Forward Camp Changes Ideas to Improve Siege Warfare

Kewljag_66_ESO

Forward Camps

The idea is great, its an offensive staging point and works great for that and lets attackers revive at it. But there are 2 big problems with it and the combination of the 2 is what really does it.

(1) A forward camp is much stronger as a defensive tool in a keep defense even tho thats not what it is designed for. It is a keep defense game changer. You can be tactical and take all 3 resources and cut of the keep port but they will lay down a FC inside and it completely takes that tactic away. Further more there is no risk when you die because you can release right back inside. You will see impulse bomb groups go outside and attack with no worry of being taken out of the defense because they can release to the FC back inside. When you are killed in keep defense and dont get a rez you should have to release and try to come back.

(2) intentually dieing so you can release to a FC across the map to instantly defend. You should never have a reason to die intentually for a benefit and even take away all your travel time. Combine this with (1) and it really hurts the system of the game.

I have 2 ideas, if only 1 was to be done i think it would still really help the siege / defense PVP in Cyrodiil and integrety of the game

(1) Forward camps have a certain range that they can only be released to. Example the area of a keep and its 3 resources. This way only people who are apart of that siege or defense can use that FC. This would take away 99% of the benefit to die intentually just so you can release and instantly travel across the map to the action.

(2) Forward Camps can ONLY be placed at resources. (maybe a designated protected spot) This would compliment the idea of a FC perfectly. You take a resource and stage your attack on the keep. People defending the keep could place one at a resource for defenders to come, but yous till have to get to the keep. Attackers could take all 3 resources and truely cut off all ports to that keep for defenders. Defenders could also send a group to take back a resource so they can lay a FC.

Ive played since launch and i really think these 2 changes would really help the PVP system.

Pirhana Shadowblade
V12 NB Bow / DW
Alliance Rank 33

hamon

these are good ideas. i have to concur

Icy

I very much like idea 1. The camps already have the overlap prevention radius. If you made it so that you could only respawn if you were in that already defined region, that would really work.

I don't think you could make it just near a keep/resources as there are times you might drop a camp in the middle of nowhere.

murtugo

I also like the idea but I think there should still be a method to fast travel from one point to another because Cyrodiil is such a huge place and it would take so long to travel to another location merely by horse. I believe without a method to fast travel it would create a boring and dull PVP and would even discourage players to play AvA because they would be spending most of their time riding their horses in Cyrodiil.

Durham

Speed up horse in the frontier would also help...

Nermy

*intentionally

Myrdrett

murtugo wrote: »

I also like the idea but I think there should still be a method to fast travel from one point to another ...

Transistus-System ?

murtugo

Myrdrett wrote: »

murtugo wrote: »

I also like the idea but I think there should still be a method to fast travel from one point to another ...

Transistus-System ?

Even with the transitus system the distance between two keeps are still too far/wide to travel even with a fast horse. You cannot also travel in a straight line towards your destination because of mountains and waters. Besides the transitus will not work if the keep is under siege.

Its just that Cyrodiil's map is too huge that it would take too much time and effort to travel between two locations without FC... Most probably by the time you reach your keep it has already changed its color.

For me the primary benefit of FC is its fast travel mechanism. I only play this game at most 3 hours per day and I don't want to spend even 1/8 of it by riding my horse.

Anyway its just my opinion. If you guys are fine with the idea then I guess i'll just have to adjust.

Sharee

I agree with you that suiciding just to get a fast port to a keep that needs defending is silly.

However, it is a necessary evil to combat another evil - cardboard keeps. Without the ability to quickly port to a camp inside a besieged keep, there would be no way to defend a keep from an attack.

Because currently an attacking force can damage both walls at once to 51% without the keep showing as under attack, and then quickly finish the remaining HP, so the time from the point where the keeps shows under attack on map to it changing color is measured in seconds.

Until you address this, forward camps need to stay. To fix this, it would be neccessary to
1, allow porting into keeps that are under attack, as long as at least one resource belongs to keep owner
2, make it impossible to damage inner wall while outer wall still stands

With these two, defenders will have a chance to react to a keep being under attack, and not just be forced to retake it when it inevitably falls.

murtugo

It would greatly benefit the sneaking attackers but the not the defenders.

All the attackers need to do to ensure success is to attacked a keep and place a small group of gankers outside the nearest keep of the opposing alliance to prevent them from defending it since they still need to travel by horse to the keep which is under attacked just to reach the radius of the "modified FC". The attacked keep will surely change its color before any defenders will even reach it.

