015 - 08:27 AM, said:

Given that Liesmith and I's team are often the ones doing said spawn camping we are grateful that it exists because it lets us find a new match quicker that might be more well rounded. Trying to 'fix' it will likely only introduce actual balance issues to the game mode.

this is another point. people talk about how getting spawn camped is 'no fun' but if we're spawn camping you, we're in a position where we'd be making our own entertainment either way. stomping pugs and bads is no fun. if you can't hold up your end of the match to the point where we're spawn camping you, you're boring and i'd prefer to move on to fighting someone who doesn't suck.

[Averen]

Mystere, on 03 April 2015 - 08:11 AM, said:

Why, when I can just call SWAT, FSB, Carabinieri, Guardia Civil, Gendarmerie, or whatever is their local equivalent?

Didn't think about that. I'm living in a normal country, that stuff doesn't happen here.^^'

[YCSLiesmith]

i mean i guess we could make up our own challenges, play both sides. that happens sometimes. Tasker mentioned the challenge 'kill a guy before he hits the ground' and that's mildly amusing. certainly more amusing than actually letting him try to fight would be.

letting him drop into a position to fight seems really meanspirited, actually. like saying 'ok little guy, get ready. fists up. are you all set? had enough water? you comfortable? all right, time to roll' and then murdering him while he has all the advantages, really drilling home his absolute inferiority. I prefer not to do that.

[DustySkunk]

YCSLiesmith, on 03 April 2015 - 08:54 AM, said:

you are a person who gets spawn camped, and therefore are incredibly bad at this game. what more do i need to know? oh, thats right. you also call people 'tryhard' lmao

Nice dude. So I've been spawn camped therefore I must be horrible. Are you trying to tell me you never once have been rolled?

Let's keep personal attacks out of this from now on. I'm reigning it in.I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same

[YCSLiesmith]

DustySkunk, on 03 April 2015 - 09:02 AM, said:

Nice dude. So I've been spawn camped therefore I must be horrible. Are you trying to tell me you never once have been rolled?

Let's keep personal attacks out of this from now on. I'm reigning it in.I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same

uuuh, we've been beaten. sure. I don't think NKVA has ever been rolled all the way back to the spawn and farmed, though.

you know what, though? if we did, at some point in the past, then let me make it clear: we sucked at this game when that happened. because it only happens to people who suck at this game. Since then we've made an effort to get good, and lo and behold, we dont get spawn camped. maybe you should try it.

[Mystere]

YCSLiesmith, on 03 April 2015 - 09:00 AM, said:

letting him drop into a position to fight seems really meanspirited, actually. like saying 'ok little guy, get ready. fists up. are you all set? had enough water? you comfortable? all right, time to roll' and then murdering him while he has all the advantages, really drilling home his absolute inferiority. I prefer not to do that.

Well, that's one really nice way of putting it.

[DustySkunk]

YCSLiesmith, on 03 April 2015 - 09:04 AM, said:

uuuh, we've been beaten. sure. I don't think NKVA has ever been rolled all the way back to the spawn and farmed, though.

you know what, though? if we did, at some point in the past, then let me make it clear: we sucked at this game when that happened. because it only happens to people who suck at this game. Since then we've made an effort to get good, and lo and behold, we dont get spawn camped. maybe you should try it.

To be clear: it has never happened to me dropping with a group. Only when dropping with PUGs.

I can appreciate where you guys are coming from on this. I do like HARDKOR's suggestion about selecting your drop zone when you are in the dropship. I feel like that would alleviate many issues. It would allow people dropping in to have a semblance of of control over what is happening to them without doing anything extreme to the current gameplay. How do you feel about this?

[Jonathan Paine]

+1 for selecting drop zones
I really hate being in a slow'ish mech and having to walk half a klick from the furthest spawn to the closest spawn before waddling back towards the fight!

[YCSLiesmith]

sure, i think selecting your drop zone is a good idea, and better map design in general would be good. spawn camping will still happen though, because you cant reasonably address the problem of one team dominating another in a gamemode where players select their opponents.

