465 replies to this topic

[Mycroft000]

I have said over and over and over again, that I feel this is PGI's fault. Their unwillingess or inability to create dynamic spawns that at best make spawn camping extremely difficult, or extremely unrewarding, is the reason this happens. I also feel that if we want to continue growing faction play into a large constantly running campaign, then it is our responsibility as a community to curb the tactic and self police so that the game continues to be fun for all and not a man made lake where "sport fishermen" get to claim the catch of the day.

[Leggin Ho]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 02:26 PM, said:

I have said over and over and over again, that I feel this is PGI's fault. Their unwillingess or inability to create dynamic spawns that at best make spawn camping extremely difficult, or extremely unrewarding, is the reason this happens. I also feel that if we want to continue growing faction play into a large constantly running campaign, then it is our responsibility as a community to curb the tactic and self police so that the game continues to be fun for all and not a man made lake where "sport fishermen" get to claim the catch of the day.

When you give me the ability to force a suicide and neg cbills/xp point from players hiding in the spawn I'll go with the "Self police" option you like.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

I think I'm seeing an implicit assumption that only defenders get spawn camped, though it is possible I'm reading a little too literally, but I have seen the attacking team get spawn camped on numerous occasions as well.

Bud, you're asking for proof of us actively not spawn camping: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/160275949, watch from 01:37:00-02:08:00 roughly to see one example. I can find other examples, but would prefer to see if I can get Nemesis to send me some clipped links so that I don't have to send you 2-3 hour plus clips to look through.

Losing Defenders get spawn camped more often than losing attackers do...just because the objectives (where the attackers are forced to go) are close to their Dz's. In Siege it is a more often then not necessary for attackers to push out to damage the incoming wave of fresh attackers. If damaged defenders manage to kill the incoming wave and push all the way to the dz, it's a game that needs to be ended asap....the attackers are far inferior and everyone needs to move on.

I can attest that you are a man of your word....(at least when I have been in drops with you). You don't dz camp and or allow your unit to do so. So, even though I disagree with you on a fundamental level on this issue...you are not a hypocrite. I think you are a bit naive (in a well meaning manner) though. The hiding is so real these days that I have to make sure I bring 2 104kph+ mechs to most drops....just to account for how much time it's going to take me to get across the map to engage the enemy. Had a skirmish match on Alpine last night were we led 18-12 after wave 1...despite not having the kill lead (and needing to come to us to try to win) the enemy team staying mostly in their spawn (or within 200 meters outside). I had to drop a fast mech second just to be able to fight and not spend 1/2 the match walking. When matches get like that...there should be no quarter given...you hide in your dz or or set up just outside it (to use it's position to tactical advantage), you need to risk having it burned down around you (so to speak)...just to learn to press W and not have that happen to you again.

Setting a line in the sand as you do (by ruling out attacking dz's) invites this behavior in the future and lengthens games that need to be ended. It would be equivalent to telling the defending team on Siege that we will not touch the gens till after they are all dead...no matter what. If they know you mean it, it changes the game totally in what they can get away with in defense. It would give the defender an additional advantage and they could set up differently than if they had to worry somewhat about the gens

Edited by Marquis De Lafayette, 06 August 2017 - 03:03 PM.

[Mycroft000]

I've also said hiding in the spawn is different from shooting people as they fall from the drop ship.

[MischiefSC]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 12:53 PM, said:

How about this, if you feel you have to explain why any form of profanity is useful in a context like this, then it's not likely as useful as you would think. I definitely don't take your arguments as seriously as I take Pat's.

How you take the value of a comment is up to you. If, for you, the use of profanity negatively impacts the rest of the comment that's going to be the case regardless. There's a ton of people who ignore any comment more than 2 sentences or use big words. You do you, I'm certainly not trying to convince you personally of anything.

I would say that as Pat is one of the most successful players and drop callers in FW you should take his observations on FW seriously regardless. I'll hope he keeps your opinion on profanity in mind next time he's calling a drop and I reinforce between waves, squirrel on a light or question a call mid drop.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I've also said hiding in the spawn is different from shooting people as they fall from the drop ship.

