Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer

Eric please stop spawnpoint camping

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Galactic Starfighter
Eric please stop spawnpoint camping

Stellarcrusade's Avatar

01.23.2018 , 01:32 PM | #21
Quote: Originally Posted by HeatRacer View Post
Here's an alternative to the cap ship turrets: make them only fire shield-draining ion blasts, so that approaching ships aren't killed outright, but get handicapped with drained shields. It'd act as both deterrent and challenge, to keep things interesting.
This is a good idea also, but I'd say it drains shields and engines, maybe even a temporary interdiction type effect. So they cannot just fly in, camp/snipe, and run easily. It should be something that prevents even the most skilled players from going too far.

I'm of the same mindset some have here, when I'm on the OP team I will not spawn camp. My team will stay back and let the 1-2 wimps that are camping at least be victim to the possibility of the new spawns grouping on them. Occasionally I may catch myself near a spawn if I'm chasing someone down, but after I kill the guy I'll turn around without engaging others. Unfortunately there are too many wimps out there so self-policing is not working.

LordFell's Avatar

01.23.2018 , 02:12 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by Stellarcrusade View Post
Explain why you dislike it, only losing team gets the shield and the point is to force wimps to stay back a ways from spawns, and it cannot be entered so fleeing ships cannot use them to recover. Are you afraid losing team players will sit in there until the team votes them out? Like going idle in there instead of doing it in the ship-selection screen? Not much difference I think.

I'm not married to any idea, just providing viable possible solutions to work from. Many of the ideas would work, some better than others.
I'm surprised this isn't obvious...?

Player A can attack player B, but player B can't attack back... describing what you're proposing should make it obvious why I can't get on board with this..? Doesn't it?

Ramalina's Avatar

01.23.2018 , 02:22 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by HeatRacer View Post
It's about surviving long enough to actually do something without running into a minefield/railgun fire immediately upon spawn.
It's a nice idea, until you look at the fundamental cause of spawn camping.

That being that the, "target drone," team consists mostly or entirely of players so bad at defensive flying that their average expected survival time when entering a combat zone is measured in not very many seconds.

As long as that condition, which is the necessary prerequisite for camping to occur, is true an initial start doesn't really do any good. A ship with a pilot that vulnerable is not going to survive long enough to actually do something without running into fiery death no matter what sort of head start you give them. They got one at the start of the match after all, and it didn't do them any good. They'll still get promptly massacred when in range of the enemy, wherever on the map that happens.

This is also why the possessors of good defensive flying skills aren't much fussed about this. You have to pick the right ship, and pick the right spawn point, but if you do those things you can either make it to the main portion of the map, or even use the spawn ship for cover and make a fight of it right there.

It's very curable with skill, but not very curable with game mechanic changes unless talking tutorial improvements. The mechanical tools to counter camping already exist, the problem is that the people being camped don't know how to use them. When they learn, they won't get camped anymore (unless they choose to).

Q: "Ok, but my team is getting camped, they don't take instruction well, and losing all the time sucks. What should I do?"

A: Hop on the GSF Discord and ask for help. Aces generally relish the idea of riding in to save the day, so it's often very effective.
"A padawan's master sets their Jedi trial, Rajivari set mine."
- Zhe Lian, Sage.


DakhathKilrathi's Avatar

01.24.2018 , 09:14 AM | #24
I don't think Eric is good enough at GSF to camp spawn points.

But if he is, he should definitely do it.

FlavivsAetivs's Avatar

01.24.2018 , 06:37 PM | #25
Yeah I'm with Ramalina on this. The real solution is to focus on the Tutorial. Make it more clear (like a big *** button that says Tutorial) and totally overhaul it.
A.K.A. Magister Militum Flavius Aetius
Eudoxia Eudoxya
Jedi Covenant

phalczen's Avatar

01.24.2018 , 07:16 PM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by DakhathKilrathi View Post
I don't think Eric is good enough at GSF to camp spawn points.

But if he is, he should definitely do it.
While this reply is tongue-in-cheek, the title of the thread clearly shows how little the OP actually knows about GSF development, and Eric Musco's job in particular. And I don't say that to belittle the OP, but rather to point out that Eric Musco can do nothing to prevent, stop, or disincentivize the behavior the OP is trying to alter.