[DustySkunk]

YCSLiesmith, on 03 April 2015 - 09:21 AM, said:

sure, i think selecting your drop zone is a good idea, and better map design in general would be good. spawn camping will still happen though, because you cant reasonably address the problem of one team dominating another in a gamemode where players select their opponents.

You're right, it won't completely eliminate the issue, nor should it necessarily be possible to do so. Having this conversation with you guys has made me come to appreciate both sides of this more. Where before I was totally against it I can now appreciate why it's done.

I am glad thought that you are in favor of some map improvements and selecting your dropzone. These seem like very sensible changes to make that can only improve the game

[TB Freelancer]

Mirkk Defwode, on 27 March 2015 - 11:50 AM, said:

SWTOR addressed this for Huttball...hide in spawn = death. Timeout period of 120 seconds idle or within the spawn zone and you just are ejected from the match.

If a team decides to do that then they'll get all booted and the other side wins faster.


Protected(shielded) Spawn Zones

Spoiler

If they have a protected spawn space and multiple (4-6) points of egress to move through the spawn camping team can't defend all of them allowing that attacking team options and time to coordinate and move out in an organized fashion. Won't always happen that way, but its better than being shot as you're dropped and mutilated.

Defended Dropzones

Spoiler

You set up soft kill volumes, if the opposition enters your respawn space while a dropship is inbound, they get blasted with the existed Airstrike and Artillery barrages...until they're out of the softkill volume. And this accounts for both sides. It'd mean defender spawns sitting ontop of the Omega would have to move, but that's fairly easy to do - you'd just have to make sure the new spawn locations are into areas where they have an appropriate level of cover to get oriented on the ground.

Safe to Spawn

Spoiler

You can go with "Safe to spawn" ray casting, which makes it if you're within enemy line of sight you don't spawn at that location, it'd mean having redundant fallback spawn locations...how about attackers spawn right on the Omega if the defenders are in the attacker LZ? That seems about right to me. Pilots wouldn't drop soldiers into a killzone, its suicide for them as well in modern combat scenarios.

Bro-spawning

Spoiler

This is the method used in CoD, and Halo. When respawning it determines an ally in a "Safe" position similar to the Safe to Spawn, but then spawns directly adjacent to that ally. Have a light mech hiding in a corner, spawn there, have a friendly running toward the Omega - spawn there.

You don't choose which you spawn on, just that you'll spawn in a "safer" location.

If there are no allies in friendly positions, this falls back to using the previous "Safe to Spawn" system where it gives you preset locations, that if safe you'll drop there.

These are all commonly used and found in MMOs, FPS, and MOBA game styles. Sometimes even as redundancy systems onto each other as spawning methods.

Its lostech man. Along with being able to look left, right, rearview cameras, properly working ECM, dumb firing streaks, collisions, knock down, crouching, active/passive/off radar....

...its all just lostech.

[sdsnowbum]

I suddenly remembered another potential way to reduce spawn camping - change the rewards.

Right now spawn camping is the best way to kill 48 enemies, and every enemy killed results in c-bill/XP rewards for your team.

None of the non-mech objectives in any game mode give c-bill/XP rewards for anything (outside of the contract rewards at the end, for a win).

If any team is in a position to choose between spawn camping and sparing an enemy the spawn camp, the only incentives is for spawn camping.

Maybe make killing gens/Omega actually reward something?

[pwnface]

PGI needs to move the defender dropships so that they aren't right on top of the goddamn objectives, then they can increase their lethality (to prevent spawn camping) while still making it feasible to complete the objectives.

If you triple the lethality of defender dropships, attackers won't be able to stick around eat the damage while still effectively spawn camping. Defender dropships should be defense for incoming defending mechs NOT as a defense for base objectives.

sdsnowbum, on 03 April 2015 - 10:34 AM, said:

If any team is in a position to choose between spawn camping and sparing an enemy the spawn camp, the only incentives is for spawn camping. Maybe make killing gens/Omega actually reward something?