The guys getting shot from their dropship are more often than not the guys who sold their team out...only sniping from the back, not pushing with the team, not sharing armor...etc. Those are the 2-3 guys with the extra mechs that last wave. They also need to learn to fight with their team and not just farm damage and stay fresh while we play 12 v. 9 on the frontlines with their teammates. They kinda deserve what happens to them.

[Tesunie]

DarklightCA, on 06 August 2017 - 12:09 AM, said:

I don't even know what your point is. So what if they take airport? If you aren't on it they can't wipe you unless you are being dumb with trades. They would have to actively abondon the fight with your team to go for those spawn kills in which you can a lot easier reinforce it to get them off.

Which is a lot better than having your entire team near a dropzone, who gets wiped and making it a ton easier for them to spawn camp.

If they get off airport to secure the kills on you and you aren't near a dropzone than there isn't **** they can do to spawn kill you, you can regroup and try another team fight.

What? You act like you've never had a "side of the map" swap before? You know, where each team takes the opposite paths to where they think the enemy is, only to find later on that they by-passed each other somehow and are now fighting where the other one originally came from? (More common in QP than FP, granted.)

You also seem surprised when I mention a very common movement from upper city to the space port (across that bridge) that many teams have also been known to do. If the other side takes the citadel, and another team pushes the Air Port, the Air Port team can shoot from where they are at the citadel team, oh, and they are also able to occupy the drop zone there.

Oh, and "a lot easier reinforce to get them off" tend to result in 2-4 players losing second wave mechs while much of their team may be on first wave mechs, or just getting to their second wave mechs. Then, this means those 2-4 players who "reinforced" tend to also become perma-dead sooner and easier (because they are down a mech from the close spawn fighting). So that can also be a disadvantage compared to an advantage.

I could even mention that I've been specifically head hunted (not having my head component shot at, but singled out for specific focus fire when spotted) by an enemy team before, resulting in my quick extermination as soon as I showed myself. (I'll withhold the name of the unit, as it's not important). I ended up having lower damage than I normally do for that match, on top of being perma-dead sooner. (Not specific to spawn camping, but can have similar results, can lead to members of a team being perma-dead, weakening their whole team.)

Are all these situations bad? No. Many of them are just tactical choices or simply a consequence of where the spawns happen to be and the way a map may be specifically getting played in that match. I'm just mentioning that, sometimes Spawn camping can be easier to do than you make it seem, depending upon the map.

PeppaPig, on 06 August 2017 - 08:17 AM, said:

If a unit develops a reputation, good or bad, then it's down to their play and nothing else, not game mechanics, maps, Clan or IS technology - but the players themselves.

If you are good and have the respect of others, then lead by example. If you have a bad reputation, there'll be a good reason for it.

This is very true. I have some units that I have great respect for, on the battlefield and in the forums. This is simply because of how they treated me, both as an enemy on the field of combat, and how they have treated me on the forums. Night Scorn is one such unit that I retain much respect for, as an example.

MischiefSC, on 06 August 2017 - 10:13 AM, said:

I'm genuinely curious if you're serious. This is a PvP computer game about giant stompy robbits shooting each other. In the context of the game, my robbits shooting the other guys robbits, there's no potential for bullying.

I will state now that I've only glossed over your post (as I have this whole thread to be honest). But, I think the term people are looking for here is not bully, but more so along the lines of "sportsmenship". It's a game. Everyone is here to play it and have fun. I see no reason not to try and improve another player's experience, so long as it doesn't hinder my own (as in, I'm not going to just hand the opponent the win as an example).

There is a point where you do what you have to, because it's part of the game. Then there are also other behaviors that could be avoided/discouraged because it isn't very sportsmen like and isn't very much fun to have happen to yourself. Of course, this is often up for personal debate and individual code of honor and perspective. What one person may see as unsportsmenlike, another may just see as part of the game for whatever reason they may think. This is what makes it truly difficult in some of these discussions.

