What if i said i always used to just walk to the contested location and have never suicide teleported. In fact, i wasn't even aware of it as a tactic until i just read this thread.
but people are fine with the concept that players could just run at the enemy and suicide that way? ... or is it that people dont mind that concept since they would have a chance at getting some xp at least for killing the enemy, extending the spawn timer for "accidental" or self inflicted death wont work since how would the game know whats accidental or self inflicted? and how is that fair for a player who really does die accidently?
How about this? (Only works on the Capture progression maps. Don't know how they call them, Where you first get A, then B and so on) You, whatever you do, never spawn at the first Point (eg. Never at the point nearest to the enemy unless it is your last point) this would also bring more Transport-action to defenders?
Could always just rid of the whole spawning at a capture point. Only can spawn at main base and transports. Then the issue isn't.
The fact that the objectives we battle over are spawn points and not the type of objectives you'd see on any battlefield, fictional or non fiction, that's a huge part of the problem. I'd much rather see all spawning being player driven, i.e. teleport homers(intermittently spawning on a squad member's location), mobile spawns. Deployable Landing Zones(where an AI thunderhawk drops off players in waves), drop pods, spawn beacons, etc. PVP gaming in general needs to get out of the yesteryear mentality of Halo, spawning at static locations that everyone has memorized, battling over objectives that have ZERO strategic or tactical relevance on the virtual battlefield. That's system driven spawning, not player driven spawning. And there's the whole issue of "why we fight" for these objectives. "Hey guys lets mash our faces together over this obligatory building that serves no purpose other than to be a place where we mash our faces together". As gamers become more mature and more savvy, these types of lowbrow mechanics must start improving so there is plausible, believable, cause and effect for every in game action.
Im so ok with player driven spawn locations that are not tethered to static onjectives. This forces for team play since squad members have to go where the squad leader sets them up. Plus always spawning at the main soawn points for attackers or defenders by default, this will make contesting points in a chain a little bit less of a turkey shoot for defenders unless they are prepared with their own spawn points as well...or at minimum a defender spawn ticketing system to represent the troops/reinforcements garrisoned at that location.
Totally agree. Games need to Ctrl+Alt+Man-Up and start working a little harder to bring something new to the table. Arbitraty points marked A-D mean nothing other than 'balanced' points to fight over. There is no reasoning, no resources to fight over and secure an advantage for your side and to top it all off we have ridiculous 'point capturing' classes that need to be present with some sort of thingy-magigy to effect a terminal hack as if totally locking down and controlling that area was not a capture in itself. Capturing is an exercise of area denial and the stronger team that can do that has effectively captured a point. Fighting over the same points again and again is grindy and boring and lacks the dynamism that could occur if the playerbase were deciding what in a map they were choosing to fight over. In a tabletop match of 40k a point is captured when no more enemy remains to assault it AT THE END of the match. Last man standing. (Perhaps certain match modes should see each player have only a certain number of lives and after that they are out. For them-game over - a match like this would end after the last 3 players were left standing) In a real battle control is often sought of either an area with access to specific resources or it would be strategic terrain itself that offered superior fields of fire,views of angles of apporach with soft and hard cover. If behaviour allowed its playerbase to actually have more input over how they would like to fight their battles they would find that ideas like this are actually very popular. Perhaps different factions could have have different objectives similar to the new tabletop 'maelstrom of war' rules so it would even be possible for one team to be on an 'exterminatus' objective (team deathmatch) while another is on a 'defend and hold' for example. As Psykopski writes: "why we fight" for these objectives. "Hey guys lets mash our faces together over this obligatory building that serves no purpose other than to be a place where we mash our faces together". with no A-D points of contention but a match still to win with other conditions eg team deathmatch those mobile spawn points WOULD BECOME those A points, they would become the objectives in a map that would need attacking and defending and that in itslef is already so much more interesting because it forces the enemy to use recon and intelligence to a) use recon and locate your spawns b) attempt to determine your tactics and strategy in this match c)determine how they counter your tactics and implement and attack with their own. Matches could even become dynamic in their end goals, either by having victory points and objectives allocated throughout the match by ai or even perhaps player controlled Commanders.