The attacking team still kills Omega after farming out all 48 kills though...

Unless you are suggesting a reward for killing Omega without killing as many enemy mechs, this would result in even more light rushing straight for objectives...


I really don't see how PGI can solve both of these problems with just "rewards". People don't like losing in 3 minutes but they also don't like getting slaughtered at their drop point for 30 minutes. Both of these are entirely preventably by a competent team but a good team vs pugs will do whatever nets the most rewards.

Edited by pwnface, 03 April 2015 - 10:48 AM.

[Richter Kerensky]

being too strong on spawncamping also makes counter-attack really obnoxious (see: canyon, where the defending team has literally no incentive to leave their spawn area)

this could easily be solved if attackers win a tie when omega is destroyed, though, but they don't

[Crockdaddy]

I've never once been spawn camped. A few times -MS- pushed us hard towards our drop ships. Here is what happened on comms

"Crap" don't let them Spawn Camp our drop ships, they are beat up push them back NOW!

What didn't happen was .. -MS- zomg ... lets use our LURM assaults and hide while they bend us over. If we let MS do this to us or they forced it that is our fault not their fault.

This isn't magic. Get in a group. Work together. Don't tolerate LRM hiders in your assault mechs.

Now if you are pugging. I suggest getting a bit aggressive with your mechs if they are pushing hard ... but most units Ive seen don't push hard into pugs until after the first 30 or so kills.

[Telmasa]

YCSLiesmith, on 03 April 2015 - 08:57 AM, said:

this is another point. people talk about how getting spawn camped is 'no fun' but if we're spawn camping you, we're in a position where we'd be making our own entertainment either way. stomping pugs and bads is no fun. if you can't hold up your end of the match to the point where we're spawn camping you, you're boring and i'd prefer to move on to fighting someone who doesn't suck.

YCSLiesmith, on 03 April 2015 - 09:21 AM, said:

sure, i think selecting your drop zone is a good idea, and better map design in general would be good. spawn camping will still happen though, because you cant reasonably address the problem of one team dominating another in a gamemode where players select their opponents.

I really could not disagree more with your posting and attitude about this issue (or that of those who agree with you).

The whole "if ur being spawncamped u r just noob and deserve 2 lose" attitude is nauseating, and only makes the problem worse.

If "stomping bads and pugs is no fun", then why do you purposefully do it through the most one-sided means possible?

If your fun really is derived from a fair & competitive mode of gameplay, why do you insist on doing anything BUT that?

If finding a challenge is so important to you, then why not give the enemy free handicaps like splitting up your lances & using non-meta mechs & running back and forth between gates?

You don't make any sense. I don't believe you really want a competitive game - you only want to be able to exploit "lesser" players while you & your groupies pat yourselves on the back and make each other feel like some kind of elitist professionals, when really you're the furthest thing from it.

Like everyone else who defends "spawn camping", you've chosen to put your personal greed above your gaming ideals - so right from the start your arguments are flawed.

I also don't agree that spawn camping isn't preventable. It would be very easy to prevent spawn camping, if all the involved factors, like map design (especially in size & 'open' map layout issues) and game mechanics, were manipulated properly. That only happens when a game designer treats it as a serious issue.

"Dominating" an opponent does not mean spawn camping is a natural, justified, or pre-determined conclusion. Spawncamping is a result of flawed game design & player mentality, and is the cause of game flaws itself.

Edited by Telmasa, 03 April 2015 - 02:28 PM.

[ZelenKai]

I feel like the attackers should have some kind of defenses. Things like walls and maybe some turrents.

I've been in many games where the defenders charge the attackers at their LZ and camp there. The attackers all drop in the same area and get killed. The defenders get walls and base defenses.. why wouldn't the attackers have a reinforced LZ? It is impossible for the attackers to fight back once the defenders camp their drop zone! The attackers pretty much stand in the open when dropped and can't do anything.