Karl the Plumber, on 06 August 2017 - 10:41 AM, said:

Yeah, getting roflstomped sucks. But having a spawn function that allows people to sit behind an indestructible defense line and drag a game out because they're all terrified something might lower their K/D ratio or muss their paint job would be worse.

I think the spawns in MWO are as balanced as you're gonna get them. The cure would be worse than the disease.

You wonder why I've been saying I'm so hesitant to add in this penalty under X conditions, or this mechanics for Y reason? I'm always concerned with any game changing suggestion how it could be used against it's intended purpose, or abused to be disruptive to the game itself. (An example could be Flamers, and why they can't push someone over 100% and keep them there...)

MischiefSC, on 06 August 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

How you take the value of a comment is up to you. If, for you, the use of profanity negatively impacts the rest of the comment that's going to be the case regardless. There's a ton of people who ignore any comment more than 2 sentences or use big words. You do you, I'm certainly not trying to convince you personally of anything.

I have to agree with Mycroft to some extent here. A debate or discussion that ends up being a lot of @*@!^ typically ends up detracting from the discussion at hand. It's kind like dropping the F bomb every other word like it's a cool adjective or something. All it ends up doing is making what you are trying to say take longer to say, often times gets annoying, and makes it (in my opinion) seem like you are less intelligent than you probably are.

There are of course a proper place and time for such words (oh no, I smashed my thumb with a hammer... That hurt...), and there are sometimes reasonable places where the terminology (even if inappropriate to some extent, or really unneeded) where it can enforce and enhance a statement.

Everyone also has their own interpretation on what is and isn't vulgarer language, and/or how much is reasonable and how much is too much. So, up to some interpretation...


Personally speaking? I feel a statement is more powerful without profanities. It makes you look more intelligent. However, I also won't enforce this on anyone else and try to take the posts as they are most likely intended. (Which I would hope you know from all out "engagements" so far.) I feel it is just best to treat others with respect as much as possible.

(Does that make sense? It's confusing to actually say, and I don't want people to feel like I'm forcing my own concepts onto them.)

[Leggin Ho]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I've also said hiding in the spawn is different from shooting people as they fall from the drop ship.

True, but your also one of the folks advocating for stronger dropships when on some maps the drops ships end up with more kills that the enemy team. I was head shot the other night outside a spawn in a fresh mech so I'm of the opinion that the dropships are already strong enough if not too strong on certain maps and just encourage folks to hide under their guns. The more defenses we add for them to hide behind the more they will try to use that to their advantage and "exploit" the in game features by refusing to engage unless they have the turrets / dropships to add to their team.

Rushing into a enemy spawn where they hide is not fun, but it's better then drag out a game because they refuse to leave it to try to protect whatever stats they think matter, to me the only one that counts is the W/L of my team, if I die I die, but so long as my team wins then maybe me going in first as a target and doing what damage I can helped push the team into the win column so I'm good with that.

[Mycroft000]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 06 August 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Losing Defenders get spawn camped more often than losing attackers do...just because the objectives (where the attackers are forced to go) are close to their Dz's. In Siege it is a more often then not necessary for attackers to push out to damage the incoming wave of fresh attackers. If damaged defenders manage to kill the incoming wave and push all the way to the dz, it's a game that needs to be ended asap....the attackers are far inferior and everyone needs to move on.

I would say the majority of times we've defended against pugs, we could have pushed out to the attackers spawn. The only thing keeping that from happening is our refusal to do so.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 06 August 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

I can attest that you are a man of your word....(at least when I have been in drops with you). You don't dz camp and or allow your unit to do so. So, even though I disagree with you on a fundamental level on this issue...you are not a hypocrite. I think you are a bit naive (in a well meaning manner) though. The hiding is so real these days that I have to make sure I bring 2 104kph+ mechs to most drops....just to account for how much time it's going to take me to get across the map to engage the enemy. Had a skirmish match on Alpine last night were we led 18-12 after wave 1...despite not having the kill lead (and needing to come to us to try to win) the enemy team staying mostly in their spawn (or within 200 meters outside). I had to drop a fast mech second just to be able to fight and not spend 1/2 the match walking. When matches get like that...there should be no quarter given...you hide in your dz or or set up just outside it (to use it's position to tactical advantage), you need to risk having it burned down around you (so to speak)...just to learn to press W and not have that happen to you again.

