465 replies to this topic

[Tier5 Kerensky]

Never really thought it's bad. I often see it happening when the other team loses the ball or the other is significantly superior.

I don't really understand what else can you do but to push out and wipe them out, if the enemy is so much weaker.

[50 50]

Carl Vickers, on 06 August 2017 - 10:31 PM, said:

It would be extremely helpful for PGI to merge all DZ's into one DZ for all players on one team. Then turtles can be looked at after that.

Like Boreal Vault, Emerald Taiga and so on?
Would it really make a difference?

Pat Kell, on 07 August 2017 - 04:51 PM, said:

As I have always held, the issue isn't that spawn camping "can" happen, because as long as there are re-spawns, someone will either figure out how to spawn camp or the enemy will sit back safely in their own spawn, never coming out (if it's a safe zone).

Given the matches can rest on a knife edge, when the position is lost and there are no objectives to end the match the most efficient option is to attack the drop zones.
Should the defending team not be able to make a fight out of it and clear their drop zone, there is no feature in place for either team to resolve it in a suitable way.
The attacking team can't actually overwhelm the dropzone and prevent further drops therefore sealing the victory, and the defenders have no option to concede the loss of the dropzones and avoid the grief of being dropped one or two at a time into a useless scenario.

There are only two options.
Either the drop zones can be captured so further drops at that location are prevented.
This requires a bit of additional programming as losing a drop zone suggests that we also need to allow selection of a drop zone and probably a bunch of other things.
Or.
We do not have re-drops into the battles.
You do it once and that's it.

Bolstering the defenses around the drop zone, making them inaccessible and so on doesn't actually provide a solution suitable for both teams.

[Carl Vickers]

50 50, on 07 August 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

Like Boreal Vault, Emerald Taiga and so on?
Would it really make a difference?

PGI made mistakes there and left places were derpers could climb and use LR builds. The other reason those particular DZ's dont work too well is cause people get dropped in dribs and drabs, if a team gets up to the DZ with 5-8 mechs, they can spank a few before attrition from drop ships and mechs takes them down. By that time the damage is already done, team in the DZ is out of sync and more than likely going to lose badly.

Comes down to half assed design as much as skill issues from not being able to make a better showing on the first wave in the first place.

[Mycroft000]

Pat Kell, on 07 August 2017 - 04:51 PM, said:

Pat, the scenario I am referring to was something that happened on Boreal Vault(a very long time ago not sure exactly when), we opened the gates, and were met by KCom forces who focused fire well enough that to our 12 deaths, your guys lost 2-3, I can't remember for sure. I know it wasn't so fast that all 12 of us dropped in the same drop ships, but quick enough that your guys made it to the drop zone to start shooting people as they dropped. With more information, how should we have responded?

In that scenario where there is no coming back from the defender's outward aggressive push(valid tactic), why should the team that has 100% lost the match be forced to sit through you killing them as they fall instead of you reaching their spawn where they are landing as a full 12 man 2nd wave with a Union Class drop ship, a drop ship that has armor and structure that you can destroy, and if you do destroy it, it shuts down their 3rd and 4th waves, and you win? It presents you with an opportunity to win the match decisively without forcing the losing team to sit through the un-fun process of being farmed with no opportunity of any kind to mount even the inkling of a comeback. If the spawn camping is going to happen, make it a built in mechanic of the game that ends the match, not a situation where people who are trying to enjoy a game they want to participate in end up in a position where there is literally nothing to be done but sit and wait. I don't think it's fair for the timid teams to hide in their drop zone without you having a way to end the match, just like I don't think it's fair for the incredibly aggressive teams to force the losers to wait helplessly while you end the match in an way that is both excruciatingly slow and fast at the same time.

I still am not sure most of the proponents of spawn camping realize just how bad of a game design mechanic the current spawn system is. I have seen 50 50's suggestion to do away with spawns and make it a campaign where you have successive matches in a 12v12 setting. I think that's as good of a solution as the numerous ideas that have been presented in this thread, all of which are either ignored, or shot down because everyone seems to claim that it wouldn't change anything at all and spawn campers would just find a better way to do it.

Your comments on padding stats have literally zero to do with any discussion I am pursuing here. I'm talking about game design. I'm not talking about the deeper tactics and game play strategies that more advanced players should always keep at the forefront of their minds. That's a discussion for elsewhere.

