Sentinels in base when core is shielded?

[!PaRaNoiD!]

exactly what the title says. i hated it in onslaught when someone would go into your base with a manta when they weren't even close to linking to your core and spawn kill everyone that went over to the weaponlocker. sure you could spawn at another node but the base usually had the best weapons and vehicles. To solve this, i think epic should put sentinels in the base like in assault that disappear when the base is unshielded. yeah, it doesn't make sense why they leave when needed the most, but it just another instance of gameplay over realism.

[EddyVercetti]

Yes, but there should be an option on the server side to turn off sentinels.

[Boksha]

Being at the core the very moment the last node is up is essential to finishing the losing team off. If they're there even earlier, be happy about it and continue playing with one player more than your enemy.

[Mort_Q]

I kind of hope that one of the things EPIC borrowed from XMP is bases that you can't drive into.

Not all, mind you, just some.

[EDIT]

How about a shielded Power Core can send out arcs of energy that will EMP enemy vehicles if they get too close?

Yes? No?

Whatever.

[/EDIT]

[Ultron]

I like the idea of a sentinel appearing on some maps, that could also be disabled server-side.

I also love the idea that some bases do not allow vehicles in, though that's a mapping issue.

[Xyx]

I'd like to see spawnkilling discouraged somehow. Sentinels, a forcefield, longer spawn protection times or even giving players some decent armament upon spawning (with limited ammo)... all good.

[Madmanxan]

doesnt bother me tbh

[Lord_Impaler]

Shouldn't it be possible to freeze base-killing vehicles with the secondary hammer?

[Boksha]

I'd like to see spawnkilling discouraged somehow. Sentinels, a forcefield, longer spawn protection times or even giving players some decent armament upon spawning (with limited ammo)... all good.

How about putting the spawn points in an area enemies can't enter and putting a weapon locker in there as well?
It's all a matter of map design to be honest... I just think denying enemies access to the core whenever it's shielded isn't a good idea, and you really don't need to do that to discourage spawn killing.

[utzBluesman]

What about some indestructible (not by gun) barrier?

It could be turned off only by someone passing through it and dying in sacrifice to able his team to attack the node. So, it would be necessary at least two men to attack the node: one for die and turn off the barrier and the other one to attack it.

[[DR]Marine]

there should be a base area where an enemy cant enter the base until it is linked. Theres no need to be in the enemy's base unless its linked.

[Mort_Q]

How about putting the spawn points in an area enemies can't enter and putting a weapon locker in there as well?
It's all a matter of map design to be honest...

Agreed.

I just think denying enemies access to the core whenever it's shielded isn't a good idea,

Why? They're already denied the ability to damage the Power Core.... why would denying them access change anything other than their ability to spawn kill?

The only valid strategic reason would be their being there when their team takes the primary.

Besides... it'd be fun to watch the Power Core zap 'em!

[ne_skaju]

I like this idea, and (depending on map design) there should be power shields that prevent entering your/enemy base when core cannot be destroyed, thus not allowing spawn camping.

[ProjectUT]

A sentinel sounds good, or better yet, maybe have the core shield extend out to the player starts so campers can't fire on spawning players until they get a weapon.

Would be good if epic made spawn nodes where the players spawn, instead of spawning at the core/node all the time. This way, you could place 2 or 3 around the node/core lowering the possibility of a camper hanging out for a cheap kill.

My Idea of this would be, 3 - 6 player starts on each spawn node with a weapon locker in the middle and at least 3 placed close to the core/node but not close enough for campers to monitor.

[Boksha]

Why? They're already denied the ability to damage the Power Core.... why would denying them access change anything other than their ability to spawn kill?

The only valid strategic reason would be their being there when their team takes the primary.

Guuhhh?
I even mentioned it earlier in the thread:

Being at the core the very moment the last node is up is essential to finishing the losing team off. If they're there even earlier, be happy about it and continue playing with one player more than your enemy.

Maps just shouldn't be designed so you spawn directly at the core, because that basically means you spawn with your back against the wall... the wall the enemy is about to shoot down.

[Xyx]

How about putting the spawn points in an area enemies can't enter and putting a weapon locker in there as well?

Difficult, considering even a tiny window in a bunker can be tank-spammed FTW. The map would have to be designed around this concept, which would be a bit more limited than the current approach of design first and worry about spawn points later.

Any spots in existing maps that strike you as exemplifying your suggestion? Crossfire, IslandHop, Primeval, RedPlanet and Torlan seem especially open to spawnkilling.

[Boksha]

Difficult, considering even a tiny window in a bunker can be tank-spammed FTW.

This is already a lot harder with 5 tiny windows or more. Anyhow, maps already need to be built around preventing spawncamping, sentinels or not. How would sentinels help against tank spam from the center of the map?

[Mort_Q]

Guuhhh?
I even mentioned it earlier in the thread:

Seen. That's why I mentioned it... although it didn't connect in my mind that it was your post.