On a fundamental level, I say that it is poor game design that allows spawn camping. The numerous ideas that have been brainstormed in this thread would promote more depth to the game, more difficulty in camping spawns, and would give defenders an equal goal to attackers which would allow the defenders to capture and destroy the incoming drop ships which would end the match early without shooting fish in a barrel.

Part of my reasoning behind my stance on this is that there is no military in history that would drop its elite soldiers(not saying everyone in this game necessarily qualifies as elite, but mechwarriors would be considered the elite fighting force in battletech) into battle where they are literally unable to move, shoot or do anything of any value while they are being dropped into a position surrounded by enemy forces. That just doesn't happen unless mind boggling incompetence is in place. In this case, the drop ship pilots(coded by who?) are clearly mindbogglingly incompetent.

To your point about attackers who are hiding, I have delayed pushing in once on a match where the defenders were all in lights and mediums. We were all in assaults and would have easily gotten swarmed had we done the conventional approach and pushed in. We spent the match taunting them and trading for 22 minutes at long range, allowing them to kill 14 of us to our killing 5 of them over the course of that 22 minutes. With 8 minutes left on the clock, we pushed in, watched as a good number of them rushed us to get their fresh mechs. Ultimately I think I waited 1 minute too long, but at the end of that match, we had damaged Omega by the time the clock ran out, but had taken the kill count from 5-14 up to something like 22-27. I would have been more than happy to have them push out and fight us outside the gates if they'd have taken the bait, but since they didn't I tried something unorthodox and despite losing, I think that was one of my most fun matches I've had.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 06 August 2017 - 03:02 PM, said:

Setting a line in the sand as you do (by ruling out attacking dz's) invites this behavior in the future and lengthens games that need to be ended. It would be equivalent to telling the defending team on Siege that we will not touch the gens till after they are all dead...no matter what. If they know you mean it, it changes the game totally in what they can get away with in defense. It would give the defender an additional advantage and they could set up differently than if they had to worry somewhat about the gens

I would say that is a false equivalence because when I'm against a team who I know is willing to spawn camp, I consider that the way that the match would end anyway and it leads me to tell everyone to do as much damage to the attackers as possible before they get anywhere near turrets; in those cases, I want the turrets to finish your first wave off while we're all dropping in our fresh mechs getting ready to push out to meet your second wave if we can.

[Mycroft000]

MischiefSC, on 06 August 2017 - 03:04 PM, said:

As Tesunie said, this is a debate, and profanity and anything that can be perceived as name calling detracts from the strengths of your arguments. Did I say anything about use of profanity in matches among your own team mates? No I did not, and I couldn't care less what language you or Pat use with each other in the heat of battle. Use of profanity among friends is different than the use of it among strangers. I would say your use of it here contributes to some of the toxicity I've seen on the forums. I'm not saying you are toxic by any means, but when trying to back your argument up with language that puts people on the defensive, it doesn't help create an environment where people feel comfortable voicing their opinions.

Marquis De Lafayette, on 06 August 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

I have very recently been spawn camped(thankfully by incompetent spawn campers as I ended up killing two of them and rejoining the battle), but I definitely was not "sniping from the back" or anything even closely related to that. No, this was simply the failures of PGI not putting the necessary design into the game that would deter camping.

Leggin Ho, on 06 August 2017 - 04:15 PM, said:

I'm not advocating for only stronger drop ships, I've never once said that is the solution. I'm advocating for a much more strategically deep spawn setup including capture-able drop zones, the option of a (destructible as a win condition for defenders)Union Class drop ship, drop pods that drop people in away from concentrated enemies(or near allies), rewards that encourage completion of the objective over destruction of any and all enemy mechs, and many many more ideas that shouldn't(in capable hands) be very difficult to implement.