Enodoc

murtugo wrote: »

It would greatly benefit the sneaking attackers but the not the defenders.

All the attackers need to do to ensure success is to attacked a keep and place a small group of gankers outside the nearest keep of the opposing alliance to prevent them from defending it since they still need to travel by horse to the keep which is under attacked just to reach the radius of the "modified FC". The attacked keep will surely change its color before any defenders will even reach it.

That's why the warning-to-transit ratio of percentages needs to change, along with vastly increasing the strength of a keep wall. I posted this in another thread (based on others' ideas):

Enodoc wrote: »

Defence of a keep can be maintained by tweaking the warning-to-transit ratio of outer wall integrity based on number of resources controlled (Sasky's idea), and buffing the health of outer walls. They fall too quickly at the moment anyway. With these two changes, forward camps wouldn't be needed to get to the keep in time.

This below was originally posted by @Sasky. I've tweaked the numbers a bit.

Example (large swings to illustrate - obviously could be tuned down a bit):
3 resources - keep under attack at 90%, transit in stops at 0%
2 resources - keep under attack at 90%, transit in stops at 30%
1 resource - keep under attack at 70%, transit in stops at 50%
0 resources - keep under attack at 70%, transit in unavailable (as all resources are taken)

Myrdrett

murtugo wrote: »

It would greatly benefit the sneaking attackers but the not the defenders.

All the attackers need to do to ensure success is to attacked a keep and place a small group of gankers outside the nearest keep of the opposing alliance to prevent them from defending it since they still need to travel by horse to the keep which is under attacked just to reach the radius of the "modified FC".

Yes, this is the mechanic i hope for the next PvP-Patch.

The Defenders must break through a Blockade of Attackers before they can defend a Keep.

The Attackers are able to intercept Keep-Defender reinforcements.

Nice open-ground or Wallfights will follow. This would be wonderful.

murtugo wrote: »

The attacked keep will surely change its color before any defenders will even reach it.

More Hitpoint for Doors and Walls and it is fine.
But if the Defenders not succeed to break through a gankerblockade to reach the Keep in time, they deserve to loose the Keep.

Morvul

my personal vision of forward-camps:

a) don't allow camps to be placed inside keeps, or within resources
--> forces camps to actually "forward" and exposed positions, where the opposition can destroy them without having to take the objective whithin which the camp is placed.

b) only allow rezzing at a camp, if player died within radius of said camp

Result: both attackers and defenders will have some challange in keeping camps up, camps can not be used as Fast-Travel. Therefore protecting and interrupting supply lines (meaning the transitus network as well as "travel-paths") becomes important.

However, as mentioned above: for this to work we also need:

c) MUCH stronger keep walls and doors
d) a "keep under attack" indicator that happens a good bit prior to "keep cut off from transitus" status

Draxys

Camps only being allowed in vulnerable positions would be useless with the way they currently are. Any nightblade can come in, destroy a camp, get out, and barely be seen.

madangrypally

murtugo wrote: »

I also like the idea but I think there should still be a method to fast travel from one point to another because Cyrodiil is such a huge place and it would take so long to travel to another location merely by horse. I believe without a method to fast travel it would create a boring and dull PVP and would even discourage players to play AvA because they would be spending most of their time riding their horses in Cyrodiil.

What I would like to see to fix this is making roads important. Have them increase mount/run speed by 50% while traveling on them.

Then add in a 2 types of new siege items.

1: Road Block: This creates a barrier that can be placed on roads. This barrier removes the increased mount/run speed in a small radius.

2: Traps: These are hidden traps that come in a variety of forms. Examples Traps: Roots, Damage, Snare, Knockdown, etc.

Then traveling will be a lot faster from keeps to keeps and it will make roads important.

======================

Then adjust Forward Camps to only be able to be placed in Resources like the OP suggested, but with a few other small changes.

1: Forward Camps have a cooldown before they can be reused by players. IE: I die and take a forward camp means for the next 10 minutes I wont be able to take a forward camp again.

2: Add in dailies that give good rewards for resurrecting fallen allies. This will make players actively ress which will keep players in the fight longer. This will make forward camps less useful, by making more players ress.

3: Using a Forward Camp does not restore a player to full stats when used. It restores 25% of max health, 15% magicka, and 15% stamina. This means they can not use a forward camp and automatically be at 100% fighting capacity.

eliisra

Well, I've taken loads of keeps with my groups in 4-5 minutes, since no one managed got there in time to defend. Get max sieges going, burn down inner + outer simultaneously, AoE down the NPC's and and breeze through it. Done.

