Foward camps

Ghenra

What do you think about foward camps in Cyrodiil? Do you want it?

TRIP233

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

They are necessary and they help you get back to the keep faster so your alliance doesn't lose it, or if they do lose it then at least you're team put up more of a fight.

You can't defend or take a keep from the other side of the map.

Lowbei

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

... thats why supply lines are important, its intended that you take keeps to support your advance into their territory... if you can suicide to anywhere on the map, then supply lines mean nothing.

Dleatherus

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
• forward camps should come in two varieties:
  1. 'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members
  2. 'guild' and 'group' forward camps that can only be viewed and used by guild/group members and would cost more than the alliance forward camps
     a placement mechanic would need to be put in place that guild/group camps could be set up within 'alliance' camp radius to prevent abuse

D.

Vizier

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

I voted yes because I like the idea and believe they have a place in the overall strategic scheme. IMO they should be altered though. First they should be much more expensive and limited. For instance if a keep is separated from supply lines a whole army shouldn't be able to suicide spawn at that 1 keep. It seems to totally disrupt the supply connectivity / reinforcement aspect of the game. I might even take it a step further and limit the distance your corps can be from the forward camp in order to be able to respawn there. At least that way the Cavalry would actually have to "Ride to the Rescue." This type of change would go a long way to balancing the campaigns plagued by lopsided alliance numbers. It would be more realistic and challenging, requiring greater organization and more opportunity for defensive disruption of reinforcements converging on an area.

Vis

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

Though I am in the middle. I want them to change the mechanics of forward camps (i.e. Have them chain away from a rez and/or let enemies see where they are placed).

Ghenra

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

Dleatherus wrote: »

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
• forward camps should come in two varieties:
  1. 'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members
  2. 'guild' and 'group' forward camps that can only be viewed and used by guild/group members and would cost more than the alliance forward camps
     a placement mechanic would need to be put in place that guild/group camps could be set up within 'alliance' camp radius to prevent abuse

D.

I like your ideas mate!

yorzo

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Remember when almost every fwc would break and become un-usable, the pain of knowing there was a quality fight going on while you were riding back on a horse only to get ganked off your horse by some stealthers... never again.

Even though fwc's bring more exciting fights and call for new tactics, they need some type of change, they are being far overused, when 2 organized groups fight it becomes a war of fwc's. I want to see them stay in the game but something has to change, maybe a fwc cooldown on the area where it was used/destroyed at. This would lead to more tactical placement, and would punish the group who is dying more.

Skylandra

Dleatherus wrote: »

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
  
  
  D.

I think this is a fantastic Idea - Foreward camps are a good Idea, but people do abuse them sometimes. Last night in My campaign we had an hour+ long EP assault on Warden ( where we had their scroll). Their closest fort at the time was Dragonclaw and by the time they gave up the AD had taken all of the inner ring keeps except Ash and Nikel Outpost ( which we held) because almost the entire faction was using the camps at Warden to try get their scroll back. Ad had the least population online at the time....

Ghenra

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

I think people who post here don't play really AvA. Camps need to be nerfed fast, people are always abusing it, there are times that you can see 7 or more camps along Cyrodiil, this destroy absolutely roam and line ganks. Not all is siege keeps, there are people who enjoy little battles helping the zergs with surprise strategies.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Yea I like the idea of making them usable only to people that die within their radius.

Honfold

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

I wish they did more actually.

Orchish

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Camps are very important in my opinion. They allow for a sustained push or defence even with fewer numbers.

I actually wish we had more options. Small,Medium and Large camps. Larger ones costing a lot more but allowing more spawns and having more HP etc.

Xexpo

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

abusing it?
I disagree.

FCs are the last line of holding a point. I like that more people have figured out the benefit of carrying many FCs. Battles last much longer and it adds another layer of strategy.
Maybe more people should work 'burning enemy camps' into their strategies.
(instead of creating nerf polls)
Or at the very least get someone with a siege on it.
Cannot be spawned at while under attack, burning, or destroyed.

Lowbei

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

... they are obviously bugged, as their radius is obviously intended to only allow res within it

Crogster

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

do not remove them please :P

demonlkojipub19_ESO

Dleatherus wrote: »

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
• forward camps should come in two varieties:
  1. 'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members
  2. 'guild' and 'group' forward camps that can only be viewed and used by guild/group members and would cost more than the alliance forward camps
     a placement mechanic would need to be put in place that guild/group camps could be set up within 'alliance' camp radius to prevent abuse

D.

All of this must be done.

ferzalrwb17_ESO

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

They are getting a bit silly now. They shouldn't be allowed within keeps and resources. Certainly not on top of resource towers. They should be vulnerable targets at all times - not put in an utterly inaccessible spot. The kind of FC-spam we're seeing at the moment makes a good case for them being visible on the map for enemy factions also (if you can just suicide anywhere on the map and use them as fast travel for your entire alliance).

Many of the suggestions above are good. There should be a place in Cyrodiil for supply lines and the tactic of interrupting supply lines. At the moment you can stack an entire faction on an objective and have it steamroll it very quickly. It's just a numbers game mostly. Biggest zerg wins when they're both permanently unkillable. You would have a chance when undermanned (and so you should) if FC's weren't so ridiculous.

mrkaco_ESO

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Necessary, but like these ideas. Especially radius criteria.

Dleatherus wrote: »

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
• forward camps should come in two varieties:
  1. 'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members
  2. 'guild' and 'group' forward camps that can only be viewed and used by guild/group members and would cost more than the alliance forward camps
     a placement mechanic would need to be put in place that guild/group camps could be set up within 'alliance' camp radius to prevent abuse

D.

