stay calm. i like your idea.
i guess devs need time to evaluate your game mechanic.

Seems pretty kewl. Maybe merge with the "Sky Spawning" thread?

I would say you couldn't deploy ANYWHERE, but in a certain blue zone around friendly controlled dropin beacons or CRU's or objectives.

If you do corp on corp battles, you'll see how much time and thought goes into movement. The overhead map is top-down view like RTS games for a reason. Spawn anywhere also reduces the strategy and power of vehicles. Some are for troop movement. LAV and Dropship would have significantly reduced roles in battle. I didn't see what you replaced drop uplink with. It's a great mechanic.

I'd be totally fine if you could have people spawn on a ship, and that ship could be at certain locations and could drop people. That would give the other team a chance to counter the ship. That mechanic is also already in the game, a drop ship.

It would also be unfair to tanks. I'm going to just assume that you're not using the 1.2m tanks, but mobility is the tank's advantage. The tank and team have to be given a chance to defend the tank and work with it, and your "spawn anywhere" kills this.

About your other points:
>There wouldn't be any difference in squad coordination. You have a mic, and should be using it for coordination.
>You always have a chance to do something in a hot battle.
>It creates some tactical options by hitting AA guns, but it removes far too much.
>If you "want reinforcements to appear on your position", use drop uplink or dropship.
>Stand under the MCC if your objective is to watch your team "epicly drop from the sky."

If your intention is to have people move on ground to counter AA guns, why not just have them spawn on uplinks/dropships/mcc/checkpoints and move there? You also put a lot of time into gear/skills for spawning, but the actual spawn and fall only takes, and should only take, a couple of seconds. It seems like a waste to put points into something that you'll only use for a couple of seconds of battle.

The list goes on and on...

To me, it just seems like your problem with the current spawn system is just that you're getting camped. Or, you're mad that your team is camping their own spawn. The red line, two spawn points, the MCC, and the fact that you don't actually need to spawn fix the getting camped issue. If you're mad that your teammates are camping their own spawn, you can just find new ones and do corp battles. You're trying to force people to play how you want them to play.

Last post for me here :P. I guess that's my main point. I like complexity!

Although I disagree with your idea, I wish you the best of luck. You clearly put a lot of time and thought into it.

In a skirmish game this mechanic would (seriously, in my opinion) affect the tactics used, if you can just spawn straight on top of an enemy held objective or CRU.

Since I've started carrying drop links, I've had little to no problems with spawn camping. The most I'll get got is once, then I'll move my drop link. My squad can spawn right next to me, and we have all the tactical options I've needed.

I'm not sure what you mean by a chance to do something in a hit battle?

But yeah, in an ambush scenario, I can imagine at it could be cool, and it could certainly look epic.

Basically the Section 8 spawn system (best spawn system in any shooter). I like it, but thats a lot of things to redo at this point. Makes CRUs and drop uplinks pretty useless.

This would be easier to implement:
Both sides should share the same red line boundaries, that would prevent red line snipers.
Instead of the red line to protect spawn bases, CCP should use the spawn bubble idea; you can neither shoot out of nor into the spawn bubble and cannot return to after leaving.
Also the Sky Spawning method: Just dropping down from objective spawn points (not including CRU's and drop uplinks). There could be a cloaked NPC/drone dropship similar to the RDV that players spawn on when they choose objectives as spawn points, and it auto-ejects players out over their desired spawn point.

If there is a reason for a change, that's one thing. But just wanting core game mechanics totally shuffled just to better suit _your_ preferred play style while completely destroying another players play style is not changing things "for the better"... It's changing them to fit you over someone else.

And nice tactic of attempting to discount someone's opposition by attempting to belittle them. Class act, right there.

Oh, and speaking of your tactics:



Yeah, if that's what you've been doing, then a lack of "spawn anywhere" mechanic is not your problem. Your problem is that "You're doing it wrong"(TM) It is just as important in an engagement to hold objectives as it is to capture new objectives. It's an armed engagement, not a soccer game. You don't just run around the map chasing a proverbial soccer ball to "score points".

I haven't played Section 8. It may be a fine game. But if you want DUST to be Section 8, then do everyone a favor and go play Section 8. I'm not saying don't play DUST. I'm saying when you are playing DUST, play DUST. Don't QQ and resort to insulting behavior because people don't agree with your divine vision on how DUST could be Section 8 or some other game.

Something else that you are missing is that with the current system, you _can_ still have a drop-anywhere mechanic using dropships and drop uplinks in coordination with other squad and teammates. So lack of a drop-anywhere mechanic does not kill the sort of tactics you are describing. However, there are other types of engagements. Dug-in emplacements, trench warfare, etc. These can be tactically delicious...but are completely impossible to have without spending a lot of money dropping additional assets onto the field with the drop-anywhere mechanic.

This doesn't add tactics...it completely changes them. You can describe a whole bunch of ways that we can preserve existing tactics, but not without forcing us to expend a lot more resources on the battlefield so that we can continue to play the game that _we_ enjoy. That just doesn't sound at all reasonable or fair to the rest of us.

(I'm not saying that spawn camping is an enjoyable tactic. I'm saying that I seriously doubt that tactical avenues for breaking a spawn camp have been fully explored.)

I don't like it.

I mean, when we fight we can put a lot of thought into our placement of vehicles, our movements and such. With this, holding key points such as Valleys, roads and mountains becomes useless due to the enemy team's ability to just spawn in behind you.

When I use a Tank, I am defensive quite a lot of the time. That means I hold a key point down such as a valley so other Vehicles cannot get past and troops have to get past me to make it to the objective (Think 3 Point Map, next to B). With this, you'd be able to just spawn in behind my Tank with a Forge Gun and blast me, making my defense useless with no way to actually combat it.

You also then put Dropships out of business, one of the things I love doing. See, if a Dropship was the cause of the above situation, I wouldn't mind it because I have a chance to fight the Dropship.

Overall I don't like the sound of it, it seems to take away the teamwork needed and removes a lot of strategy for defensive players.

This is a different take on things than my "Sky Spawning" thread.

I can see the merit in both approaches, but prefer my version. Mostly because it ties better into the existing mechanics of DUST, where this system would require more (and larger) changes before it could be implemented effectively.

It was really well done in Section 8, but other than AA, players in freefall were invulnerable, and that doesn't work in DUST, so that, along with my other misgivings, makes me lean towards my suggestion more.

Still, +1 for a well-thought-out thread with some interesting ideas.