20 replies to this topic

[50 50]

The issue of spawn camping in Faction Play has been around since it started.
Various changes have been tried:

• Changing the drop ship load outs.
  
• Making the drop zones harder to reach.

Now that we have the quick play maps and modes, it seems this issue is coming back around to be looked at again.


So to set a few things straight:

1. Getting into a drop zone and eliminating the mechs as they land is a tactic to try and tilt the battle in your favour with as little damage or casualties to your own side as possible. It's just not a particularly nice one.
2. Dropping into a zone which is filled with the enemy and getting smashed several times in a row is infuriating, makes no logical sense and a big reason players will simply call it quits.

I would therefore like to propose that in the next iteration of Faction Play we get some new functionality around the drop zones. That is.....

ALLOW CAPTURE OF THE DROP ZONES

• Put in those drop beacons (remember them?)
  
• Give them a 'zone' like the conquest points so we can capture them.
  
• When a 'zone' is shut down, the drop ship for that lance no longer deploys.
  
• Put in a nice little message for the teams to say when it has been lost/captured.
  
• Provide the team a capture bonus.
  
• Allow the drop zone to be re-taken so we setup a dynamic for the teams and 'mini-missions'. It becomes an incentive for the team to re-open a dropzone so they can bring in more mechs!
  
• If the drop zones are all captured then the victorious team can also get a bonus at the end of the match for the number of mechs that were not able to drop. (So there is still the c-bill benefit)

As an additional step to consider:

• Give the drop zone a second, wider radius that will delay the drop of that lance until it is a full lance.
  
• Have the drop ship come in with additional ordinance. (LRMs, SRMs, PPCs, Autocannon... I mean look at the TRO for the loadout on these things. Maybe lead in with an arty or even the long tom.)

Should the enemy team get to a point where they could take the drop zone objective but instead sit outside and then actually wait for the enemy mechs to land, which is negative game play which does not need to be supported, then dropping in numbers for greater protection and having the drop ship try to clear the zone makes sense.

This is to encourage the legitimate tactic.

Your team has been good enough to fight through and get to the enemy drop zone? Excellent work mechwarriors, now take control of the zone and deny the enemy the ability to drop at that location!

Edited by 50 50, 27 March 2017 - 03:20 AM.

[Fox the Apprentice]

The team that is losing is already at a disadvantage due to the nature of MWO combat - often you know before the halfway point of the match which team is going to win the game.

I would prefer to remove drop zone camping altogether, and NOT make it harder for the losing team to make a comeback. Give the landing zones some invincible turrets, and move the zones such that those turrets won't affect the outcome of the match (beyond being able to reduce spawn kills).

[50 50]

There has been previous discussion on putting in added defences or making a 'safe zone' but these ideas are not 'believable' in the context of the game.

By allowing the zones to be captured we create new objectives for both teams, allow the tactic to work and be rewarded without the need to throw players into a blender. We can agree that it makes no sense for a faction to send a dropship to deploy a multi-million c-bill mech just to turn it into scrap.

If we want to take the idea further, then capturing a drop zone could mean creating a new deployment spot for the lance that captures it.

By allowing zones to be captured we can diversify the tactics in the battle as it provides an alternate way to control the field.
Players need to be aware of that option and defend the zones as needed.

[VonBruinwald]

Players should be allowed to pick their dropship/zone after the initial drop.

Give them three dropships to pick from (one for each zone). Each with their own timer/slots. When all 4 slots are filled with 'mechs or the timer expires (whichever comes first) that dropship deploys.

This helps boost the deploying force by deploying as many 'mechs as possible at once and allows them to pick a less contested zone to drop in.

[Insanity09]

Should the enemies be able to capture drop/spawn zones... which suggests that you would no longer be able to drop?
Absolutely not!
Should enemies have an easy time camping spawn areas? Absolutely not!
Spawn camping is using a game mechanism against players, and that should be discouraged the way any exploit is.

If you are talking about additional measures designed to discourage spawn camping (as some of your post seems to suggest), then I'm in favor.

More heavily armed dropships (give us the Union!), turrets (which respawn on the same timer as drops), enemy-only mines (IFF anyone?), gates that open only for friendlies (only works if there are the turrets or some way to shoot people camping the gates), a series of artillery/air strikes to clear the drop area just before a landing (no FF possible); these are just a few ideas.

Another alternative, randomize the drops even further, possibly even allowing the dropships to come farther in to the maps (giving the dropping team a possible advantage). Basically, force drops to occur some minimum distance from any hostiles.