Poorly designed respawn mechanics are not the responsibility of the losing players in a match, those players end up being soured on a game mode that they may have found more interest in if they lost the match in a way that actually makes sense from a gameplay perspective. Bad game design leads to people not continuing to play the game and I know your viewpoint on that, I think you are wrong. If I hadn't found a group to play with, and been so interested in the lore this game is based on I wouldn't be here now. I wouldn't have had the newly formed unit that I'm in be in 66th place on the loyalist leaderboards with only 4-8 of us being in faction play regularly(which all progress has pretty much come to a complete halt while people are focused on the Civil War leaderboard event).

I don't think anyone in this discussion can even come close to saying that FP is a fully fleshed out solid game mode, even PGI didn't consider it out of Beta until a little over a year ago, and their concept of the completed product was such a massive flop that they almost completely retooled FP 7 months later.

So I ask again, with all of that taken into account, why should new players suffer through matches that are not fun for you, or for them? Pat, I know I'm not going to convince you.



Carl, have I ever said it's the games fault if people don't want to improve? No, I do say it is the games fault for allowing a mechanic that leads to a situation where the win isn't fun for the winners, and the loss isn't fun for the losers. And did I say that all good games come down to a close 46-48 outcome? No, I told some of this story back one page, but one of my absolute most fun matches ever was within the last two weeks. It was against a fairly sizable IS team who dropped lights and mediums for their first wave defending on Grim Portico, as the attackers in mostly heavies and assaults, and we spent 20 minutes trading taunts and insults with each other along with medium to long range poking and trading. I was trying to taunt them into coming out of the gates to hunt us down like the cowards we were being, and they were trying to taunt us into a rash push where they could have easily swarmed us and kept us from having any kind of a successful 1st wave. I had my team spend those 20 minutes slowly losing trades until most of us were in fresh mechs. At 8 minute remaining, we pushed in and took the match from 5-14 to somewhere around 22-27 with most of the objective complete. We still lost, but it was an incredibly fun match. I friend requested everyone I could on the enemy team before the auto timeout of the results screen happened, and I think almost all of them accepted the request. In writing this I just messaged one of them and asked what their side of the match was like and here's part of the conversation:

Me:You were in the match we had a week or so ago on Grim Portico against the Clan team who stayed outside for most of the match?
Him: ohh yeah, I do remember that match
Me: Would you consider that a fun match?
Him: mmm it wasn't the worst I have had, it was disappointing they didn't want to fight though
Me: I was the one who called for the delaying tactic
Me: I was having an absolute blast trading insults and trying to taunt your guys into coming out of the gate before we pushed in
Him: As I recall it was pretty effective, there was the one guy who was raging hah

I then went on to explain why I was asking about it, but I think the fact that both sides enjoyed the match, combined with the fact that it was a memorable enough of a match that it didn't just blend in with every other match they played in the last few weeks, to some extent bolsters my argument that fun can be had on both sides of a good match.

And I do think that abusing a poorly designed game mechanic detracts from the fun on both sides, and like it or not, spawn camping while people are waiting to drop is an abuse of a poorly designed game mechanic.

I've said many times in this thread now that I do think there is a huge difference between pushing to someone's drop zone when they are on the attack and refusing to push in, then I do find it acceptable to push out to them(if you're willing to risk them sending people into your base to hit the objectives) and kill them in their drop zone. The difference is that they have a chance to participate in the game. I know they're likely still going to lose, but at least then they're losing because of poorly planned tactics, loadouts, or simply their own skill as a pilot. They aren't losing because they are in a position where they are simply unable to react or even fire a single shot before they are already dead.

[Mycroft000]

Wow, that ended up being much longer than I realized.

Also 50 50 is right, merged drop zones won't help as long as the drop ships come back with individuals instead of full lances. And even then, if all 4 dropped together(or all surviving lance members) it only makes a slight difference as long as they are able to take damage before they are able to shoot back.

And Carl, if you can acknowledge that PGIs design efforts are lacking can you also acknowledge that the abuse of the poorly designed drop mechanic at least contributes to some of the low population issues FP runs into?

[Carl Vickers]

That particular comment wasnt directed at you Mycroft, it was a generalization.

The drop mechanic has always been exploitable, right from day 1 of CW/FP.

It does contribute a little to the lack of population but lack of skill, bad builds, lack of knowledge, anti-socials, solo rambo's, lurmnards all do a lot more to contribute to the population issue. Just to add, those listed above get spanked, whine about it and then dont come back, except for events where they repeat their mistakes. Definition of insanity is?