Maps just shouldn't be designed so you spawn directly at the core, because that basically means you spawn with your back against the wall... the wall the enemy is about to shoot down.

Did you ever play XMP? I think XMP-Sunset would make a wonderful 6 vs. 6 WAR map.

Anyway, that's one of the things I was trying to get at in this post. The base designs don't fit the strategic play. It confuses the new players, and is just annoying.

[!PaRaNoiD!]

Shouldn't it be possible to freeze base-killing vehicles with the secondary hammer?

I didn't think of that. Good job.

[Hedge-o-Matic]

Frankly, the "game on rails" approach to Assault 04 really turned me off. I don't like that Epic apparently listened to every gripe of everyone who ever had anything to say about "fixing" Assault 99. The result? Play style dictated to you. Sentinels placed so that the defenders can't really push back their defensive line. Advancing spawn points everywhere. Scenery behind invisible walls, making the "detailed environment" a sham.

Sure, it's a mapper's prerogative to make their setup how they want, but Epic has a lot of say in what constitutes the standard, and I hope they shy away from the authoritarian approach of Assault 04 when designing Warfare maps.

Let control of the base be contested in some maps (meaning anyone can run in there and give you a hard time), and a given on others (shields, doors, team triggers, and yeah, maybe a sentinel or two). But keep the gameplay as open as possible. The idea isn't to remove all possibility of the enemy giving you a hard time. It just means that sometimes you take a tank round a second after you spawn.

Like a wise man once said, "Sometimes, it takes a tank round to find out what you're made of." Or something like that...

[Mort_Q]

I was just thinking about this. The Orb changes this a fair bit.

The main base is where the Orb spawns. That said, hitting the base to keep the enemy Orb from making it into play becomes a legitimate tactic. In a way, I like this, but that's a different thread.

With this in mind, I'd like to change my vote. Sentinels are not needed if the bases are designed such that players can be armed and aware before they killed by the enemy. They should die defending their base, not die spawning.

If you care, I've started a different poll.

[Xyx]

maps already need to be built around preventing spawncamping, sentinels or not.

Sentinels are just another way.

XMP-Sunset would make a wonderful 6 vs. 6 WAR map.

I so hope Warfare maps cater to slightly higher playercounts than that. This whole 6 vs 6 thing is a relic of a past in which bandwidth was costly. 64 players is the current norm.

Let control of the base be contested in some maps (meaning anyone can run in there and give you a hard time), and a given on others (shields, doors, team triggers, and yeah, maybe a sentinel or two). But keep the gameplay as open as possible.

+1

[Boksha]

Sentinels are just another way.

Yeah, actually I don't think sentinels a bad idea per-se. What I don't like is the idea of having them block access to the core and linking their activation to whether the core is shielded or not.
Basically, that would only makes sense if whether spawnkilling is a good thing depends on whether the core is shielded (which I doubt many people will agree with), plus prevent a good team from being at the core at the moment it's unlocked.
The alternative is having sentinels protecting the spawning area only, and indepent of whether the core is shielded or not. That would fix spawnkilling (in part) while it leaves all tactics intact.
This may be hard to achieve in maps that weren't built with this possibility in mind, like all current ONS maps.

I also agree with Hedge's post btw.

[da ghost]

Being at the core the very moment the last node is up is essential to finishing the losing team off. If they're there even earlier, be happy about it and continue playing with one player more than your enemy.

10 characters n stuff

[rhiridflaidd]

A simple answer would be that when a map is designed, an area is defined as being the "base". If a player is fragged in a base when he is on foot, and the core is unlocked the player that frags him gets no points. If you are fragged in a vehichle or a turret, you get a point.

The issue is pointswhoring. Changing the mechanics of the game to correct a problem with how easy it is to score is missing the point, and is a common mistake to make.

For a top level online game, a lot of time has to be spent on refining points scoring, to encourage players to play the way the game should be played.

[Mort_Q]

A simple answer would be that when a map is designed, an area is defined as being the "base". If a player is fragged in a base when he is on foot, and the core is unlocked the player that frags him gets no points. If you are fragged in a vehichle or a turret, you get a point.

The Orb adds a new dynamic. Keeping the Orb from getting into play is a valid tactic. The Orb spawns at the base. There is nothing wrong with attacking the base at any time. The Orb runner is always on foot, so this won't work.

The issue is pointswhoring. Changing the mechanics of the game to correct a problem with how easy it is to score is missing the point, and is a common mistake to make.

I'm not sure I follow.

a lot of time has to be spent on refining points scoring, to encourage players to play the way the game should be played.

I don't know if you're going to get any consensus on the way it should be played. Not that I'm encouraging spawnkilling.

[Jonny]

The most obvious solution to me would be to increase spawn protection time by a few seconds. This eliminates the need for sentinels which imo would get very annoying for the attacking team. Increased spawn protection time would mean defenders would have time to get a weapon, and find cover/ground of more tactical advantage despite any raining tank rounds or crouching mantas.