[50 50]

Well, it's either have your mechs thrown into a hot zone and have them shot to bits before you can do anything, possibly have this scenario repeated more than once.
Or, if the zone is overrun it is captured and you don't get thrown to the sharks.
Should the zone be recaptured then you can start dropping again.

We know from experience that once a zone has been overrun, any mechs that drop into the zone stand no chance and it would be this futility that drives most players to quit.
But sensibly, if the location had been overrun, then why would you drop into it?
It would mean re-tweaking some of the invasion maps.

[Insanity09]

We seem to agree on one point, dropping into a hot zone, with enemy mechs roaming at will, is a very bad thing. Reinforcing mechs are coming in only a couple at a time, while the ambushing enemies typically outnumber them and squash them readily. Rage quit coming soon.

I agree, no sensible pilot would drop his friends into an area with obvious enemy presence. (as a tangent from this, has anyone else noticed that on the qp maps pressed into fw service, the walled off areas seem to prevent the dropships from firing on enemies waiting to ambush you just outside the walls? anyhow...)

Consider though, a typical map has 2-3 drop points. If one of them was overrun (captured), that would force drops to the other zone(s).
Problem one.
How do you defined captured? Enemy presence in or near the zone? What prevents the enemy from standing a mech on each drop zone and thus denying all drops?
A capture point/flag ala conquest/assault or scout/escort? Why would an enemy force want to cap the zone and deny themselves the tasty trickle of mechs to kill?
Problem two.
For every landing zone captured or otherwise prevented, you force more drops into a smaller number of zones. While this is ever so slightly better for the dropping mechs (more of them going into the remaining zone(s)), it is even better for the ambushers, because they can focus on fewer drop sites. If I were doing the ambushing, I'd say yes please.

The key is making the drop zones safer somehow. Because I consider spawn camping to be reprehensible (effectively it is an exploit), I favor making drop zones hostile, deadly even, to enemies. There are many ways to do this.
The less damaging solutions, as I said above, are opening up more areas on each map to be drop zones (possibly even deeper towards enemy territory) or denying the enemy access to the drop zones (theoretically allowing the dropping team to prepare when they move out). However, care must be taken on the latter, because forcing the dropping team to emerge from a drop zone through a choke point would be almost as bad.

[50 50]

It hadn't occurred to me about the dropship line of sight being affected by the walls, but setting up the dropship loadouts to match the TRO would seem a good answer there.

Re the ambushers lying in wait and how the capturing of the dropzones might work... I had initially just thought that a timer would do the trick, much like capturing the base in Assault. On further thought, it could use a slightly different approach as a single mech trying to capture a zone should be very risky and not something the dropship would be to worried about. But that's where the delay in drop so there are more mechs comes into effect.

It could be that the capture timer does not begin until there are enough enemy mechs in the dropzone to capture it. ie. a full lance. So it might work something like this:
One enemy in the dropzone = dropship does not deploy unless it can drop two mechs.
Two enemies = three mechs.
Three enemies = full lance.
Four enemies = drop held at this location and the zone capture process starts = allied lances need to try and clear that zone so they can bring in the additional forces. ie Counter attack mission dynamically occurs.

If one side can't hold onto their dropzones they are effectively pushed off planet as they could not maintain their beach head.
Keep in mind that this is an option for either side, should one force push into your dropzone, what is stopping your team from moving into theirs? By allowing these additional objectives we create a new dynamic that will allow greater tactical options.

If there were additional locations on the map that could be captured and then the drop location could be specified.... that would create a proper tug of war scenario within the one battle. I sincerely hope the game does expand into a more open and continuous system where this sort of functionality can be implemented.

There are many parts to the puzzle and development of Faction Play. Changing the behaviour of the dropzones is one aspect of it.

[Mochyn Pupur]

hmm, Troll thread if there ever was one. Spawn camping in any game is the fast road to empty zones/sessions.

[50 50]

PeppaPig, on 03 January 2017 - 06:36 AM, said:

hmm, Troll thread if there ever was one. Spawn camping in any game is the fast road to empty zones/sessions.

No..... trying to suggest that we could change the drop zones so they have functionality that:

• Stop the 'griefing/farming' of dropzones which no-one likes being dropped solo into when there are a half dozen enemy mechs just waiting there.
  
• Give the game added depth by creating a tug of war for battlefield control by making the drop zones capturable/re-capturable.
  
• Expanding the possible objectives in every mode in Faction Play by creating new tactical options.
  
• Begin the creation of dynamic mission event in battle using these additional objectives.