[DarklightCA]

Tesunie, on 06 August 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

What? You act like you've never had a "side of the map" swap before? You know, where each team takes the opposite paths to where they think the enemy is, only to find later on that they by-passed each other somehow and are now fighting where the other one originally came from? (More common in QP than FP, granted.)

You also seem surprised when I mention a very common movement from upper city to the space port (across that bridge) that many teams have also been known to do. If the other side takes the citadel, and another team pushes the Air Port, the Air Port team can shoot from where they are at the citadel team, oh, and they are also able to occupy the drop zone there.

Oh, and "a lot easier reinforce to get them off" tend to result in 2-4 players losing second wave mechs while much of their team may be on first wave mechs, or just getting to their second wave mechs. Then, this means those 2-4 players who "reinforced" tend to also become perma-dead sooner and easier (because they are down a mech from the close spawn fighting). So that can also be a disadvantage compared to an advantage.

Again, so what? If you trade sides of the map what does that matter in this context. Unless your team is really stupid and they all get out traded at the same time to get wiped the other team has to actively disengage the fight with you to go spawn camp in which you can a lot easily reinforce.

Also by reinforce I am not talking about just respawn mechs, I am talking about the rest of the team the other team did not secure the kills on. If they actively go to secure those kills which in most scenarios is the likely thing to happen, you are taking them further away from your drop zones which completely eliminates their ability to spawn kill.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

On a fundamental level, I say that it is poor game design that allows spawn camping. The numerous ideas that have been brainstormed in this thread would promote more depth to the game, more difficulty in camping spawns, and would give defenders an equal goal to attackers which would allow the defenders to capture and destroy the incoming drop ships which would end the match early without shooting fish in a barrel.

I have to disagree with you there. I can think of at least three games that have spawn camping. It does not mean the game was designed poorly. It just means one team saw a way to prevent enemy reinforcements from getting onto the battlefield & took advantage of it.

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 04:33 PM, said:

Part of my reasoning behind my stance on this is that there is no military in history that would drop its elite soldiers(not saying everyone in this game necessarily qualifies as elite, but mechwarriors would be considered the elite fighting force in battletech) into battle where they are literally unable to move, shoot or do anything of any value while they are being dropped into a position surrounded by enemy forces. That just doesn't happen unless mind boggling incompetence is in place. In this case, the drop ship pilots(coded by who?) are clearly mindbogglingly incompetent.

The IS bombards an area with artillery to clear it out to have troops set up there. (This was done by the US in Vietnam. They would napalm an area & then land infantry forces afterwards.) The Clans have a safety net in place with safcon where if granted, a landing area is uncontested. However, once a base of any kind is established, it can be attacked after the landing. You can reference the 2nd novel in The Jade Phoenix Trilogy, Bloodname, to confirm this.

Edited by Jaroth Corbett, 06 August 2017 - 05:52 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

As Tesunie said, this is a debate, and profanity and anything that can be perceived as name calling detracts from the strengths of your arguments. Did I say anything about use of profanity in matches among your own team mates? No I did not, and I couldn't care less what language you or Pat use with each other in the heat of battle. Use of profanity among friends is different than the use of it among strangers. I would say your use of it here contributes to some of the toxicity I've seen on the forums. I'm not saying you are toxic by any means, but when trying to back your argument up with language that puts people on the defensive, it doesn't help create an environment where people feel comfortable voicing their opinions.
.

Don't want to get into a sidebar on communication but, in short, people have different comfort levels on communication and value different levels of profanity differently. This thread has over a dozen people posting and close to 9k views. At no point am I trying to change your opinion - you don't argue a point on the internet to change that person's view. It's a matter of who is reading that you're speaking to.

Voicing opinions in a thread like this isn't a debate - there is no debate. Spawn camping isn't against the rules and will absolutely happen regardless of anything at all you do in the game so long as there's reaspawns.

However voicing opinions from people on their perspective of it is useful, if only to broaden perspectives.

I think most the people in this thread are more likely to find a comparison of spawn camping with bullying to be offensive than some ****. Context and who you're speaking to.