Edited by ZelenKai, 03 April 2015 - 02:40 PM.

[Deathlike]

I'll start with this: I'm not a fan of spawn camping. It sucks to be on the side that is being camped. It happens, but there's two things at work... the player(s) and PGI map design.

Sulfur (or whatever the map is named) is a poorly designed map, full stop. If you've seen in many different FPSes, a bad map in a game is where it is relatively easy to spawn camp the players. It's just simply bad map design. It shouldn't have to be repeated. You always need to provide at least "2 options" for a player to get out of their spawn primarily unhindered to reach the objective. Anything less than that is asking for trouble.

Other maps have similar problems, but it is worse in some maps more than others.

The other part has to do with your teammates or just players in general. Back when we had MW4, spawn camping/killing was a thing and frowned upon. Some of us that have come from older MW games understand that it is a sensitive issue, and frankly it is annoying as hell. It's disparaging at times, and it honestly sucks.

ON THE OTHER HAND, players SHOULD understand that there are also key positions on a map to take hold of.. or you know the battle can be lost before it starts. I'd rather not use Mordor as the example, but in many cases... despite the map being terrible... people that tend to not get into the middle generally get murdered. A lot of times, players are left hanging in the winds because people are not pushing together or holding together as a group. As a result, many teams fall apart, usually in multiple players focus firing on single-filing mechs, only to be finished off quickly. That is what honestly happens.

In CW, when you have the opportunity to protect the base from people trying to camp the spawns, you're letting these people die. Sure, you'll live, get your points, and never have to face these solo PUGs ever again... but in the grand scheme of things, you are not doing what you can to help your team win... even if they are spawn camping you.

The team the lets the opponents dictate terms of combat often loses. This is not a new concept. If you are not committed into the plan, however bad it is, you are going to lose.

Spawn camping happens often when people are not cohesive or coordinated enough to know what needs to be done... to secure or prevent the use of key positions in order for spawn camping to be prevented. Any time people hide in back, hoping that their LRMs hit the enemy w/o good LOS or just poking weakly and trading... instead of focus firing will only be met by a better team that will find every which way to kill the solo-me mech down. That is the truth of the matter.

These things, while wholly depressing, is a reality that I see in regular matches (solo and group) AND in CW... where people do their own thing and assume it's magically going to get things done. Not everyone is elite, so the best way of even attempt to compete vs a better opponent is to work together. Failure to do so is going to be seen by the enemy, and they will pounce on that opportunity.

I don't like spawn camping, but PGI is certainly responsible for this... and also players that are not willing to help out their team and teammates. The latter is almost always reason #1 where spawn camping is allowed to thrive the way that it has. Unless you are facing a genuinely superior unit, failure to back up your teammates properly is not going to cause the desired results.

[Mystere]

Deathlike, on 03 April 2015 - 02:46 PM, said:

Sulfur (or whatever the map is named) is a poorly designed map, full stop. If you've seen in many different FPSes, a bad map in a game is where it is relatively easy to spawn camp the players. It's just simply bad map design. It shouldn't have to be repeated. You always need to provide at least "2 options" for a player to get out of their spawn primarily unhindered to reach the objective. Anything less than that is asking for trouble.

Just today, a mostly PUG group faced <unnamed 9(?)-man IS Unit> while defending on <map I can't remember>. The <unnamed 9(?)-man IS Unit> did their usual spawn camping run and won.

On the next match, my next mostly PUG group faced the same group, this time while defending on Sulfurous Rift. Their first wave did exactly what they did the last time (i.e. set up another spawn camping session), while at the same time boasting to all that the map was so easy to attack. Well, this time we new better. They got bogged down and surrounded on their pretty C2 perch for their next 2 waves and started losing. And just to cut the story short, their last wave was a desperate run to get the last generator ... and failed.

A mostly PUG group won against <unnamed 9(?)-man IS Unit>. So much for Sulfurous Rift being such a bad map that it is so easy to attack.

Edited by Mystere, 03 April 2015 - 03:27 PM.