KISS!

[d1Rt]

It's all a matter of map design to be honest... I just think denying enemies access to the core whenever it's shielded isn't a good idea, and you really don't need to do that to discourage spawn killing.

Agreed. If base spawn killing is an issue for you it's either because of poor map design or lack of experience. It can be avoided and countered on any stock maps.

Spawn killing is an effective(in many instances) and legitimate tactic. It diverts attention away from nodes your teammates are trying to build.

[DeathByDribbling]

I never saw much spawn killing at the core in ut2004 (except when it was exposed obviously), although a few took pleasure in sitting in the core blowing up all the vehicles which was a bit irritating.

If you want to sit there racking up the lame kills you just camp the single primary node and ignore the core.

[Xyx]

For a top level online game, a lot of time has to be spent on refining points scoring, to encourage players to play the way the game should be played.

+1, although that mostly just includes linking to other players and healing occupied vehicles.

[Mort_Q]

Spawn killing is an effective(in many instances) and legitimate tactic. It diverts attention away from nodes your teammates are trying to build.

I agree that attacking the base is legitimate and effective.

I have to disagree that spawn killing is legitimate. It exists as a result of a game mechanic that can be fixed.

Killing and getting killed should both be fun.

Spawn killing is only fun for the killer.

Sure there are ways to avoid it, but they're not fun either.

I think proper base design would ensure that spawn killing is difficult and unrewarding.

[icecone]

Epicsaid that they've tweaked the manta to prevent spawn-killing

[Mort_Q]

Epicsaid that they've tweaked the manta to prevent spawn-killing

They did not use the word prevent.

BeyondUnreal Interviews: Steve Polge

BU: Are there any vehicle vs players-on-foot balance issues from UT 2004 that you will address with UT 3?

SP: One big issue in UT2004 was manta spawn-camping. A player in a manta could spawn rape all the playerstarts at a node pretty easily. We’ve tweaked the manta to address this issue, without a substantial impact to the manta’s ability to run over people.

[icecone]

They did not use the word prevent.

sorry
reduce?

[d1Rt]

It exists as a result of a game mechanic that can be fixed.

Did you mean "can't"? If you did, is this your assumption or a fact?

Killing and getting killed should both be fun.

To a competitive person getting killed will never be fun.

Sure there are ways to avoid it, but they're not fun either.

I think proper base design would ensure that spawn killing is difficult and unrewarding.

My opinions are contrary to these.

[Mort_Q]

Did you mean "can't"? If you did, is this your assumption or a fact?

I meant "can".

Most people around here can't tell the difference between an assumption and a fact.

To a competitive person getting killed will never be fun.

Getting killed in a fight is less not fun than getting killed with little or no recourse. I'd think a competitive person would agree, which is why many choose to play without superweapons.

My opinions are contrary to these.

C'est la vie.

[HarleyKing]

To a competitive person getting killed will never be fun.

so, you mean competitive people are masochists? ...nice.

[Xyx]

To a competitive person getting killed will never be fun.

But it shouldn't be frustrating to casual gamers.

Casual gamers > offline players > online players > competitive gamers

Pretty small crowd, on the whole, those competitive players. I don't see why the game should cater specifically to them. I don't want another UT2003.

[d1Rt]

Getting killed in a fight is less not fun than getting killed with little or no recourse. I'd think a competitive person would agree, which is why many choose to play without superweapons.

Again, there is a recourse It just takes a little determination. Should it be easy to comeback after you've been beat back to your core?

That is not why superweapons were removed from competition.

But it shouldn't be frustrating to casual gamers.

Casual gamers > offline players > online players > competitive gamers

Pretty small crowd, on the whole, those competitive players. I don't see why the game should cater specifically to them. I don't want another UT2003.

Getting frustrated should motivate ppl to overcome the obstacle. You're acting like it takes mountains of skill to avoid being spawn killed. It doesn't. Time the tank shell and dodge. Go to the other weaons locker. Dodge away from the manta. If someone keeps bunny hopping into the splash damage, yes, they should get killed.

I was speaking of somone competitive in nature, but thx for the breakdown.

At any rate, the comfy, cozy protection of your sentinal or base sheild or w/e will stop at some point and the campers will be waiting with their slow volumes and spider mines and tank shells etc etc.

[Ultron]

Pretty small crowd, on the whole, those competitive players. I don't see why the game should cater specifically to them. I don't want another UT2003.

Very true. And even still there were a lot of hardcore, competative UT players who scoffed at UT2k3. My clan practically died when it came out, because of the disappointment of it. We didn't want to stay with UT but UT2k3 didn't offer a good alternative to it. It was too cartoony with all the extra moves and the glowing iconic pickups, the simplified/generic armor system, and the gonzo map scale. I don't think UT2k3 even catered to all competative players, just a faction of them, really. Which is even a smaller demographic when you think about it.