Even if you had the perfect setup where DZ's couldnt be farmed in anyway, shape or form and the team dropping had to come out, the lower skilled teams of antisocial pugs with all the stuff described a couple of lines up are still going to get annihilated by the likes of KCom just because KCom coordinate.

This is the way it works and always has worked. If you think PGI is going to spend major time re-doing it, I have a bridge I want to sell to you, only 1 owner, lots of users.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 07 August 2017 - 07:40 PM.

[Mycroft000]

You're right, they would still lose. I'm not arguing that.

I also don't think that PGI is willing or capable of changing things in a sensible way.

That's why I argue for the cessation of shooting pugs as they fall from the drop ship. If units want to use that tactic against each other, go for it, they're on a level playing field. But when we're wanting to have a booming population in FP, why should we expect that the use of tactics that has the potential to drive away new blood would be beneficial to the game we want to grow?

I know that there are those who can't be swayed, but for those who can, why shouldn't we as a community band together and agree to rules of engagement that lead to more engaging fun gameplay instead of continuing to abuse a poorly designed system?

Edit: Grammar

Edited by Mycroft000, 07 August 2017 - 07:59 PM.

[Jaroth Corbett]

Mycroft000, on 07 August 2017 - 01:29 PM, said:

Yes, you did say a base established after landing, that is correct. What is a good lore reason for 1-12 mechs sitting around waiting for a drop ship to fly over, and drop off a single mech into the middle of them, while only firing a few large lasers at the waiting hostiles?


Edit:


To expand on my request for lore reasons, if you want to use the Jade Phoenix series as a guide for lore reasons, I'll reference the escape from Tukayyid where the attacking force, The Falcon Guard, was retreating, being driven back to their drop ship by the defenders, and the drop ship didn't sit there and continue to dump mechs into combat, they closed their doors and departed with their remaining surviving forces.

OK I think you are getting confused.

1. I was making the point that it is allowed. That is all. Safcon only protects the attackers from being engaged during planetfall. Once they are set up however, Whatever forces & equipment that are bid in the fight can be attacked. What is spawn killing? It is part of a battle tactic that prevents the enemy from bringing reinforcements to the battlefield, because as they are deployed, they take fire & are either destroyed or so badly damaged, that they are rendered useless for the fight. To use The Jade Phoenix Trilogy & specifically the novel I named, Bloodname as an example, the Wolves deployed their fighters to destroy a Dropship carrying Jade Falcon troops to the battlefield. A full Trinary was taken out of the fight, before they even got in it

Not sure what this does in the grand scheme of things because PGI has tossed out lore so.....................

In any event the fact remains that it is in the enemy's best interest to wipe out your reinforcements before they can be deployed & turn the tide of the battle. Also there ARE troops that are designed to be deployed in certain situations say for example to clear a LZ that is overrun.

2. You contradicted yourself there. Of course the dropship did not sit there dumping mechs out because they were ordered to withdraw. ALL forces were ordered back onto the dropships & the dropship pilots were told where to go to pick up whichever Clusters were still engaged.

As I mentioned I can call at least three games where spawn camping occurs so you can say they ALL have poor game design but I doubt it.

Edited by Jaroth Corbett, 07 August 2017 - 08:08 PM.

[Carl Vickers]

Mycroft000, on 07 August 2017 - 07:58 PM, said:

You're right, they would still lose. I'm not arguing that.

I also don't think that PGI is willing or capable of changing things in a sensible way.

That's why I argue for the cessation of shooting pugs as they fall from the drop ship. If units want to use that tactic against each other, go for it, they're on a level playing field. But when we're wanting to have a booming population in FP, why should we expect that the use of tactics that has the potential to drive away new blood would be beneficial to the game we want to grow?

I know that there are those who can't be swayed, but for those who can, why shouldn't we as a community band together and agree to rules of engagement that lead to more engaging fun gameplay instead of continuing to abuse a poorly designed system?

Edit: Grammar

As much as Id like to agree with your idea, it wont work, you would need every unit to agree and I dont think most will. People want to win.

The only way I think you could possibly stop it is reduced/no rewards from shooting mechs in the DZ but that requires PGI to do something which im not sure they will.

Edited by Carl Vickers, 07 August 2017 - 08:33 PM.

