I think at this point, its a good idea to ask ourselves what Tremulous does right amd what it does wrong.
Camping has always been a popular hot button issue, everyone has an opinion but few have effective alternatives. Do you think its a problem? Why? What are some ways we can fix this?
P.S feel free to move this thread if necessary.
Itâs not, camping is fun! The real problem is flawed credit system, which wonât let a team recover from all dretch/rifle if they lose all credits/evos while attacking a camper base if campers refuse to go out.
My proposed solution: http://new-edge.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=622
ofc itâs a PROBLEM. 2 independent solutions:
1 scripted in Haskell
I dont know if this could work, but you could limit or lower the amount of credits/evos obtained from killing players and increase credits obtained from killing buildables (rc/om give the highest returns, followed by spawns, armory/booster and so on). That would make camping and killwhoring less attractive and make people concentrate more on rushing.
EDIT: ⌠not to mention also this would be much easier to implement compared to other solutions based on distance from base and other factors.
Camping is certainly a big problem, and it is solely a game logic issue.
I think new âcomplimentaryâ game logic (as DevHC has said) is needed. In my opinion now is the time to radically alter the behavior of the game by simultaneously overhauling several areas that need improvement/polish, including:
⌠and more! What are your guyâs thoughts on these?
My thoughts are that each of those concepts deserve their own topic for exploration.
The camping I always remember encountering is when aliens wait outside the base with super evolved forms because theyâre too scared to attack the base and humans canât run out to get guns because the aliens are camping just outsideâŚ
That is one common tye of camping. Another type involves humans camping in their base with aliens not camping outside of the human baseâŚ
with time, one type of camping translates into the other. :P
however, by âcomplementaryâ, i meant unique (eg., map-specific, eg., Blackout) deviation from the mainstream (including completely overhauled) gamelogic.
it has always been my hypothesis that attempting to make local gamelogic changes to try to alleviate the PROBLEM of camping more-or-less directly (eg., CAMPING⢠estimation+punishment system (based on player location distribution, etc.), rewards for non-CAMPâ˘ers (destruction of buildables), etc.) is something that will cause crappy gamelogic. not sure about an extreme multitude of such changes, but why would that be significantly better?
an independent must-have, sort of.
Perhaps we should take into consideration that the the primary objective of the game is to remove the enemyâs ability to respawn as well as remove all of the enemies. Camping works towards a different objective of survival. So how do we prevent survival from becoming an unwanted replacement objective to the official objective of the game? Btw, Iâm not talking about mods that are specifically designed with the objective of survival (Like the Zombie modâs survival mode), those can be very fun.
Camping is the undesirable user behavior resulting from a culmination of several PROBLEMs, and each proposed change addresses different areas of play to deal with the problems. Without going in to too many specifics,
Camping happens because:
Bases are centralized (everything in one place) so all players must return here to resupply. DEPLOY-ABLES decentralize defense and resupply units by putting them OUTSIDE of the base, and the effect on play of putting the players and your units outside makes base defense and resupply more akin to an âonion-skinâ, with multiple âlayersâ that need to be fought through & destroyed to get to the âcoreâ.
Credits and evos are a precious resource, but the current income system mandates nothing about âdesirable playâ and players camp to try to build up their own âworthâ, (enough to get weapons / classes that donât suck). Making credit income depend on âEFFECTIVENESSâ will take into account WHERE and WHAT you are doing to earn credits, where camping actions will result in almost nothing, and getting out your base to try to fight will be very rewarding.
Players have no sense of spatial awareness (by default) in a 3D environment, and therefor their âbase locationâ serves as a visible âlandmarkâ they are familiar with. HIGHLIGHTING your teamâs top scorers (glowy effects - even visible thru walls) will make those players be a kind of visual âway-pointâ, making it easier for your team to follow and assist these people, even if you are not that familiar with the map. Additionally, assisting these people would drastically increase a playerâs EFFECTIVENESS, and so WHOM you are with will adjust cred & evo income stream.
