Spawnpoint Defenses in Cap & Hold

onenonlydrock

In short they are way too weak.

And spawncamping is on the rise. I can even name a fleet or two who consistently do it (but due to forum rule I can't mention names).

The turrets at the spawnpoint aren't enough to discourage a concerted spawnpoint suppression effort. And lets face it, nobody likes getting whacked at the spawn without much of a chance to fight back. Games are much better without such underhanded tactics.

So what can and should be done about it? I think the best way to go about it is to beef up the spawnpoint defenses, if not more numerous then at least make them more effective.

p2wsucks

onenonlydrock wrote: »

In short they are way too weak.

And spawncamping is on the rise. I can even name a fleet or two who consistently do it (but due to forum rule I can't mention names).

The turrets at the spawnpoint aren't enough to discourage a concerted spawnpoint suppression effort. And lets face it, nobody likes getting whacked at the spawn without much of a chance to fight back. Games are much better without such underhanded tactics.

So what can and should be done about it? I think the best way to go about it is to beef up the spawnpoint defenses, if not more numerous then at least make them more effective.

They can fix glitches/bugs that mess up stats on respawn. They can make the "respawn" animation a warp in w/power levels set correctly. The defenses on this map should be weak. It's not a base defense it's 2 sides going after contested resources. W/o the bugs et al it would be a legitimate team tactic to suppress reinforcement from entering the encounter. This and Kerrat are the maps where camping makes sense imo.

Edit: to add a couple of y.

magniacapra

Don't those last two sentences contradict each other?

p2wsucks

magniacapra wrote: »

Don't those last two sentences contradict each other?

Not at all. Fixing bugs isn't the same as asking for immunity or better defenses on respawn.

onenonlydrock

Then to argue p2w's point, if the point is to go after contested resources then any and all combat should center around said contested resources, not the spawnpoint. By making spawnpoints harder or even impossible to attack you then keep the combat where it belongs, at those contested points.

You could say that suppressing a spawnpoint helps you bottle up the other team so you can access said contested resources, but that's just as effectively one by actually surrounding their spawnpoint, not directly going into it.

Spawncamp suppression has gotten to the point where not only can you easily do it, but the person who spawns does not have sufficient time or power to set up an effective defense.

As for Ker'rat, I say it doesn't need to change. There's already multiple spawnpoints, which helps limit the other team's ability to camp.

Hmmm... maybe if multiple spawnpoints were introduced that would solve the problem.

p2wsucks

onenonlydrock wrote: »

Then to argue p2w's point, if the point is to go after contested resources then any and all combat should center around said contested resources, not the spawnpoint. By making spawnpoints harder or even impossible to attack you then keep the combat where it belongs, at those contested points.

You could say that suppressing a spawnpoint helps you bottle up the other team so you can access said contested resources, but that's just as effectively one by actually surrounding their spawnpoint, not directly going into it.

Spawncamp suppression has gotten to the point where not only can you easily do it, but the person who spawns does not have sufficient time or power to set up an effective defense.

As for Ker'rat, I say it doesn't need to change. There's already multiple spawnpoints, which helps limit the other team's ability to camp.

Hmmm... maybe if multiple spawnpoints were introduced that would solve the problem.

Sorry I don't follow the logic of fighting at the resources. I'd blockade where the blockade would be most effective, and not spread my forces thin needlessly.

timezarg

onenonlydrock wrote: »

Then to argue p2w's point, if the point is to go after contested resources then any and all combat should center around said contested resources, not the spawnpoint. By making spawnpoints harder or even impossible to attack you then keep the combat where it belongs, at those contested points.

You could say that suppressing a spawnpoint helps you bottle up the other team so you can access said contested resources, but that's just as effectively one by actually surrounding their spawnpoint, not directly going into it.

Spawncamp suppression has gotten to the point where not only can you easily do it, but the person who spawns does not have sufficient time or power to set up an effective defense.

As for Ker'rat, I say it doesn't need to change. There's already multiple spawnpoints, which helps limit the other team's ability to camp.

Hmmm... maybe if multiple spawnpoints were introduced that would solve the problem.

Regarding Ker'rat: The Multiple spawnpoints addition hasn't been quite. . .finished. People are still spawning a lot on the traditional Federation spawnpoint. But yes, multiple spawnpoints pretty much make spawncamping far less effective. What would be even better is if you could designate a spawnpoint, in the event one starts being camped.

saxfire

Why do you guys keep making new posts about this same issue? Can't you check older posts and put your posts there? What if I made this exact reply as a new thread huh?

You get spawncamped because your team doesnt have power to fight the enemy, so they come shoot something on your spawn.

maltinpolar

saxfire wrote: »

You get spawncamped because your team doesnt have power to fight the enemy, so they come shoot something on your spawn.

Please explain the logic in that statement. Honest, no trolling.

If you're getting spawncamped, hence killed before you can even get your power levels up, how are you supposed to have the "power to fight the enemy"? The camping team is giving the other team no chance to put up a decent defense, which is basically the whole point of spawncamping: kick your opponent while they're down so they won't stand a chance. Very unsportsmanlike.

OTOH, though, it is a war game after all, and there's nothing sportsmanlike about war.

"Attack your enemy where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected." - Sun Tzu, 'The Art of War'

Cheers.

jackabat

maltinpolar wrote:

Please explain the logic in that statement. Honest, no trolling.

A lot of times spawncamps happen in cap&hold because the opposite team is absolutely routed. I don't usually see them happen until the other team is already winning the snot out of the game.