If people cant put up camps, they have literally no chance in hell to defend against organized groups blitzing the map. By the time the keeps shows as contested, it's lost. No way to get there in time, even if most of the transit lines are working.

But if we make keeps severely stronger and more sturdy, boost the NPC's (again) and so on, than smaller raids stands no chance if achieving anything in Cyrodiil unless they run with the zerg.

There's so simple or easy solution sadly.

xbalint.vargaxprb19_ESO

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

(1) Forward camps have a certain range that they can only be released to.

this is a must, and as most people with sane ideas suggest it, i really hope it will be implemented. this would prevent deathport to far keeps

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

(2) Forward Camps can ONLY be placed at resources.

uhm, im not so sure about this. i know, the main goal is that the wiped defenders cant just be back in battle in 10 sec, mechanics should really give time for the attackers, but with this the only place you can use it is near keeps. this would cause problems with:
1) outpost battles
2) battles for the scroll in the middle of nowhere, far from any keep
3) battles near choke points like gates or bridges

so I would just suggest that you can put camp anywhere but the keeps.

Kewljag_66_ESO

murtugo wrote: »

I also like the idea but I think there should still be a method to fast travel from one point to another because Cyrodiil is such a huge place and it would take so long to travel to another location merely by horse. I believe without a method to fast travel it would create a boring and dull PVP and would even discourage players to play AvA because they would be spending most of their time riding their horses in Cyrodiil.

Thats what the keep transit system is for you can port across the map as long as you own the supply line. So you can still get most of tehe way across the map. taking resources around a keep was suppose to cut it off, but FCs take away that tactic. if you are coming from the next closest keep it is only 2min horse ride

smeeprocketnub19_ESO

I approve of number 1 but not number 2.

I use forward camps while questing and prefer to be able to use them for that. If I am in bruma and AD only owns 2 keeps on the map, it sucks to have to ride all the way back if someone kills me.

Kewljag_66_ESO

murtugo wrote: »

It would greatly benefit the sneaking attackers but the not the defenders.

All the attackers need to do to ensure success is to attacked a keep and place a small group of gankers outside the nearest keep of the opposing alliance to prevent them from defending it since they still need to travel by horse to the keep which is under attacked just to reach the radius of the "modified FC". The attacked keep will surely change its color before any defenders will even reach it.

This is how it was in DAOC and it was so much better. Yes you have to fight your way in or sneak in which everyone can do. Because of this your location wa svery important, /zone intel was very important. When a large force was spotted moving the warning went out to get to that keep. you anticipated a keep attack and were already there waiting to defend. This is really how it should be. Right now in eso placement on the map does not matter, you can die on one side and release to a FC in the middle of a keep seige on the other side of the map to defend.

Take away this FC easy mode so people have to actually make choices and actually already be there to defend. This also makes scout intel very important

murtugo

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

murtugo wrote: »

It would greatly benefit the sneaking attackers but the not the defenders.

All the attackers need to do to ensure success is to attacked a keep and place a small group of gankers outside the nearest keep of the opposing alliance to prevent them from defending it since they still need to travel by horse to the keep which is under attacked just to reach the radius of the "modified FC". The attacked keep will surely change its color before any defenders will even reach it.

This is how it was in DAOC and it was so much better. Yes you have to fight your way in or sneak in which everyone can do. Because of this your location wa svery important, /zone intel was very important. When a large force was spotted moving the warning went out to get to that keep. you anticipated a keep attack and were already there waiting to defend. This is really how it should be. Right now in eso placement on the map does not matter, you can die on one side and release to a FC in the middle of a keep seige on the other side of the map to defend.

Take away this FC easy mode so people have to actually make choices and actually already be there to defend. This also makes scout intel very important

I see your point... I'm not 100% convinced but I'm willing to give it a try.

Kewljag_66_ESO

Draxys wrote: »

Camps only being allowed in vulnerable positions would be useless with the way they currently are. Any nightblade can come in, destroy a camp, get out, and barely be seen.

Camps at resources are very protected, the guards see stealth from a mile away

Kewljag_66_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

I agree with you that suiciding just to get a fast port to a keep that needs defending is silly.

However, it is a necessary evil to combat another evil - cardboard keeps. Without the ability to quickly port to a camp inside a besieged keep, there would be no way to defend a keep from an attack.

Because currently an attacking force can damage both walls at once to 51% without the keep showing as under attack, and then quickly finish the remaining HP, so the time from the point where the keeps shows under attack on map to it changing color is measured in seconds.

