The truth is, when I put this idea forward it was really just about trying to find a solution to spawn farming. And thats actually already handled with experience debuffs in other games - PS2 applies a 50% reduction in rewards when you kill a player when they've just exited the base and have no kills. And at least in PS2 grossly outnumbered fights always turn into spawn farming within minutes, so this is basically penalizing outnumbered fights once they've concluded, which is the central idea I was getting at. War isn't fair but when a fight is over it should be over, not dragged out because the outnumbering has turned into an effective method of currency farming. But I'm not going to defend this exp reduction thing anymore because people have pointed out that a much more effective means of preventing this "overpop profiteering" is simply destroyable spawns/defender attrition to end fights decisively, rather than trying to get all the pubs to voluntarily abandon a spawn farm and fight somewhere else once they've won.
I think it wont be an issue in EC like PS2 because PS2 has a lengthy period for base capture that cant really be sped up based on how much the attackers are winning. From what we know so far it works off a capture mechanic, so if the defenders are so pushed back they cant interrupt at a capture point, the fight ends relatively quickly. PS2 also has a small spawn area that's easily camped and the devs have already mentioned that their spawn areas will be large and have many exits.
Those are helpful ideas but I don't think they'll solve the problem on their own - I think it'll take the spawn ticket system or a physically destructible spawn area to properly hamper farming and the mindless zerg generation it encourages. There are lots of very large spawn systems in PS2, namely the towers, large base spawns, and tunnel systems, which have 8+ exits spread over the entire region and multiple stories. None of those prevent farming, they just spread it out and actually allow more people to farm. So even if it's big, the design of a base alone won't really be able to inhibit farming, which seems to automatically occur once the fight is imbalanced enough. The trick is letting the attackers actually end the fight via some final destructive moment, rather than allowing the imbalance to continue in this artificially sustained state, where defenders can continue entering the fight even though it has effectively finished.
No player will look at somebody who just spawned and decide not to kill them because they'll reward less exp. That player is gonna kill the enemy anyways just because they're there, they're easy and some exp is better than no exp. Exp buffs/debuffs won't do much to inhibit large groups of people from steamrolling over bases.
Yes, this is the way to go. There needs to be a way for the attackers to destroy/disable the spawning system in a base. The best way to do this, IMO, is to have external structures outside of the main base; within these structures, there would be capture points of destructible generators that, if captured/destroyed, disable the defenders spawn points. So either each capture point/generator is tied to a single point inside the main base (each one captured/destroyed increases time to spawn, if all the generators/capture points are destroyed/captured, spawning is disabled) OR there are multiple spawn points inside the base, each tied to a generator/capture point (each generator/capture point destroyed/captured disables the spawn room it is tied to). This system does several key things: It encourages the attacker to weaken the defenders forces by removing their ability to spawn fresh troops in the bases capture points, which gives the attackers a chance to stop the defenders to bring a massive army in within minutes of attacking the base. Allowing for the destruction or disabling of spawns also reduces the likelihood of the fight within the base turning into a spawn camp (if the attackers get that far). It encourages the defenders to come out of their fortress, and bring the fight to the enemy, encouraging large pitched battles, and giving the attackers to shoot something other than a gate. Creates risk vs. reward gameplay: the defender could choose to let the outer structures fall, relying on their defensive positions and whatever troops they managed to spawn in; or they could open the gate, risking removing one of the biggest obstacles to the attackers, with the benefit of keeping the spawn points open and bring fresh troops to the fight I could go on, but this stuff has been discussed and detailed many times in previous, spawn-discussion orientated threads (I can recommend a few... ). As for Zergs WAAAGH! discouragement, I think we have all agreed that its actually something we want to encourage. Mechanics stopping Spawn Camping, and allowing unstoppable blobs to be defeated, are where the real focus needs to be placed. Something that no amount of XP reduction will fix.