I will agree that getting spawn camped is a quick path to immense player dissatisfaction and I have often cursed and sworn at the computer asking why the **** am I being dropped solo into a dropzone when half the enemy team is there?
Mech gets shot up in an instant.
Don't even need to try and do anything to survive, there is literally 0% chance of that.
Go and get a drink and something to eat while you watch your next mech or two get thrown into a blender.
Yay.
That was fun.
Really glad I played today.

HOWEVER...from the other perspective it is control.

We are behind on kills and losing this battle.
If we can get in and eliminate a dropzone we have a chance of shifting the battle in our favour.

OR

We have managed to sweep through the enemy forces and into their dropzones.
Capture the dropzones and prevent the enemy from deploying to bring a swift end to this incursion.

.
.
.

I would much rather be in the position of being prevented from dropping into a hot zone and saving my mechs should that zone be overrun. With the possibility that my team mates might be able to re-capture that zone and secure it (or capture one of the enemy's zones) allowing my lance to redeploy, reinforce my team mates and continue on.

We can suggest putting in force fields, indestructible turrets, magical no fire zones and a host of other 'deterants' but these sort of features don't enhance the game, nor do they truly address the problem.

Edited by 50 50, 03 January 2017 - 05:52 PM.

[50 50]

By the way, please also look at this thread in combination with the above suggestion and consider the possibilities on how the game could expand.

https://mwomercs.com...1916-dropships/

I also firmly believe that the next step for Faction Play is to turn it into an Open Continuous War so that we commit a drop deck to a particular battle, rotate through the battle with other players as our mechs are destroyed or we retreat and have to accomplish various major objectives to completely control a single battle. Under this setup, capturing drop zones is a given and is no different to any other game where there is an option to redeploy into a fight.

Consider a game such as Battlefield where you could push into different locations and take over a zone.
It stopped your enemy from using that location as a spawn point.
It allowed your team to spawn at that location.
It pushed the lines of the battlefield and allowed different approaches, quicker approaches to other targets.
It became the prerogative of the enemy to try and recapture that location and for your team to hold it.

I am trying to suggest the same thing.

[102_devill]

Did any of you ever see spawn camping in a match which is close (as in close kill tally between the two teams)?

I haven't.

I saw spawn camping usually when the result is something like 5 : 21.

I would say, based on the above that spawn camping isn't really the problem, it is just a consequence of bad matchmaking and imbalanced match design.

So, try to tackle the cause, not the symptoms.

[Cyrilis]

my 2 cents:

either:
do not allow to capture drop zones by buffing the dropships seriously and putting a bunch off turrets in there. BUT, in this case there needs to be something that forces the team to get out of the drop zone and not sit it out.

or:
increase the distance between the drop zones (esp. on the invasion maps, where basically all the dop zones are together), and let make dropship always kick you out at that spawnpoint that has the least enemy mechs close to it. (would be the easiest to do). In a worst case scenario that would put you up against 6 enemy mechs, but 6 enemies that are damaged can probably be handeled. 12 cannot.

Edited by Cyrilis, 04 January 2017 - 12:28 AM.

[Hotthedd]

If you have re-spawns, you have spawn camping, period. (Unless you have immersion-destroying invincibility).

The best way to have done FW would have been campaigns. Four 'mechs, four missions, each one predicated on the results of the previous missions.

...but that would have required work.

[GabrielSun]

I think with a captured LZ you should automatically switch to ship gunners when you're incoming.

[Insanity09]

I have seen in several threads, including this one, what seems to be a flawed axiom.

The axiom is that there is nothing beyond the map. Clearly this is incorrect, as even though we have an out-of-bounds, there is more terrain visible past that red line.
My point? In any real world situation where forces were being dropped in, if the intended landing zone was too hot, you would simply drop in another spot.
It would likely be safe to say that the drop zones (DZs), particularly on invasion maps, are, more or less, the closest safe approach to the intended target (at least at the start of the match). The trouble is that the current version of MWO has no provisions for the situation of the DZ being overrun (or landing zone, LZ, in RW parlance), and thus we get the spawn camping.

THe method I favor is that if the program won't allow for the sensible decision of pilots to land their charges in a safe spot, some provision must be made for the DZ to be made safe.
What we have now is the de facto capturing of DZs, but no reaction to it, and thus a string of dead mechs and extremely frustrated players. Not a happy situation.
Changing that to de jure, a defined situation (the 'law' of a captured DZ, if you will) for which there is a response of some sort, might help, but given the current size of the maps and the distance between existing DZs (when there is more than one, defenders often just have only one), there are problems. Thus, we would seem to be back at DZ capture mechanics needing a significant program and functionality change.

A statement on capture methods: even if there is only enemy one mech in a landing zone, that might be too many. One enemy assault in a LZ might easily be able to kill two or even three mechs before they can react, especially if they started facing away from the enemy (random chance).