Until you address this, forward camps need to stay. To fix this, it would be neccessary to
1, allow porting into keeps that are under attack, as long as at least one resource belongs to keep owner
2, make it impossible to damage inner wall while outer wall still stands

With these two, defenders will have a chance to react to a keep being under attack, and not just be forced to retake it when it inevitably falls.

I agree that keep should be tougher but even in its current state FCs are like lazy easymode. You shouldnt rely on them to save keeps you should already be there to defend. Anticipate what will be attacked. This is how it was in DAOC, defenders were there ready before the attack even came.

You can look at the map, Yes the first keep take would have no warning and be very hard to save but once that happened you can pretty much know what the next keep target is and already be there to defend. Once defenders are at a keep it greatly slows down the the attacking seige. RIght now it is all about FCs, there is no real tactics, no one cares for intell on enemy movement from stealth because you can just die and release to defend at the moment it happens.

I just want better siege warfare and tactics and FCs in their current state really hurt that.

Sharee

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

I agree with you that suiciding just to get a fast port to a keep that needs defending is silly.

However, it is a necessary evil to combat another evil - cardboard keeps. Without the ability to quickly port to a camp inside a besieged keep, there would be no way to defend a keep from an attack.

Because currently an attacking force can damage both walls at once to 51% without the keep showing as under attack, and then quickly finish the remaining HP, so the time from the point where the keeps shows under attack on map to it changing color is measured in seconds.

Until you address this, forward camps need to stay. To fix this, it would be neccessary to
1, allow porting into keeps that are under attack, as long as at least one resource belongs to keep owner
2, make it impossible to damage inner wall while outer wall still stands

With these two, defenders will have a chance to react to a keep being under attack, and not just be forced to retake it when it inevitably falls.

I agree that keep should be tougher but even in its current state FCs are like lazy easymode. You shouldnt rely on them to save keeps you should already be there to defend. Anticipate what will be attacked. This is how it was in DAOC, defenders were there ready before the attack even came.

You can look at the map, Yes the first keep take would have no warning and be very hard to save but once that happened you can pretty much know what the next keep target is and already be there to defend. Once defenders are at a keep it greatly slows down the the attacking seige. RIght now it is all about FCs, there is no real tactics, no one cares for intell on enemy movement from stealth because you can just die and release to defend at the moment it happens.

I just want better siege warfare and tactics and FCs in their current state really hurt that.

Do you really expect people (in a force large enough to stop attackers until reinforcements come) to spend their whole gaming evening at Fort Warden twiddling thumbs while the fighting is at Blue road keep? Just in case a sneaky enemy group(which might never come) decides to steal the scroll placed there?

Please.

Keeps in DAoC could not be taken in 30 seconds. They also were much closer together. Placing a siege was a major effort, you couldn't carry 15 ballistas and 12 trebuchets in your inventory. It's not comparable.

Kewljag_66_ESO

Sharee wrote: »

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

I agree with you that suiciding just to get a fast port to a keep that needs defending is silly.

However, it is a necessary evil to combat another evil - cardboard keeps. Without the ability to quickly port to a camp inside a besieged keep, there would be no way to defend a keep from an attack.

Because currently an attacking force can damage both walls at once to 51% without the keep showing as under attack, and then quickly finish the remaining HP, so the time from the point where the keeps shows under attack on map to it changing color is measured in seconds.

Until you address this, forward camps need to stay. To fix this, it would be neccessary to
1, allow porting into keeps that are under attack, as long as at least one resource belongs to keep owner
2, make it impossible to damage inner wall while outer wall still stands

With these two, defenders will have a chance to react to a keep being under attack, and not just be forced to retake it when it inevitably falls.

I agree that keep should be tougher but even in its current state FCs are like lazy easymode. You shouldnt rely on them to save keeps you should already be there to defend. Anticipate what will be attacked. This is how it was in DAOC, defenders were there ready before the attack even came.

You can look at the map, Yes the first keep take would have no warning and be very hard to save but once that happened you can pretty much know what the next keep target is and already be there to defend. Once defenders are at a keep it greatly slows down the the attacking seige. RIght now it is all about FCs, there is no real tactics, no one cares for intell on enemy movement from stealth because you can just die and release to defend at the moment it happens.

I just want better siege warfare and tactics and FCs in their current state really hurt that.

Do you really expect people (in a force large enough to stop attackers until reinforcements come) to spend their whole gaming evening at Fort Warden twiddling thumbs while the fighting is at Blue road keep? Just in case a sneaky enemy group(which might never come) decides to steal the scroll placed there?

