Moving GV spawns

[Vinkman]

Is camping a spawn something the game developers want, or is it a bad side effect of the current spawn routine?

If the idea is to give the advantage to the defenders of a base, then spawning a small fixed area gives two or three tanks the ability to shut down a spawn. Perhaps that's what the developers and majority of players want.

If however the coad should promote fun, fair fights, then work arounds like "become a bomb tard" or "spawn somewhere else" miss the point I think, and perhaps a change to the spawn routine would improve gameplay.

I would be in favor of a spawn area the changes position and size based on the proximity and number of defenders at the spawn. If the defenders drive up to the spawn point, it shifts to another loacation, maintaining some minimum distance from the defenders. If the defenders cluster in a single point then the spawn might move to their flank or even behind them. If defenders form a line, then the attacking Spawn would be pushed back towrds it's base.  In this way defenders would be encouraged to form a defensive line that forces the attackers further from the base, but at a fun and fair proximity to the defenders to promote fun fighting. Also, the defending spawn could then be set relative to the attacking spawn. This could create a moving front that creates strategy in coordinating defensive GV position i.e. speading out near the enemy spawn to maintain the new spawn point. A loss of front integrety runs the risk of the Spawn moving back forward to the defenders flank of even behind them. 

Pyro could write this in a hour.   


Thoughts?

[SmokinLoon]

Is camping a spawn something the game developers want, or is it a bad side effect of the current spawn routine?

If the idea is to give the advantage to the defenders of a base, then spawning a small fixed area gives two or three tanks the ability to shut down a spawn. Perhaps that's what the developers and majority of players want.

If however the coad should promote fun, fair fights, then work arounds like "become a bomb tard" or "spawn somewhere else" miss the point I think, and perhaps a change to the spawn routine would improve gameplay.

I would be in favor of a spawn area the changes position and size based on the proximity and number of defenders at the spawn. If the defenders drive up to the spawn point, it shifts to another loacation, maintaining some minimum distance from the defenders. If the defenders cluster in a single point then the spawn might move to their flank or even behind them. If defenders form a line, then the attacking Spawn would be pushed back towrds it's base.  In this way defenders would be encouraged to form a defensive line that forces the attackers further from the base, but at a fun and fair proximity to the defenders to promote fun fighting. Also, the defending spawn could then be set relative to the attacking spawn. This could create a moving front that creates strategy in coordinating defensive GV position i.e. speading out near the enemy spawn to maintain the new spawn point. A loss of front integrety runs the risk of the Spawn moving back forward to the defenders flank of even behind them. 

Pyro could write this in a hour.   


Thoughts?

On most maps, the spawn in zone can be increased in size. 

[Vinkman]

On most maps, the spawn in zone can be increased in size. 

my idea is a littel different so I posted it. But iyou ar right, if they opened them way up, the camping would be much less effective. 

[AWwrgwy]

Spawns actually seem much larger than they one were. They seem to move around a bit relative to where the enemy is also.

Maybe I didn't gv so much in the past.....



wrongway

[MK-84]

Spawns actually seem much larger than they one were. They seem to move around a bit relative to where the enemy is also.

Maybe I didn't gv so much in the past.....



wrongway

That is because spawn area was increased recently

[SmokinLoon]

That is because spawn area was increased recently

Oh?  I'm going to go check the "change log" from the past few updates, I remember something about the the spawns being able to controlled/programmed for the SEA servers and the like, but I dont think the MA spawn points changed at all...   

[MK-84]

Oh?  I'm going to go check the "change log" from the past few updates, I remember something about the the spawns being able to controlled/programmed for the SEA servers and the like, but I dont think the MA spawn points changed at all...   

Actually, come to think of it, you may be right

[Skyguns MKII]

Is camping a spawn something the game developers want, or is it a bad side effect of the current spawn routine?

If the idea is to give the advantage to the defenders of a base, then spawning a small fixed area gives two or three tanks the ability to shut down a spawn. Perhaps that's what the developers and majority of players want.

If however the coad should promote fun, fair fights, then work arounds like "become a bomb tard" or "spawn somewhere else" miss the point I think, and perhaps a change to the spawn routine would improve gameplay.