I personally like the idea of territorial control, pushing for capturable zones and so forth. That would make faction warfare much more of a strategic game. However, right from the start, I would say the entirety of MWO FW would need a rethink. Basically, at that point, we aren't talking about MWO any more, but a different Battletech based game (one I'd still be interested in playing, but not the kinda-FPS we have now).

[50 50]

102_devill, on 04 January 2017 - 12:14 AM, said:

Did any of you ever see spawn camping in a match which is close (as in close kill tally between the two teams)?

I haven't.

I saw spawn camping usually when the result is something like 5 : 21.

I would say, based on the above that spawn camping isn't really the problem, it is just a consequence of bad matchmaking and imbalanced match design.

So, try to tackle the cause, not the symptoms.

Well that is certainly a good point. In the event where the battle is fought out from the drop zones, there is no issue with camping and you would think that would indicate a fairly even battle and everyone is having fun with a good fight at some line on the map.
However, for those situations where one side fails to hold their line and gets pushed back to their drop zone, which could happen for different reasons, there is no functionality to support this outcome for either team.

The team that has pushed in will wait and pick off survivors so they drop back into those zones one at a time and eliminate them on the drop.

The team that has lost control of their drop zone has to try and force the enemy out but will likely suffer heavy casualties as they have individual mechs drop in just to get wiped out.

The point is, should a team lose control of their drop zone, they still get thrown to the wolves and it is that particular aspect where you drop into a zone only to get wiped out with no chance of survival that is the point of frustration. If you could drop into the zone and have a fighting chance then players do feel like they were still able to play and try to do something. But dropping in and being killed before you can even turn to face the enemy is not what we want to experience. Hence this suggestion for bringing in some functionality to capture the drop zones.

Insanity09, on 04 January 2017 - 02:39 PM, said:

I have seen in several threads, including this one, what seems to be a flawed axiom.

The axiom is that there is nothing beyond the map. Clearly this is incorrect, as even though we have an out-of-bounds, there is more terrain visible past that red line.
My point? In any real world situation where forces were being dropped in, if the intended landing zone was too hot, you would simply drop in another spot.
It would likely be safe to say that the drop zones (DZs), particularly on invasion maps, are, more or less, the closest safe approach to the intended target (at least at the start of the match). The trouble is that the current version of MWO has no provisions for the situation of the DZ being overrun (or landing zone, LZ, in RW parlance), and thus we get the spawn camping.

THe method I favor is that if the program won't allow for the sensible decision of pilots to land their charges in a safe spot, some provision must be made for the DZ to be made safe.
What we have now is the de facto capturing of DZs, but no reaction to it, and thus a string of dead mechs and extremely frustrated players. Not a happy situation.
Changing that to de jure, a defined situation (the 'law' of a captured DZ, if you will) for which there is a response of some sort, might help, but given the current size of the maps and the distance between existing DZs (when there is more than one, defenders often just have only one), there are problems. Thus, we would seem to be back at DZ capture mechanics needing a significant program and functionality change.

A statement on capture methods: even if there is only enemy one mech in a landing zone, that might be too many. One enemy assault in a LZ might easily be able to kill two or even three mechs before they can react, especially if they started facing away from the enemy (random chance).

I personally like the idea of territorial control, pushing for capturable zones and so forth. That would make faction warfare much more of a strategic game. However, right from the start, I would say the entirety of MWO FW would need a rethink. Basically, at that point, we aren't talking about MWO any more, but a different Battletech based game (one I'd still be interested in playing, but not the kinda-FPS we have now).

Insanity makes a very good point here as well.
The maps currently do not allow a form of territorial control and I firmly believe it's this style of game that needs to be moved towards for Faction Play. By this, it's territorial control within the battle. Presently, territorial control is the tug of war bar we have outside of the battle and prior to this it was all those little sectors that surrounded the planet in the lobby screen. It was not something that was accompanied by a mechanical effect within the battle.

I completely agree that Faction Play could really use some BIG maps.
Rebas Kradd had a very good suggestion and presentation about expanding the scale of Faction Play which I highly recommend everyone to have a look at: https://mwomercs.com...igger-maps-fun/
While I have some similar ideas about scaling up Faction Play into a continuous battle, those discussions are better for another thread as the point of this topic is just about one small part of the larger picture that I feel would build some depth and new options into the existing modes that will then have greater meaning in an expanded battle concept.