On topic, there's no magic fix to this. If you have reaspawns you will have fights at the spawn area. You make the dropping area invulnerable you create a mechanic to exploit and the "spawn camp" becomes wherever you exit the safe zone.

You could extend the maps, however even on the longest maps still have it happen. The crux of the issue isn't that one side rolls the other - I've rolled and been rolled on wave 1 plenty of times and nobody got shot in the spawn. The issue is people fighting close to their spawn.

Probably the best real option is having no real cover at or within about 1k of spawn, so you *have* to move away to get cover and, conversely, you dont have anywhere close to the spawn to get cover. Fights happen where the terrain dictates. So the terrain needs to dictate that anywhere near the spawn is a bad place to fight.

[Bud Crue]

Mycroft000, on 06 August 2017 - 07:09 AM, said:

I think I'm seeing an implicit assumption that only defenders get spawn camped, though it is possible I'm reading a little too literally, but I have seen the attacking team get spawn camped on numerous occasions as well.

I have seen KCom do this. Aside from the obvious of calling targets, how does an attacking team of pugs, who has not been too scared to open the gates, and gets steamrolled on their first wave(outside the gates) recover when the steamroll pushes through them to their spawn? As always, I am speaking on behalf of those who are not experienced in this game mode. Why should anyone have to sit through the last 3/4 of a match getting shot as they fall from the drop ship?

Bud, you're asking for proof of us actively not spawn camping: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/160275949, watch from 01:37:00-02:08:00 roughly to see one example. I can find other examples, but would prefer to see if I can get Nemesis to send me some clipped links so that I don't have to send you 2-3 hour plus clips to look through.

I appreciate you taking my rant seriously but your twitch leaves something to be desired. While you certainly didn't spawn camp, you merely stomped the enemy team of...how were they described by your fellow: "the most puggy of pugs" etc. While I suppose you guys could have pushed out and camped the last wave, there was no reason to since the enemy team obligingly kept coming in.

My point stands. Those people who equate spawn camping with bullying, etc. need to put up or shut up. They should never allow the poor dears on the other team to be in a position to be spawn camped or stomped to the equivalent state of defeat. Bullying is bullying right? Why does the location of the spawn vs the base make one form of potato abuse acceptable and the other not? These crusading folks and their message of 'we need to help spread a sense of fair play and love to all the games terribads' need to prove their bonafides with video evidence of them proactively helping the stompees. Until that happens and happens consistently then these folks are part of the "problem".

Still that video was a good match to watch. Very educational. The way you effortlessly stomped the hell out of those poor ******** was impressive. Nice touch at the end with them coming in piecemeal and then with only 6 left, you guys waiting by the doors to execute them as the slast stragglers pushed in. Very compassionate. I'm sure they appreciated your self-control at not pushing their spawn. Oh and the commentary about them being so puggy as to be "choking on their own phlem"...perfect.

[Tesunie]

DarklightCA, on 06 August 2017 - 04:55 PM, said:

Again, so what? If you trade sides of the map what does that matter in this context. Unless your team is really stupid and they all get out traded at the same time to get wiped the other team has to actively disengage the fight with you to go spawn camp in which you can a lot easily reinforce.

Also by reinforce I am not talking about just respawn mechs, I am talking about the rest of the team the other team did not secure the kills on. If they actively go to secure those kills which in most scenarios is the likely thing to happen, you are taking them further away from your drop zones which completely eliminates their ability to spawn kill.

So?

I guess if a spawn camp happens, it's completely the person being camps fault. There is just no other explanation apparently. That is what you are saying, right? If that is the case, lets get ride of the ridges that keep people from being able to walk into most spawns. If it's still their fault, why not also remove all weapons from the dropships.

I mean, apparently there is no chance that it could have just happened despite reasonably good game play after all. You must have fought intentionally too close to your own spawns, and it must be completely your own (teams) fault... Right?

So... Why bother trying to prevent spawn camping at all. Right?

[Leggin Ho]

Tesunie, on 06 August 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

So?

