Thoughts on Forward Camps?

aclarkob14_ESO · August 2014

Anyone else feel like they should be removed from the game or completely re-imagined? While I enjoy the ability to instantly get to the action, I feel it is a bit of a double edged sword, with the other edge being perhaps a bit too sharp.

With forward camps there are essentially no penalties for death. If I die, I can get back to the action often within seconds, with full hp/magicka/stamina and whatever ultimate I have accumulated. No action where you are? No problem; my PvP partner and I will routinely die on keeps or towers, and jump to the most promising forward camp.

They have too much of an effect on the outcome of battles. In large group vs group battles, I sometimes kill the same guy over and over and over. It's just too easy to continually recycle camps in certain defended positions. It has gotten to the point where victory in some of these battles is defined solely by the side that drops the most forward camps.

It changes the flow of combat. Like picking off reinforcements as they trickle from the nearest enemy keep? Too bad! There's a forward camp right outside your gate. Nobody will be running from that keep. In DAoC RvR, the transit system between keeps became strategically important. You took that tower between two keeps because it prevented the enemy from porting directly inside the keep and amassing a defense too quickly. In this game, the forward camps almost completely negate the strategy.

Anyway, I noticed there was another thread similar to this from a week ago, but the responses seemed too focused on detracting from the OP's post, and less about general thoughts.

Durham · August 2014

Not removed but modified yes...sticking them inside keeps is crazy... ruins the game in many aspects.. Placing on top of resources needs to be gone...

Durham · August 2014

Also 1 minute rezz sickness after use needs to be implimented...

Suhxtob-yu · August 2014

I would like to have to select a "main faction" for my account and only be able to earn AP for that faction.

This would eliminate "troll camps" and at the same time not force ZOS to have to force deleted characters upon us.

Also, if this is to be implemented, they have to also make sure that siege/camps cannot be used by an opposing faction. What I mean is that someone wouldn't be able to buy siege/camps on their main toon then bank the items for their alt on different faction to use.

Road2insanity777 · August 2014

I don't care as long as zone chat finally shuts up about them

dbishop · August 2014

Maybe what they need is a no FC server for all the RP'ers and others who want it. When it dies off due to a lack of action you can come play with the rest of us who want them with or without some small tweaks.

FC's must stay.

KellanKell · August 2014

Would be nice if they could make group forward camps. It would make strategic maneuvers more successful. The group I run with sometimes won't even drop a forward camp till the last ditch need, b/c of the pug mentality of "Oh what's going on over there."

Group or Raid forward camps would prevent that. I know of another game that did something like that. You had public forward respawn camps, and Group/raid respawn camps.

Just my 2 cents.

Krinaman · August 2014

One benefit from the current FC situation is that the gankers now are doing you a favor. In fact I find myself more upset when I don't get ganked and actually have to ride all the way there. So thank you all you guys sitting out there waiting to kill us 3,4or5+ vs 1 enabling us to travel to your keeps faster.

Honestly, the whole transit system needs to be revisited. Under the current system by the time you find out a keep is under attack you can't travel to it. Without forward camps a decent sized group will capture a keep faster than you can get to it. With forward camps that group gets inside almost captures it but 1 lone guy gets a forward camp up and suddenly the whole faction is there to defend. Both outcomes seem a bit broken.

Garion · August 2014

I like the concept of Forward Camps (FC), but I also agree that they need revamping. Without FCs, I think we would see a considerable drop in PvP activity from those less dedicated PvPers. Remember, we signed up for epic large scales fights in Cyrodiil, not Horse Simulator 2014. Therefore it is (in my opinion) important that they remain but perhaps with some, limited, alterations so as to ensure they do not become too easily exploited.

First and foremost, Brian Wheeler has indicated that guild only FCs are something the PvP team is considering and will, most likely, be implemented. This is a good improvement for PvP guilds who like to mount raids but find themselves unable to do so effectively because indiscriminate pugs happen to utilise the FC without bothering to replace it, or at least indicate they were the last to use it but are not in a position to place another one.

In terms of general FC I think there are some very simple adjustments that could be considered and tested that would help bring some balance to their usage:

Resurrection should only be possible if you are within the range of the FC.
FC should deteriorate steadily over time if they are not used within a certain time limit. That timer would reset after use, and it would most certainly not be to the same extent as current siege deterioration timers!
FCs should not be able to be placed within the range of a keep that can be travelled to. So, for example, if my alliance holds Sejanus and I attempt to place a FC at a BRK resource I should get a message saying something along the lines of "too close to a friendly keep".