Quote: Originally Posted by HeatRacer View Post
Maybe you want the "agony to be over", but maybe other people need the flight time/experience, which they aren't getting if they're being pelted before even getting their bearings coming out of hyperspace. If you want to get it over with, just 'Exit Battle'. Sorry you think asking for a few seconds of breathing time for outmatched pilots to do something is too much trouble, but then that's exactly why the GSF community remains as small as it is.

As far as "moving the camp further out", I think that's just fine, because it gives a chance for the weaker team to get to the terrain for some cover, instead of being mined and railgun sniped out in the open.
Everyone "needs" the flight time and experience, but no one gets much in the way of "rewards" if they can't get medals. The only way to get a medal in TDM is by dealing damage or repairing damage (assists and kills are a directly related to dealing damage.) Now, I suppose you could definitely get Mechanic and Savior medals and their associated achievements by parking a T2B in a nook of the cap ship and heal the players that are being spawn camped, and I guess that's ok. But, you will STILL get a non-contributor message unless your railgun sentry drone hits an enemy or an enemy player naively comes close enough to trigger a seeker mine. Hence, it all goes back to dealing damage.

The point is, if the players on the camped team don't even have enough wherewithal to choose a different spawn point to get away and under cover to then deal damage, they'll never get any of the "flight time and experience" you think they will be able to get because of some gimmick that disincentivizes spawn camping.

I definitely don't think turning on cap ship turrets, even with the conditions in Verain's post, will really change the root problem. Maybe a temporary invincibility (not invisibility) that expires immediately if you use a system ability or fire either of your weapon systems and otherwise after a brief time measured in seconds would help, and I guess that's worth discussing, though I doubt it would achieve what you are hoping for. I mean, if a player has enough wherewithal to hop in a T1S, barrel roll to a gunship, use DF, and shoot a rocket pod at an enemy vessel within the time frame of the invincibility buff, just to score enough damage to hopefully earn a medal, then they probably aren't really all that bothered by spawn camping overall. I mean that's a level of player knowledge already above most wildly outmatched spawn camped teams. You and I probably already have that level of knowledge and we also know to choose a different spawn and can probably get a few points of damage off against a superior team without a proposed invincibility.
If you think I've made a good contribution with this post, I kindly ask that you use my Refer a Friend link! Here is more information about the program.

Verain's Avatar

01.24.2018 , 07:58 PM | #27
Eh, I think it's fine to treat Eric like an interface to the devs, because I think that's kinda part of his job. If OP had said "please pass this request along to your dev team" it would be more correct, but, six of one, half a dozen of the other.

I overall strongly agree with your points about camped teams. The reason I bring up differing rulesets for when the score disparity is great is because any ruleset that doesn't obey such logic will ultimately be exploited by good teams. If you put some rule in place that encourages a team to play on their cap ship, you will at best ultimately have teams that try to play on opposite sides of the map, even if they aren't explicitly trying to exploit that mechanic in any fashion. Meanwhile, something that slows down a crush by a bit may trap players in a game with hopeless teammates, but it may also generate a bit more play if the totally outmatched team gets to form up a bit sometimes. The problem with it being cap ship turrets specifically is that if the game is like 40-3 and you have capship turrets defending you with the enemy team hanging out just out of line, you are more likely to simply never leave the capship, except potentially to clear non-contributing, making the game go to time- and that would be in no one's best interest.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."

LordFell's Avatar

01.24.2018 , 11:47 PM | #28
I don't honestly think ship turrets are a good idea... and I don't think invincibility or invisibility is a worthwhile thing to explore as a fix.

...first, I don't really think that we can apply a handicap only some of the time, eg: when one team is losing. If I'm chasing someone, and they retreat to their capital ship, I need (or, I feel like I deserve) to know how the game rules apply, consistently. Either the capital ship has turrets, or will expel me, or throw up a forcefield ALL the time... or NONE of the time.

But... people have pointed out that spawn camping "shouldn't" be a thing (despite the fact that it IS a thing), because you can just spawn at a different point.


BRUH. you think we don't KNOW this?

...because we KNOW this.

Being invincible or invisible for 6 seconds has no functional difference than just spawning somewhere else... and we're already doing that. When true spawn camping is going on, what's going on is you've got a coordinated group that has pushed all the way to the capital ships... and drifts between them killing ships as they spawn. Of course you spawn as far away as possible... but, ultimately, the name of the game is Total Death Match, and spawning far away or not... you have to deal with the spawn camp... which I think of as a roving ball of death. If you get within that 15 to 20K range they're already formulating how to end your existence. Their gunships are aiming, and whichever ship is best suited to eviscerating you -or ships, because they're coordinating, are already peeling off to blow you up.