I guess if a spawn camp happens, it's completely the person being camps fault. There is just no other explanation apparently. That is what you are saying, right? If that is the case, lets get ride of the ridges that keep people from being able to walk into most spawns. If it's still their fault, why not also remove all weapons from the dropships.

I mean, apparently there is no chance that it could have just happened despite reasonably good game play after all. You must have fought intentionally too close to your own spawns, and it must be completely your own (teams) fault... Right?

So... Why bother trying to prevent spawn camping at all. Right?

Well if they are camping in their spawn and not pushing out then yes it is their fault they are getting killed there.

[Tesunie]

Bud Crue, on 06 August 2017 - 06:49 PM, said:

They should never allow the poor dears on the other team to be in a position to be spawn camped or stomped to the equivalent state of defeat. Bullying is bullying right? Why does the location of the spawn vs the base make one form of potato abuse acceptable and the other not?

Still that video was a good match to watch. Very educational. The way you effortlessly stomped the hell out of those poor ******** was impressive. Nice touch at the end with them coming in piecemeal and then with only 6 left, you guys waiting by the doors to execute them as the slast stragglers pushed in. Very compassionate. I'm sure they appreciated your self-control at not pushing their spawn. Oh and the commentary about them being so puggy as to be "choking on their own phlem"...perfect.

If it's too much of an issue, sure. Something needs to be done about it. (Which I might mention PGI did do something about it initially, which showed originally something was a little off about it's ability to happen.) Personally speaking, currently, I don't think it's been nearly as much of an issue as it once was (at least in the invasion maps). It does still happen, but there tends to be more ways to avoid it or help fight it than there once was. But if it is done and done well, it can be an aggravating situation as it can end up being a situation you can't stop once it seems to start...


As far as the situation you are talking about, I think there does have to be something said about permitting the enemy team to at least drop in safety, regroup and try to come at you with a reasonable amount of force. Unless there are only a few mechs left on the enemy team (which still becomes a bit hazy in my opinion), I feel that there should be a bit of sportsmenship to at least let the enemy orient themselves for a few moments after they drop before you try to rip them apart. Especially if you are already winning. I do understand the "show them mercy, kill them quick", but at the same time I also feel that giving them at least a reasonable chance to fight back is more fun for all.


I think this is far more of a question as to what does someone personally consider "good sportsmenship". I view it as trying to provide as much fun for yourself as well as others. An example I would have is, you have no weapons left and near the mission boundaries. I personally find it to be better sportsmenship to find and charge the enemy, letting them kill me (gaining more damage on me, more components destroyed, maybe more assists and the kill reward) rather than taking the "quick" way out of running out of bounds and suicide. I'm going to die either way, I see no reason not to at least help the enemy team a bit by letting them kill me. (Provided no alternative objective is available.)

Another example: In Conquest, I'm the last mech alive. The enemy team is winning on caps and kills (obviously) and I have no chance of winning. I go to cap a point as far from the enemy. Sure, I can't give my team the win, but I can earn everyone a little bit more C-bills by raising the resource pool by even a little bit more. Becomes a toss up between that and "ending it quickly" by finding the enemy and running myself upon their spears... Either way provides more benefit to players. One for my team (objective of the game), the other to the enemy force (whomever kills/damages me) as well as myself (any damage I caused on the way out).

In this case... It isn't so clear cut... You want to win the match, but does spawn camping benefit all players involved? Is it really a mercy, or is it more annoying/frustrating to the enemy? On this, I can see either side. Personally though, I'd rather not be spawn camped and given a chance to deal at least some damage before going out again if possible. It isn't much fun being on the receiving side of being half killed or killed before I can even turn my mech around to shoot back... (Because those Dropships always love to face me away from the enemy...) So personally, I'd rather back out and let them reform if there is enough of them, if possible. (So long as it doesn't jeopardize the win.)

[Tesunie]

Leggin Ho, on 06 August 2017 - 07:45 PM, said:

Well if they are camping in their spawn and not pushing out then yes it is their fault they are getting killed there.