[Tesunie]

Carl Vickers, on 07 August 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

As much as Id like to agree with your idea, it wont work, you would need every unit to agree and I dont think most will. People want to win.

The only way I think you could possibly stop it is reduced/no rewards from shooting mechs in the DZ but that requires PGI to do something which im not sure they will.

Edit: to stop people abusing the reduced/no rewards, once they leave the DZ area, if they go back in to hide/shoot, full rewards are given., better yet, you get 15 seconds to leave the DZ else people get full rewards for shooting you.

Just poking my nose in here, possible where it doesn't belong, but you each make excellent points.

I think Mycroft is onto something reasonable about the ability of being shot not only while in the dropship (unable to do anything), but also being able to be shot while you are actually dropping (unable to do anything).

Now, I'm going to already hate my own proposition here but, what if mechs where completely immune to damage till they finished dropping onto the ground and was under the players control? Could this be a prospect that could at least ease spawn camping, while also not encouraging players to camp their own spawns? It would grant players at least a few moments to orient themselves and turn to face the enemy, compared to currently dropping down with a mech with either a leg missing or half the mech gone from a back attack. (I know you can hit the mechs inside the dropship, and damage leg components.)

The moment of "invulnerability" would be brief enough to not let it be an asset to sitting in your own spawn, while permitting people to actually officially spawn before they can be shot to death.


I mentioned I would hate the concept as I suggested it, but it would address many issues presented here. I hate it because it kinda goes against that "simulator" feel the game tries to project, but it could possibly be a possible solution. It also involves no actual rework of anything, as far as maps and serious game mechanics.

(To make sure I'm clear, I'm only talking about being invulnerable during the time you are actually dropping and unable to control your mech. As soon as you can control it (the feet hit the ground), it turns off and you can be killed.)

[Carl Vickers]

While your idea has some merit, I can see after it is implemented the next complaint will be, 'Im getting shot as soon as invulnerability ends and I cant do anything about it'. Basically we are in the same place as before the change was made.

Thats why I suggested lower/no rewards for shooting mechs in the DZ.

[Tesunie]

Carl Vickers, on 07 August 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

While your idea has some merit, I can see after it is implemented the next complaint will be, 'Im getting shot as soon as invulnerability ends and I cant do anything about it'. Basically we are in the same place as before the change was made.

Thats why I suggested lower/no rewards for shooting mechs in the DZ.

I feel it would let me at least get onto the ground, giving me a more likely chance to at least get my guns facing the right direction and my armor getting between me and enemy shots. Right now, I literally can (and have) dropped down and before I could even start to move my mech already be down half the mech (because I always seem to be the one to drop down backwards for some reason).

I mean, if people want to complain that they are taking damage while they have control of their mech... I'm sorry. Only so much can be done. I in no way want a mech to be able to damage another one while it is invulnerable. I've seen that as a possibility in other games... and it sucks as much being killed by a target you can't even hurt as it does being killed while you can't respond to your aggressors.

For the record, I agree with you. People probably would complain that they die after the immunity is lifted... There is always someone who seems to complain about something...


I'm against your current suggestion of no rewards. Even if it's reduced... I could see such a mechanic being used against the enemy. It could probably be as abused as the old "disconnect from match just before someone kills me, and they don't get the kill reward and it doesn't count as a death" mechanic we once had long ago in this game. (Don't know if you recall or know about that trick.)

[Carl Vickers]

The only way I can see it being abused is people peeking and poking from their DZ, simple timer should fix that.

Other than that, the only real way you could potentially fix it is to only drop waves of 12, big disadvantage for defenders and QP modes imho.

[Tesunie]

Carl Vickers, on 07 August 2017 - 09:19 PM, said:

The only way I can see it being abused is people peeking and poking from their DZ, simple timer should fix that.

Other than that, the only real way you could potentially fix it is to only drop waves of 12, big disadvantage for defenders and QP modes imho.

If it's on a timer, it might be manageable. If it isn't, people will sit at their spawn to negate the enemy's match earnings. (You know people would do it if possible...)


Dropping in full wave of 12 would/could be very detrimental, and may actually create more spawn zone attacks than we currently have (which I have to say I found it to be a rarity, but common enough to recall when it happens). It also would be bad in modes that run like Conquest, Assault, Escort... Basically any game mode that isn't Skirmish. I could also see people abusing this on their team by being the last mech alive, finding a corner, and hiding shut down, thus preventing their team from re-spawning again. (You know people would do it.)