I would be in favor of a spawn area the changes position and size based on the proximity and number of defenders at the spawn. If the defenders drive up to the spawn point, it shifts to another loacation, maintaining some minimum distance from the defenders. If the defenders cluster in a single point then the spawn might move to their flank or even behind them. If defenders form a line, then the attacking Spawn would be pushed back towrds it's base.  In this way defenders would be encouraged to form a defensive line that forces the attackers further from the base, but at a fun and fair proximity to the defenders to promote fun fighting. Also, the defending spawn could then be set relative to the attacking spawn. This could create a moving front that creates strategy in coordinating defensive GV position i.e. speading out near the enemy spawn to maintain the new spawn point. A loss of front integrety runs the risk of the Spawn moving back forward to the defenders flank of even behind them. 

Pyro could write this in a hour.   


Thoughts?

its an okay idea but then your squaddies and team would be spread out everywere. Its not necessarily a good thing when you have a tank spawn in area A and your wirbel AA support spawn at area B when there are IL2s and what nots in the air.

[Vinkman]

its an okay idea but then your squaddies and team would be spread out everywere. Its not necessarily a good thing when you have a tank spawn in area A and your wirbel AA support spawn at area B when there are IL2s and what nots in the air.

I would write the algorythm to make so you're not a sitting duck for the defenders, but that could easily mean attackers spawn near each other.

[Tank-Ace]

Spawn randomization hasn't changed recently. It seems to like to spit a few people out in one place, a few out in another, and it seems to cycle through those spots randomly.

[Vinkman]

Spawn randomization hasn't changed recently. It seems to like to spit a few people out in one place, a few out in another, and it seems to cycle through those spots randomly.

To test this theory, I upped 20 times at camped spawn yesterday. 15 of those times I upped in the exact same spot, with my turret always facing the same direction...away from the campers. the other 5 times were in a spot within 200 yards or so. I died 20 times, each in less than 3 seconds.

This spawn routine promotes ending fights instead of having them. Why is it set up to end fights so easily?

[Greebo]

When using the terrain editor to build a terrain you have to place each spawn point by hand. Then there is a check the TE performs to make sure every SP is in a suitable place, i.e. it does not cross water or is on too steep a slope, or is too near land in the case of a PT spawn. Any SPs that are flagged as wrongly placed have to moved or the terrain edited to suit.

The thing is, if HTC alter the default spawn area or allow several positions per spawn then each MA terrain would have to be rechecked using the TE and any now incorrectly placed SPs edited to suit. Given that there can be hundreds of spawns in some of the terrains this would be no small task.

One idea I read WRT to camping was to have a spawning GV remain invisible to other players until it did something, i.e. started its engine or moved its turret. This way it could at least get the lay of the land before it was fired upon.

[Vinkman]

When using the terrain editor to build a terrain you have to place each spawn point by hand. Then there is a check the TE performs to make sure every SP is in a suitable place, i.e. it does not cross water or is on too steep a slope, or is too near land in the case of a PT spawn. Any SPs that are flagged as wrongly placed have to moved or the terrain edited to suit.

The thing is, if HTC alter the default spawn area or allow several positions per spawn then each MA terrain would have to be rechecked using the TE and any now incorrectly placed SPs edited to suit. Given that there can be hundreds of spawns in some of the terrains this would be no small task.

One idea I read WRT to camping was to have a spawning GV remain invisible to other players until it did something, i.e. started its engine or moved its turret. This way it could at least get the lay of the land before it was fired upon.

Thanks for the info Greebo.  I didn't know that SP were pre-selected and hard coded into the map. Can't that system be scrapped, and the routine in the TE that determines 'suitability' be added to the MA as a subroutine when spawning? A seperate sub routine would pick the SP based on enemy positions, then the TE routine, now in the game program would check it for slope and trees etc. It would loop until a solution was found. Perhaps calculation of a good SP would not take too long. In this way the  new routine could be released in a patch, and the SP on all the maps wouldn't need to be re-done.

Thoughts? 

[Greebo]

Sounds good but I don't know if that idea is practical or not from a coding POV Vinkman, you'd need to check with Hitech I guess.

[Vinkman]

Sounds good but I don't know if that idea is practical or not from a coding POV Vinkman, you'd need to check with Hitech I guess.

I was hoping he reads this. lol