Armitas

Dleatherus wrote: »

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
• forward camps should come in two varieties:
  1. 'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members
  2. 'guild' and 'group' forward camps that can only be viewed and used by guild/group members and would cost more than the alliance forward camps
     a placement mechanic would need to be put in place that guild/group camps could be set up within 'alliance' camp radius to prevent abuse

D.

^ That would be great

SBR_QuorTek

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Forward camps is needed alot in this game for tactical use and a redo of bashing stuff if you end up dying horrible at some point.

can agree to some of the ideas up there though... but for eg. scrolls being carried down... it would be nice if a scout ahead of the scroll could put one up for then having good ways of intercepting it and such...

And other stuff, so yes forward camps should stay.

Gecko

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

I said they are needed, but would like to see them adjusted. I do not think you should be able to put them inside of a keep while defending. If a keep is cut off, it should prevent reinforcements from spawning there.

Maybe make it so you can only use a camp if you die within a certain distance. It would fix the use of them for quick traveling somewhere by suicide, which I am sure was never intended. This would spread the map out a little more in regards to travel times to reinforce an attacking force/defending force. It would also allow for more organized dual front feints or attacks, since the defenders would have to choose as opposed to being able to suicide and move to a keep on the other side of the map.

Bloody.Iblish

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Dleatherus wrote: »

I want forward camps with the following criteria:

• you can only rez at a forward camp if you died within its radius (prevents fast travel abuse)
• forward camps should come in two varieties:
  1. 'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members
  2. 'guild' and 'group' forward camps that can only be viewed and used by guild/group members and would cost more than the alliance forward camps
     a placement mechanic would need to be put in place that guild/group camps could be set up within 'alliance' camp radius to prevent abuse

D.

100% on the same boat here. Especially the idea of only being able to take the camp if you're within it's radius.

Forztr

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Without forward camps keeps away from the main action would be so much easier to take that they might as well not exist.

Currently a keep doesn't report as being attacked until the wall goes below 50%. If you had to ride from the nearest controlled keep then the outer wall would be down and inner wall almost down before you got there.

So unless the people who want them changed plan to volunteer for keep guard duty on the off chance it gets attacked camps should remain unchanged.

Agrippa_Invisus

IMO, the following caveats should be added to camps (and respawn in general) --

General -

1. Respawns in Cyrodiil should come with a 30s rez timer - you die, you're on the ground for half a minute. Only soul gem rezzes should be immediate (since there's a cost involved). You could also add an increasing timer to this to discourage spawn rushing.
2. Rez Sickness - Another 30s to 1m of weakened stats. Make it 10s in case of a soul gem rez (again, because of it costing finite resources instead of unlimited).

Forward Camps -
1. You should only be able to use it if in its radius, as others have suggested. This prevents the instant teleportation without transit.
2. A "cooldown" on using them or placing them. Destroying a forward camp should be a major part of a fight. Once its down, there should be a respite of enemies spawning right in your face. This cooldown should be between 1 to 5 minutes, inclusive.
3. Versions of the camps (with differing costs) that can be group or guild locked. I'm tired of my camps being burned up by randoms.

IcyDeadPeople

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

I imagine the majority of players are not interested in a horseback riding simulator mini-game. Removing or nerfing forward camps could make it much harder to keep a group going to assault keeps. When players die, they want to quickly get back into some kind of combat action.

On a high pop campaign, if forward camps were not available, many players would give up on the keep assault when they die and spawn at another location near some battle they can get to quickly.

On a low pop campaign, if there were no forward camps, there may not be any place you can spawn near combat action. Many players would leave the campaign, rather than ride horses across the map repeatedly.

I like the idea of some more costly guild or group only camp, but in my view these camps are a very important feature enabling players to quickly get to where the action is and enjoy PVP combat, rather than riding horses long distances.

Both attackers and defenders are benefiting greatly from these camps. If they were eliminated or nerfed to only let you spawn if you die nearby, the end result would be quite bad for low pop campaigns. Consider the players who log on to Cyrodiil, not seeing any action nearby and not seeing any way to get to the battle where their friends are without riding for 20 minutes.

pitdemon_ESO

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Definitely necessary, but could possibly use some "adjustment".

I used to play Planetside 2, where they have essentially the same mechanic in the form of mobile spawn points so I guess it's been easy for me to get used to them here.

Morvul

No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.

Poll has not enough options...

it's not that I dislike forward camps per se, but in their current form, they might be a tad too strong, IMHO

Animus0724

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

They are necessary, however; they need to balanced. The fact that they can be spammed and ported to anywhere on the map as long as you die, makes them a game breaking feature.

It is not fun to wipe an entire zerg with only 12 players only to have that zerg come back 30 secs later to wipe your team out. This takes the away the sense of accomplishment that so many find rewarding. This also drop morale as players simply give up, not wanting to deal with a seemingly endless wave of mindless players.

Although they can be countered, it is frustrating and stressful for team leaders to constantly have to roam around looking for these camps when it only takes one person to survive and put up another one. It shouldn't have to be that way.

A cool down would really help the situation as well as making it so that you have to die within the circle of influence before you can spawn in the camp. This forces players to actually have to travel to the battle the way that was actually intended, this makes cutting off resources as well as cutting reinforcements a valid tactic creating opportunities for smaller groups to be more useful on the battlefield.

sevcik.miroslaveb17_ESO

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Camps has positives and negatives.

For modern gaming it is a must. People are not willing to ride over whole Cyrodiil.

But I like a lot the idea of spawn at camp if you actualy died in it´s circle.

It does not make sense to spawn several miles away at some distant camp.
I would treat it as medical tent, where you can be revived if you are in range.

It will still serve it´s purpose of replenishing troops which are attacking or defending keep.

Lava_Croft

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Camps are bugged, people complain.
Camps are fixed, people complain.
I feel for you, ZOS.