Maybe re-spawn as full lances? Once 4 members are down, they will re-spawn together? Probably at the drop location of the first death waiting to spawn. I still see potential for problems with this though...


More than likely, anything that is created to make spawn camping more difficult may very well either increase it for a solid defense, or be abused in some manner to hinder another player's gaming experience negatively. Anything that would be seriously implemented as a change should get a lengthy thought process on it and actual attempts to use it in ways not intended. Even then, it may not catch some of the nefarious ways a game mechanic can be used...

[Leggin Ho]

Mycroft000, on 07 August 2017 - 11:00 AM, said:

I have seen an endless stream of good ideas, both from those who think spawn camping is fine, and those who don't.

If you want to allow spawn camping, find a Lore related reason to allow it, and then you take any argument I have and trump it by saying, "Hey, it's Battletech, it's valid". That's why I am a proponent of Union Class drop ships that can be destroyed.

If the attacker is too timid to get out of their drop ship and allows the defender to destroy their drop ship, then that is a valid enough reason to lose to me as to negate any issues I have with spawn camping.

If I'm on defense and die to spawn campers, I get irritated because as I see it, if they're spawn killing as attackers, then they have achieved a strong enough position as to complete the objective and win. I would rather lose the whole match while waiting to drop than simply be farmed for extra damage and kills as I fall and am completely unable to shoot back until I hit the ground(an extremely bad mechanic).

If I'm on attack and have not done a successful enough job on my attack that the defenders have pushed back to my drop zone, I would rather lose for a lore/strategic reason of losing my dropship than again being killed before my feet hit the ground and I can begin shooting.

TLDR: Give me Lore related reasons for spawn killing and I will 100% back off of my desire to see the tactic ended. I would probably still think from a gaming community stance it's not good for bringing in new people, but any injection of lore into Faction Play would hopefully negate any negative effects.

Show me anywhere in the "Lore" were after a mech is blown apart the pilots drops in a new shiny one and I'm sure we could find one.

[Tesunie]

Leggin Ho, on 07 August 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

Show me anywhere in the "Lore" were after a mech is blown apart the pilots drops in a new shiny one and I'm sure we could find one.

I think we have to suspend some disbelief for an enjoyable game, with some "not realistically practical" mechanics to make it work.

However, I think it would be more like sending in another wave of pilots and mechs, rather than the same pilot in a new mech, if you want it relating to lore. Kinda like calling in reinforcements to achieve the objective. (A bit based on "perspective" here.)

[Leggin Ho]

He asked for a lore based reason for spawn camping, so I'd like a lore based example of a respawn in lore, I know there's not one but hey let's see.

I'm also a Paratrooper and I'm sure when I jump into combat the guys on the ground will wait till I hit the ground and get out of my chute before they shoot at me too right??

[Mycroft000]

Jaroth Corbett, on 07 August 2017 - 08:07 PM, said:

OK I think you are getting confused.

1. I was making the point that it is allowed. That is all. Safcon only protects the attackers from being engaged during planetfall. Once they are set up however, Whatever forces & equipment that are bid in the fight can be attacked. What is spawn killing? It is part of a battle tactic that prevents the enemy from bringing reinforcements to the battlefield, because as they are deployed, they take fire & are either destroyed or so badly damaged, that they are rendered useless for the fight. To use The Jade Phoenix Trilogy & specifically the novel I named, Bloodname as an example, the Wolves deployed their fighters to destroy a Dropship carrying Jade Falcon troops to the battlefield. A full Trinary was taken out of the fight, before they even got in it

Not sure what this does in the grand scheme of things because PGI has tossed out lore so.....................

In any event the fact remains that it is in the enemy's best interest to wipe out your reinforcements before they can be deployed & turn the tide of the battle. Also there ARE troops that are designed to be deployed in certain situations say for example to clear a LZ that is overrun.

2. You contradicted yourself there. Of course the dropship did not sit there dumping mechs out because they were ordered to withdraw. ALL forces were ordered back onto the dropships & the dropship pilots were told where to go to pick up whichever Clusters were still engaged.

As I mentioned I can call at least three games where spawn camping occurs so you can say they ALL have poor game design but I doubt it.

1. I've suggested destructible drop ships many times so far, I fail to see how the drop ships should be immune to damage but the mechs waiting to drop can be killed before they have any level of autonomy.