It was said earlier in the thread, and it's still entirely true... the problem isn't spawn camping. Spawn camping is a symptom of the actual problem... and that's mismatched groups. One premade plus decent Puggers will wreck a group of solo-queue flyers, no matter how good they are. Two premades working together are kinda unstoppable, short of other premades.

catsi's Avatar

01.25.2018 , 12:14 PM | #29
I wonder if an Underdog mechanic might not be the solution to what ails us.

Basically at a certain point of score disparity like -10-15 and then a second stage -20-25 or similar on DOM marches a sort of in our most desperate hour thing kicks in giving the losing team a sight buff equal to all 4 power ups not much maybe a couple percentage points worth of boost compared to the standard power up but still a bit of a boost to really amp up the competition.

so if a DO boosts damage like 50% just for comparison purposes then the under dog mechanic rank 1 is a small 5% boost to damage, while the yellow gives a refill of ammo and boosts weapons power pool by a 5% or so margin and so on and so forth.

then the second tier boosts further maybe by 7-10% really ramping up how desperately the losing team is fighting harder and harder against their seemingly unbeatable foe.

these are just place holder numbers FYI not going to deep into specifics or the larger math but that might be a solution that benefits everyone.
Ana Tathis 70 JK, Serraphin 70 COM/VG, Naashasa 70 Sage, Calliann, 70 GS, Kae'ra 70JK, Phyera 70 Sage
Rhea-hawk 70 PT, Gaa'ra 70 Mara, Fio'on 70 AS/Sorc , Mirri'elle 70 OP, Narayssa 70 Jug

Verain's Avatar

01.25.2018 , 01:58 PM | #30
An "underdog" mechanic sounds really bad. Generally, if a team is bad, it should just lose, and the game shouldn't spend time trying to help the losing team. If you look throughout sports, board games, card games, and other video games, those mechanics are both rare and frankly despised- they mess up what is otherwise a good game. In games that really go all out with them- Mario Kart is the big one normally- sometimes players will actually attempt to get the benefits of being in a worse place to get a better item to use near the end, and in general this kind of gamesmanship (ex: you have goals besides winning) is both a distraction and actually increases the gap between good and very good players (the top players usually have all the knowledge of how to exploit the mechanic).

Some games will have a thing that LOOKS like an underdog mechanic, but isn't. For instance, a moba might have a rule that gives you a powerup when you lose some portion of your map, and in the duration of that buff you are able to fight back unevenly. This is usually only an underdog mechanic in appearance: if you make optimal use of the buff, reverse your losses, and then inflict equivalent casualty on the enemy team, then they get the buff. The end result of a mechanic like this is to encourage the game to have an ebb and flow of attack and defense, not to actually help a team that is losing.

I'm a big fan of trying to add handicaps in situations where the NUMBERS are off, but when it comes down to skill, communication, etc, the game should not be rewarding the losing team at all. They got to that bad score because they are that much worse: they deserve to lose.

The entire reason I bring up the idea of something that allows the weaker and worse team to form back up as a group is simple: the rewards for battering a team back to capship seem to be a snowball mechanic as written, and one that is absent in many GSF games that are still honestly stomps. The better and stronger team is already getting a lot of rewards for getting kills, including map control for powerups and general positioning: when spawn camping is happening, it seems that the skill difference is amplified. Additionally, I've played games with anti spawn-camp mechanics, and the lesser team still gets totally stomped, they are just often able to have coherent encounters as they are destroyed. The problem is setting it up such that it doesn't become a mechanic that will help a worse team win, because worse teams are not supposed to win, while also preventing it from being something that slows down a game meaningfully. In the ground game, these mechanics often take the form of "you spawn on a cliff, and everyone has to leave the cliff at the same time". A mechanic in GSF like that would look like a bubble that forces an invincible non-combat state until such time as the "spawn wave" happens- with many disadvantages for that.

The fact that all potential mechanics involve serious development to tweak the experience of a hopelessly outmatched team is probably why we haven't seen anything in this direction at all- even assuming that the developers consider it any kind of issue at all. I think it is one, albeit minor.
"The most despicable person on the GSF forum."