Please.

Keeps in DAoC could not be taken in 30 seconds. They also were much closer together. Placing a siege was a major effort, you couldn't carry 15 ballistas and 12 trebuchets in your inventory. It's not comparable.

Yes there are differences with DAOC and yes the amount of siege that could be carried a big factor. Keep distance tho..... The keeps may have been closer but unless you had a max speed class in your group it was a long run. Like 3-5 minutes.
Compare that to the further apart keeps in ESO but you have fast horses that take less than 2 minutes. Unless the enemy has many well coodinated groups taking all 3 resources from keeps in a supply line you can still port to the closest keep and get to the seige in under 2 minutes.

Limiting what FCs could do or their range would make resource camps very important. the moment you saw them being cut off you better port or your guys better try take them back.

When a stealther says in zone chat AD heading to Sej outpost it would actually be important, people would port there or head there on horses. I think you would be surpised how many people are out and about sneaking. With limited FCs you would see alot of important /z info coming. right now you hardly see any because it doesnt matter, you can just release to a FC.

Yes i agree with you there needs to be other changes like stronger keeps, limiting the seige you can carry and other stuff. but with or without those changes limiting what FCs can do is needed. Currently they are ruining all aspects of the seige warfare game. mainly.. the size of Cyrodiil has zero importance and means nothing when you can die and release to instantly travel to the otherside of the map to defend a keep.

Sasky

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

You can look at the map, Yes the first keep take would have no warning and be very hard to save but once that happened you can pretty much know what the next keep target is and already be there to defend. Once defenders are at a keep it greatly slows down the the attacking seige. RIght now it is all about FCs, there is no real tactics, no one cares for intell on enemy movement from stealth because you can just die and release to defend at the moment it happens.

I just want better siege warfare and tactics and FCs in their current state really hurt that.

The issue is that defensive siege really doesn't do a whole lot in the majority of situations and the defender is worse off than the attacker. On the outer wall, a bunch of the keeps (most notably Glademist) have places where they can siege the outer wall and not be touched by defensive siege. Even on perfectly level ground where attackers' siege can be reached, defenders can't field the same number of siege as attackers. The inner wall is worse and has extremely few places to setup defensive siege, none of which can even attack a large portion of the siege.

In a lot of keeps it's easiest to defend once both outer and inner walls have been breached, when it should be the exact opposite. Part of that can be solved by increasing wall strength enough to force people to go through the doors, but it'll most likely need major overhauls to keep design and introduction/buffing of siege used defensively.

Draxys

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

Draxys wrote: »

Camps only being allowed in vulnerable positions would be useless with the way they currently are. Any nightblade can come in, destroy a camp, get out, and barely be seen.

Camps at resources are very protected, the guards see stealth from a mile away

I wasn't talking about camps at resources. I mean open field, vulnerable camps can be taken down with ease by a NB. I would not consider a resource an advanced position.

Sharee

Kewljag_66_ESO wrote: »

... you can still port to the closest keep and get to the seige in under 2 minutes.

The problem is that (assuming both walls were sieged at once) it takes less time from keep showing under attack on map to keep being captured than it takes to get there, no matter how fast you are.

I have a 75% speed horse and 33% retreating maneuver. I was at aleswell, looking at map, when i saw rayles report under attack. I immediately ported to glademist, and rode max speed to rayles. It changed ownership just as i got the keep in view in the distance.

Palindrome

People keep talking about not being able to see a keep that is under attack or keep walls / doors being to weak....
why not take a look at one of the things DAoC did and allow the guilds who own the keep to get guild spam anytime enemy players are in the area

(if i remember correctly when a enemy player attacked your keep guards or walls the guild would get message in guild chat)

Also another thing DAoC did was allow guilds to earn bounty points or Alliance Points as they are here from the guild members kills, and with those point keeps could be upgraded and fortified.
you want stronger guards. thicker walls or doors. spend your guilds AP to upgrade your keep to have it.
With these two options guilds were able to not only make it across the pvp zone to defend their keep without need for fast travel but also make it from pve.

I love this game but currently it is lacking. and a GW2 clone of zerg pvp is just not fun. I understand that there are people who want that kind of thing but please also understand that there are people who do not.
Let us play our way.
If we want to run small gank groups and interrupt supply lines we should be able to, if we want to run a medium group and go for keeps that are lacking heavy defense we should be able to, and if we want to run in massive zerg and smash head first into another zerg at 10fps we should be able to do that as well.
there is really no reason that we can not all have what we want with a world as large as this one.