The person I was talking to kept refuting that it could be possible that a spawn camp could happen to a team that does move out from their spawns. I'm not talking about teams that sit in their spawn, but teams that end up being spawn camped despite moving out.

In my above example, what if the teams managed to avoid each other and ended up on the other's side of the map? Then, one team starts to drop a few of the other side, and then camps their nearby spawn point as they re-spawn, killing a couple people an extra time for that wave (brings them closer to perma-death).

Neither team did anything "wrong" and each moved out away from their spawns. Yet, one team still manages to be spawn camped, without camping at their own spawn.


I'll agree. If a team camps at their own spawn and refuses to move out, they asked to be "spawn camped" and probably shouldn't complain if it happens. I'm just saying that there are more ways that someone can have their spawn camped by the enemy than by their refusal to move out.


I actually recall one brutal match that happened one time (it was a while ago, when FP was CW and only had two/three maps). I was on the attacking team, enemy defending the Omega. The enemy took nothing but light mechs, jumped over the gate before we could open them and killed a lot of us/all of us (I'm a little hazy on the details). They ended up camping our spawn by doing this several waves, from wave one. By the time we actually opened the gates, we had already lost at least two waves and some people where close to perma-dead or was. (This was back when I was a solo player, I will admit.) There was literally little we could do against it to prevent the spawn camping, and it was (at that time in the game) very effective. (This was on Boreal Vault.)

In my example, we did not choose to camp at our own spawn, we tried to move out, but the enemy tactics prevented us from managing to do so as they got onto us so quickly and then stayed there for some time.

[DarklightCA]

Tesunie, on 06 August 2017 - 07:32 PM, said:

So?

I guess if a spawn camp happens, it's completely the person being camps fault. There is just no other explanation apparently. That is what you are saying, right? If that is the case, lets get ride of the ridges that keep people from being able to walk into most spawns. If it's still their fault, why not also remove all weapons from the dropships.

I mean, apparently there is no chance that it could have just happened despite reasonably good game play after all. You must have fought intentionally too close to your own spawns, and it must be completely your own (teams) fault... Right?

So... Why bother trying to prevent spawn camping at all. Right?

Holy **** you are dense. I am providing people with actual ways to avoid being spawn killed, If all you see in that is me blaming people for getting spawn camped than sure. 9/10 times in my experience spawn camping results in the team being spawn camped defending too close to their spawns as stated by more than just me.

[Tesunie]

DarklightCA, on 06 August 2017 - 08:04 PM, said:

Holy **** you are dense. I am providing people with actual ways to avoid being spawn killed, If all you see in that is me blaming people for getting spawn camped than sure. 9/10 times in my experience spawn camping results in the team being spawn camped defending too close to their spawns as stated by more than just me.

So far, I've been trying to explain how it can happen, despite taking your advice of "moving away from your spawns to fight", and you've tried to shut me down denying it as a possibility.

Yes. I agree. There are ways to mitigate or even avoid being spawn camped. That doesn't mean it's going to be completely the team's fault. Sometimes, it can just happen from the flow of battle, or even from the enemy team intentionally trying to do it.

For the record:

Tesunie, on 02 August 2017 - 10:08 PM, said:

As much as I hate spawn camping, or being spawn camped... What are we suppose to do if the enemy team decides to "hide" in their spawn?

I can recall several matches where my team had to charge the enemy spawn because they wouldn't move out. Best we could do not to "spawn camp" was to kill that wave of mechs and try to back out. When the enemy team, once again, decides to spend the wave sitting in their spawn trying to "poke out"... We have to do it all over again.

Tesunie, on 04 August 2017 - 10:02 PM, said:

Not to be mean, but sometimes it's the team (as a whole, not as a single individual) who causes a spawn camp. When you refuse to leave your own spawn, you kinda force the enemy to go there to get at you... At which point, you've kinda caused the enemy to camp your spawn. (The most common occurrence of spawn camping I've seen so far.) Though, I am not denying that some teams try to spawn camp as a strategy intentionally. It just isn't the common reason I see when it happens.