2. I intended the question to be a bit absurd in that situations where spawn camping of an entire team is taking place should cause the team being camped to automatically lose the match. There is no reason to subject 24 players to a waiting game of drop ships flying individuals in to be killed before they touch the ground.

And I do stand by my belief that any game that has spawn camping as a viable mechanic is using poor/lazy game design and has room for improvement and increased depth through further development. I referenced Richard Garfield's book because there should be a tattered and well read copy on every game developer's shelf.

Carl Vickers, on 07 August 2017 - 08:11 PM, said:

As much as Id like to agree with your idea, it wont work, you would need every unit to agree and I dont think most will. People want to win.

The only way I think you could possibly stop it is reduced/no rewards from shooting mechs in the DZ but that requires PGI to do something which im not sure they will.

I know I'm tilting at windmills here. I'm not sure reducing rewards would fix the issue either, but at least it could be tested for viability.

Tesunie, on 07 August 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

I think Mycroft is onto something reasonable about the ability of being shot not only while in the dropship (unable to do anything), but also being able to be shot while you are actually dropping (unable to do anything).

Now, I'm going to already hate my own proposition here but, what if mechs where completely immune to damage till they finished dropping onto the ground and was under the players control? Could this be a prospect that could at least ease spawn camping, while also not encouraging players to camp their own spawns? It would grant players at least a few moments to orient themselves and turn to face the enemy, compared to currently dropping down with a mech with either a leg missing or half the mech gone from a back attack. (I know you can hit the mechs inside the dropship, and damage leg components.)

The moment of "invulnerability" would be brief enough to not let it be an asset to sitting in your own spawn, while permitting people to actually officially spawn before they can be shot to death.

I mentioned I would hate the concept as I suggested it, but it would address many issues presented here. I hate it because it kinda goes against that "simulator" feel the game tries to project, but it could possibly be a possible solution. It also involves no actual rework of anything, as far as maps and serious game mechanics.

(To make sure I'm clear, I'm only talking about being invulnerable during the time you are actually dropping and unable to control your mech. As soon as you can control it (the feet hit the ground), it turns off and you can be killed.)

This is the most reasonable idea I've seen so far that at least puts the player in control of their mech before they instantly die. It would also have the side effect of completely eliminating the issue of having your legs damaged by your own drop ship.

Carl Vickers, on 07 August 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

I have a rewards based idea that could be used in combination with the brief moment of invulnerability to great effect at reducing spawn camping.

Use a "proximity to Omega" modifier for all c-bills earned in a match, for both sides. Inside the gates defenders get bonus rewards for staying in proximity to their base, outside the gates as defenders get closer to the attackers drop zones they have an increasing falloff in rewards down to 0 rewards for killing an enemy in their drop zone.

Conversely, attackers get 0 rewards for firing from their drop zone, and get an increasing amount of rewards as they get closer to the objective.

Obviously this would only work in Siege mode matches, but I'm sure that the idea could be tested and explored on the QP maps and modes and find a viable modifier that would lead to most combat taking place away from drop zones.

Tesunie, on 07 August 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

Dropping in full company waves really would only work if we also had capture-able drop zones that must be occupied in order to be held. It would allow the 12 dropping together to have a reasonable advantage at their drop zone, but not an overwhelming advantage since they would already be on the losing side.

Leggin Ho, on 07 August 2017 - 09:35 PM, said:

Show me anywhere in the "Lore" were after a mech is blown apart the pilots drops in a new shiny one and I'm sure we could find one.

Tesunie covered this one for me fairly well.





Now I have had a bit of a Eureka moment while writing up this post.

Marquis, you suggested something involving an Inverse Longtom effect. If that were combined with drop pods that I've suggested, it could lead to a fairly effective incentive for defenders to stay near the objective.

If this were to also be combined with the idea of lower rewards as you get further away from objectives, then it would have the potential to almost completely eliminate spawn camping in all but the most egregious cases of people hiding from the enemy team.

[Mycroft000]

Leggin Ho, on 07 August 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

He asked for a lore based reason for spawn camping, so I'd like a lore based example of a respawn in lore, I know there's not one but hey let's see.

I'm also a Paratrooper and I'm sure when I jump into combat the guys on the ground will wait till I hit the ground and get out of my chute before they shoot at me too right??

Would I be correct to assume you're issued a paralytic drug that wears off the instant you hit the ground?

[Leggin Ho]

Nope of course when you perform a combat drop your rifle is in a weapons case so it's not like your shooting down as you fall.