Players should learn to not rely on base defenses for personal protection or as a way to increase their own lethality. When a turret gets a kill, that is a kill that you did NOT get, and therefor it should be communicated to the player that there was just an opportunity lost to earn the credits from that kill and give them ZERO CREDITS (essentially lower the playerâs âeffectivenessâ to close to nothing if they use structures to assist them).
PRE-SPAWN class & gear selection means the (human) player doesnât have to be âin-baseâ to select the stuff they initially want (only to change it), and therefor reduces time spent at the armory, and will also reduce the situations where aliens must stop playing and interact with menus to evolve. Nothing is worse than evolving from Dretch to Dragoon just as a fully charged Luci shot hits you and kills you, one perfectly aimed at you because you became a stationary target. The same goes for humans who get rushed while they are buying at armory, for example when youâve just bought a weapon and then get killed before you can buy armor.
The goal of my proposed changes is to make the game MORE FUN and also give the players MORE STUFF to do (in ways that build oneâs sense of âimmersionâ into the game- a critical factor in determining if a solution to these issues is the right one), and also have automatic ways to increase subtle team âcommunicationâ (information gleamed about the status of your team in the round) therefor enhancing TEAMWORK.
so what is this thing called camping?
DEFINITIONish: camping is the process of standing ground, led by the evident recognition that it is the least detrimental tactic. in this, the camper waits for the opponent to attack, ie., to make the WRONG move, first; without such a move, there no confrontation â a deadlock.
camping is to be solved. obviously by making deadlocky tactics not (and far from being) the least detrimental.
what is not camping:
what is not camping should not be confused with general game issues, and should rather be a topic of different threads.
using the definition of camping just described,
the gamelogic sux. period.
what do âmultiple layers to be fought throughâ have anything to do with dealing with camping?1
this is true in general, for any wanted vs non-wanted actions. any specifics for camping?
pl_spatialAwareness is â0â, the default2
yes, to help n00bs learn to play the game. what about camping?
Chuck Norris doesnât need base defences.3
from a camperâs point of view, that, in itself, is no reason to switch from camping. there is still reasonable chance to get the kill while a base defence is attacking the enemy, and even if not, having the enemy die is still a good outcome.
additionally, making a difference between 0 reward and full reward, depending on whether ur machine gun or the turret got the last shot off, increases the dispersion (luck-basedness) in the game.
PS: pro tip: currently, thereâs a thing as a partial kill, calculated by the damage ratio done by players vs the total damage (including turret damage) done.
ofc. and now, returning to the topic of campingâŚ
WRONG. worse is when someone camps.
new thread?
WRONG. that has nothing to do with immersion.
1 deployables may help reduce camping significantly. the question remaing standing, though.
2 indicates a (reply to a) rather disasterous comment.
3 indicates a (reply to a) rather disasterous comment.
Players want to win and they have a better chance of winning by staying in their base until the aliens run out of EVOs trying to take them down, from which a counterattack can be made. Aliens are given advantages to push out by having regen and easy forward bases, but humans do not. At some point, all the humans need to return to base, but aliens do not. Basically:
the gamelogic sux.
Give humans tools to go out and not be giant pussies/[insertyourgenitalequivalent]
Throw grenades on the ledge.
/Thread
OT (not at all)
Necropostin 
Which is encouraged here on GrangerHub 
btw @Blizz , you forgot about spawn camping in your list.
Jet fuel seems to have addressed that problem pretty well.
Last time I played on the test server, humans had so much default Jet Fuel that they wouldâve blasted to the top of the twin towers and still have some left over to melt steel beams.
As Human this could be resolved by âwheneven a single node is far away from the base, that node wonât work â> no spawn. If destroyed still gives to the alien 1 evoâ.
As Alien I donât know[quote=âdGr8LookinSparky, post:18, topic:91â]
Jet fuel seems to have addressed that problem pretty well.
[/quote]
I think jetpack is useless in every way you propose it. I never saw someone rushing with a jetpack. Works only vs basilisks. Maybe replace it with another arm - gadget - something new.