Think of this proposal as one step down that road which could be implemented a bit quicker and easier.
We know the maps can be changed fairly quickly, we have seen it done on the Invasion Maps a few times.
So splitting the drop zones up a bit or adjusting the maps to cater for the separation should not be too much to work on.
Adding the capture functionality is then a next step so we have an in game mechanic that will open up new tactics and help alleviate an ongoing 'player enjoyment' issue.
The step after that would be to look at how can we cleanly and easily designate our drop zones, expand the maps add in new drop zones so we can have a territorial control effect. I believe we can make use of a modified battegrid view to enable this.

I've just come off the back of a Skirmish match in Faction Play where the other team did play very well and pushed us back to our drop zone. In an effort to minimise the issue, our team took high positions to try and force the enemy back out... which was ok for those who had made it to those locations. For the rest of us who were waiting to drop, we landed in a zone with nearly the entire enemy team snapping at our heels. Given my above suggestions, what would have happened is the drop into that zone would have halted while there were enemy mechs in the vicinity. Once my team had cleared the zone the drops would have recommenced. Instead mechs were thrown into the zone and lost without barely firing a shot.

Edited by 50 50, 05 January 2017 - 05:23 PM.

[Insanity09]

I hadn't read that previous thread, thx to 50 50 for pointing it out. The only issue I saw with the suggestion in the other thread was the chance of the defenders pushing out in their own murder ball.

With larger maps and more spread out DZs, it would hopefully be too much territory for the offending team to control (capture?) all at once, and a safe landing zone could be had. Add a little more defense for each DZ, and that seems even more likely.

[50 50]

Well, I think with the direction it seems to be going, and I can only hope it continues towards a continuous warfare model, that with the bigger maps we would get spread out LZs, and the chance to capture forward posts to spawn from.

I think ideally, to really make an impact we do need that territorial control aspect and we have a pretty unique opportunity with drop decks and the wave to have something that no othe game out there does.

It's a bit of a contradiction, but to expand the game we need to allow it to function at the smallest denominator, that of the solo pilot. But this is a step beyond what this topis is about. However, in that sort of envronement or mode, capturable zones are a given. So it is this direction I would lke to see the game head towards. The open warfare concept.

[Insanity09]

As a potentially great change, in keeping with the zone/territory control idea, have planets truly assaultable.
Only loyalists could actually call an attack on a given planet, and only they could actually choose a specific zone to attack once on a planet.
Once an assault starts on a given planet, you have only a limited time to succeed in taking all the objectives.
The way it would go is something like this...
Choose a planet to attack.
A number of theaters, or attack zones, become available. The attacker can choose which one to go for at a given time.
At the start, only a few zones are available as invasion landing zones.

Scouting becomes important...
a. offense, not all zones actually have necessary objectives, and only by scouting can you determine which are important (though you can attack blindly)
b. offense/defense, as with the current scouting scheme, the more information you pick up, you earn the usual advantages (sat ID, sweep, jamming)
c. defense & offense, a given zone would have a specific type of conflict (and map), only by scouting would you know ahead of time what conflict (conquest, skirm, invade, etc.) and map you are choosing. This would allow you to prep your drop decks better.
d. defense (& offense?) , by keeping up a good scouting regimen, you have more time to respond to an enemy attack, recent scouting gives you more time (to the current 10 minute maximum), but the longer it has been since you've taken a look at a zone, the shorter time before the enemy just takes a zone unopposed (to a minimum of 5 minutes? 3?)
(Nobody likes ghost drops, but cutting down the time that a ghost takes would mitigate some of that pain)

Successful attacks take control of segments (zones) of a planet. Higher value planets would have more zones and/or require attacker control of more zones to achieve an actual capture in the time period. Enemy controlled zones would need to be counterattacked to be reclaimed (again, only loyalists could start it).
Some zones might actually give benefits to the attacking (or defending force), for example, default dropship reinforcement times might be shorter if you control spaceport zones (or longer if you don't have them). Factory zones might give you randomly distributed points on any map that you could use to resupply ammo or conduct minor repairs (destroyable?). A military base might give your side occasional strikes in conjunction with scouting. I'm sure there is a lot of creativity that could be applied here.

Upon a successful capture (or defense) of a planet, those who participated would get some sort of reward based on the value of the planet. (A current flaw, I think, is that only the controlling unit gets any benefit from holding a planet, why should anyone else care about the caps or defenses under those circumstances? This might fix that issue.)

By using this individual planet tug of war, the faction divisions (Steiner, Clan Wolf, etc.) become important again. You could easily keep the IS/Clan aid in any given conflict, as it is currently.

As an aside, to prevent planets from being taken effectively instantly, there might be a limit to how many active conflicts on a given planet would be allowed.