I haven't played cap&hold in forever, or much pvp at all really, so maybe tactics have changed. I also play kdf, which cares a lot less about someone trying to camp spawn, so there's that, in all fairness. >_>

maicake716

Isn't this like the third or fourth threat about this?

verline1

the spawn defenses are weak enough that one ship can take them out, I've seen it being done, ran the guy off repeatedly that was doing it.

but essentially one guy can clear the spawn defense, then the team can move in, pop people as they spawn, and it only takes one person to cap, same way it only takes a guy flying through, not even staying, to start the decap process, and takes someone staying 5 times as long as the fly through to stabilize the cap again.

There are more flaws to the current cap and hold set up then the spawn points, and while enemy suppression is a valid tactic, it should honestly be harder to set up. One ship should not be able to wander up to the base turrets and ignore them as he kills them. What's the point of them then.

It really should take a concentrated effort, and continued effort to suppress, since it only takes one guy free from the suppressing team to cap. Not a shooting fish in a barrel for the whole rest of the match sort of effort.

doffingcomrade

Yes, but here's the thing: If the other team can kill your entire team and then camp them repeatedly at spawn, you have already lost. Badly. Otherwise, your entire team would not be dead and respawning. The fact that you are getting spawncamped this hard is baiscally an indication that you have lost. Bid them GG, stop respawning, and let it end so you can all move on to the next match.

verline1

doffingcomrade wrote: »

Yes, but here's the thing: If the other team can kill your entire team and then camp them repeatedly at spawn, you have already lost. Badly. Otherwise, your entire team would not be dead and respawning. The fact that you are getting spawncamped this hard is baiscally an indication that you have lost. Bid them GG, stop respawning, and let it end so you can all move on to the next match.

its not that cut and dry actually, normally yes you were already loosing. however you might not have been loosing, it doesn't take the full team too start the camp, in fact they could run you around for a bit while 1-2 kill turrets, then start killing people once the turrets are gone, two people at the spawn to start can keep a single person from getting out, then as the other teams numbers start to drop, the camping team just moves players to the spawn till all but one members there, then once fully capped they all just sit there. you quickly go form a fairly even situation to a total loss.

Just because it happens often when a team is getting badly beaten, does not exclude that its happening outside of that, and it is. Nor does it change that it is way to easy to do.

naevius

I've never understood why the game can't spawn you at full strength. Makes no sense.

doffingcomrade

verline1 wrote: »

its not that cut and dry actually, normally yes you were already loosing. however you might not have been loosing, it doesn't take the full team too start the camp, in fact they could run you around for a bit while 1-2 kill turrets, then start killing people once the turrets are gone, two people at the spawn to start can keep a single person from getting out, then as the other teams numbers start to drop, the camping team just moves players to the spawn till all but one members there, then once fully capped they all just sit there. you quickly go form a fairly even situation to a total loss.

The fact that you lost proves you were losing all along. QED. It just took you that long to realize it. The reason it is them suppressing you and not you suppressing them is because YOU LOST. Just accept your defeat with some dignity, and don't be a ragequitter. You don't get paid if you ragequit. Read a magazine. Wait for it to be over. I know you'd like to THINK you actually had a chance, but you didn't. Getting a spawncamped is just a mercykill, it keeps what is already a failed exercise from being dragged out by naive people believing in "hope".

naevius wrote: »

I've never understood why the game can't spawn you at full strength. Makes no sense.

It does, but it tends to take a bit to get your ship moving again, during which you are a sitting duck.

ebeneezergoode

With the queues, if it gets to your spawn, as others have mentioned, it's unlikely in the extreme that the fight was going to be difficult for those who put you there. And since C&H needs the digits to drop rather than the enemy to 'splode enough times, it's quicker to just gun down the base defenses and massacre them while everyone waits.

At the end of the day, a team that can't put up enough of a fight to prevent that's little better than NPCs, and not what people queue for. It's not fun for the other side either, we're back to the term "mercy killing" I think.

logicalspock

doffingcomrade wrote: »

The fact that you lost proves you were losing all along. QED. It just took you that long to realize it. The reason it is them suppressing you and not you suppressing them is because YOU LOST. Just accept your defeat with some dignity, and don't be a ragequitter. You don't get paid if you ragequit. Read a magazine. Wait for it to be over. I know you'd like to THINK you actually had a chance, but you didn't. Getting a spawncamped is just a mercykill, it keeps what is already a failed exercise from being dragged out by naive people believing in "hope".

It does, but it tends to take a bit to get your ship moving again, during which you are a sitting duck.

That is unutre. I can load up a T'varo or B'rel with mines, destroy the turrets in about two minutes, then continuously spawn the spawn with mines without even decloaking. Now, under normal circumstances, I would never do this, because it is unsporting. However, I have tried it several times when I first started doing capture and hold (because the mechanisms of winning eluded me) and it is easily possible. I have done it even when my team has lost and kept three or four ships at the spawn point busy trying to track me down and destroy me, almost always without success.

At the same time, people will often use the turrets as a place of retreat or to protect afkers.

I think the best solution is not something specific to capture or hold but gamewide.

When you spawn, regardless of where you are, so long as you do not move more than 10 km, you should have a 100% invincibility and 100% feedback of all damage for 15 seconds. This will discourage camping spawnpoints anywhere in the game and would be difficult to abuse. It would give you sufficient time to get your power level up and plan your escape from the spawn area.