If you want small scale ... there is BF4 for you or even smaller .. have a cod. BIGGER IS BETTER ! so screw off with the artificial limitations. Edit: Some people actually enjoy playing with a massive force, there is a special feeling to it when a massive organized force washes away some selftitled "elite" players no matter how they try to stop it. Bunch of ordinary normal players that have been given a direction and purpose. Less artificial limitations the better. Try to grow away from the single player syndrome that makes you think you have to win every fight.
Zerg prevention is a bad idea in my opinion. Why? How do you stop a Ze- WAAGH!? You need a sizeable number of players and some decent tactics to put in their way and hey presto - you've got yourself a big fight. If you try to artificially punish zerging then you will also be working against large battles and large battles are something we WANT in EC.
How many people here have actually seen a zerg? As in, played PS2, gotten in a big movement of players, and actually participated in zerging? Because the fantasies going around of "big fights" and "decent tactics" are hilarious if you've seen actual zergs in action. Zergs aren't big fights, or mass organized troop movements, which are both obviously desirable and should be encouraged. They are defined as large, unorganized masses of non-communicating casual players. And zergs don't fight. They farm. Being in a zerg is 90% waiting for the herd to move, 5% capping uncontested points, and 5% shooting ducks in a barrel as they exit the spawn room doors. It's a bunch of pick up gamers taking the route of least resistance for kills and exp. There are no tactics, there are no big exciting fights, there's just a lot of waiting and farming, and despairing frustration if you're trying to do anything but move with the sheep. If a big group of players with tactics and communication fights another big group of players, that is not a zerg. And it is not the problem that is being discussed. Organized groups of players don't go around curbstomping and farming because that's boring as s***, they find a challenge and they oppose it. They'd rarely, if ever, get penalized for curbstomping, and if they did they'd deserve it because that doesn't actually require tactics or organization. This was exclusively to prevent pick up gamers from exploiting bad spawn practices in boring ways to get maximum income for minimal effort. And as people have established, with good spawn mechanics (destructible or ticketed) this whole phenomenon may not even occur. Which I've conceded makes this form of pug penalization a moot point because they'll have found some other way to farm for no effort.
In PS2, a zerg forms like a snowball. It starts off usually in a defence of a base, then you push out. As the lattice system brings more lines into the same line, the zerg grows. Due to the lattice system, the zerg HAS to go down one route (occasionally two). They keep going, they roll over small defended bases. To say that's ALL they do is stupid. When one zerg runs into another, THAT'S where the fun is. Just because PS2 has a stupid lattice corridor system doesn't mean zerging is bad. With the addition of World Commanders in EC, I feel faction leaders will be able to direct their zerg to counter the enemy zerg, leading to the big fights. I mean really, what do you expect people in PS2 to do, jump around repeatedly until they find a fight? Most players log in, use instant action and then go from there with the force it deploys them into.
I can see how people think Zerging is a problem but I do want them to stick with the lore. What if on battle Grounds there is a max amount of people that can join. If a small strike force comes in to sabotage the base, you aren't going to need an army to take them out. Or what if a battle can start with only a handful of soldiers on either side and slowly (or rapidly) grow until there is a huge battle. That stays true to the lore in some respects. I can see a one sided battle between Chaos and Loyalists. The Loyalists are outnumbered. A vox signal goes out to all Loyalist players to come to that territory to aid in the fight. If the reinforcements come then the Loyalists have a much better chance if they don't. The number can go up until it reaches the player max for that team. As far as the Lore goes, Tyranids number in the billions. As far as I know, there is no hive mind close to the world as of yet. Knowing this, the force of Tyranids is cut down to a minimum number but is still considerable. Maybe you would not need an army to destroy the Tyranid attacks but maybe a larger strike force (say like 30-40 people). This brings me back to the player max count. Not everything will require that you have an army in the area but there should still be large armies engaged in massive combat. Joram brought up a good point. A massive army won't try to say take a road in the middle of a canyon where they are sitting ducks and a large field isn't the place for a small squad of 5-10 people. Level design will most likely play a part in balancing, reducing zerg (or Waaagh), and making an overall player experience.