I feel that there are also elements that could be looked at in regard to the fast travelling system as a whole that might go some way to helping the FC issue and making the game more interesting and enjoyable to play:

The transitus network is, presumably, maintained by the mages who surround the shrines in each keep. When a keep comes under siege, let's say (for the sake of argument) that their magical aura is disrupted by the presence of so much magical activity (I'm not a lore buff so I could be talking out of my rear!) How about making it possible for four players to 'assist' the mages. So, if four players can coordinate and each go to a transistus shrine and 'synergise' with it (by pressing X) then the ability to travel (but not necessarily resurrect) to that keep will be restore or maintained for as long as they maintain this connection. This channelling would drain magicka and be interrupted by attacks, or animations. Once one person's magicka is drained the channelling would stop and the ability to travel would, once again, be disrupted.
Implement shrines across Cyrodiil in strategic locations that can be captured and thereafter travelled to. An independent network of wayshrines set across longer distances and smaller in number. Perhaps place them in towns across Cyrodiil - or near towns, at least. They would be buffed by NPCs, but would also be a great place to encourage smaller scale PvP.

On a side note, there are ways to deal with FCs. They can be sieged and go down very quickly to Fire Ballistas. So even if you are only one or two you can siege down a FC at a resource very quickly without even needing to take the resource for example.

Anyway, some food for thought I suppose.

Zintair · August 2014

People should not be able to suicide an rez at them. There is no consequence currently for being our of position. Death has little penalty. If the only way you could rez at a forward camp was to die by a player attack I think they would be working better so entire armies couldn't zip around the map in the snap of a finger.

OR

You should only be allowed to rez at the forward camp if you are inside its rez radius.

Make there more consequences!

Xsorus · August 2014

They should be removed.
But at the same time, you can't remove them without fixing the problem of Keeps being incredibly easy to break into.

It takes like 2 minutes with the proper setup to bust down the outer an inner wall of a keep.

So what they should do is remove the forward camps, then increase the strength of all Walls on all keeps. Doors should be the easiest method to get into a keep.

Morvul · August 2014

Krinaman wrote: »

Honestly, the whole transit system needs to be revisited. Under the current system by the time you find out a keep is under attack you can't travel to it. Without forward camps a decent sized group will capture a keep faster than you can get to it. With forward camps that group gets inside almost captures it but 1 lone guy gets a forward camp up and suddenly the whole faction is there to defend. Both outcomes seem a bit broken.

This!

with the way keeps walls currently are made of paper, and one only finds out that a keep is under attack once it's no longer possible to transitus there, FCs are pretty much needed if one ever wants to see a defended keep.

BUT: FCs make "supply lines" completely unneeded.
Transitus network disrupted? no matter, just put up a FC at that keep.
Enemy holding the choke-point between our keep and theirs? no matter, just put up a FC at their keep

so yeah, FCs need changes, lots of them.
Guild/Group only FCs might be a nice idea.
Only Rez at FCs when you died within the FCs range is clearly needed.
Some sort of "Rezzed at a FC Penalty" is also needed.
No placement of FCs within heavily fortified positions might be a good idea.

however, all of these also require keep walls (and maybe doors) to be made MUCH stronger - so defenders have time to actually reach the sieged keep without FCs

Enodoc · August 2014

Making it so that you can only rez at a camp you die within the radius of would solve the issue of suicide-porting. This then needs to be combined with a buff of keep wall health so that walls don't go down so easily, and a change to the warning-to-transit ratio of percentages so that there is enough time to get a defensive force together. 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)

Keron · August 2014

I like most of the train of thought going on in this thread. I'll add some food for thought:

make a "keep is under attack" indicator as soon as enemy players enter the "keep grounds" (the game already identifies it if you enter these areas, so not much to add)
limit FCs to a certain number at each keep. For example, a keep with all three ressources can build up res for 5 FCs per hour, with two res held, it can build up 3 per hour and with one res held it is down to 1 FC per hour. Limit it to 20 in total (numbers chosen arbitrarily). These FC you can buy only within the keep/ressource itself and they can only be used within the associated grounds.
FCs of a ressource are only collectible/usable if the ressource does not belong to the keep owning faction. This is for attackers. Number of FCs is always 10 and will only be refilled if the ressource flips ownership.
Ressurection at the FC is limited to those being within the white limits already existing.

Say a group wants to take a keep. they ride there, enter the first ressource grounds, indicator is same as has been: defenders see res attacked on map but keep is not yet shown as under attack. TP to and from keep is still possible. everything as is, with the exception that attackers have to purchase a dedicated FC at the ressource itself and plant it there. They have a budget of 10 now that they have capped the res.

They then move towards the keep itself and the defending faction gets an indicator that the keep is under attack. Until the wall goes down to 50% (as is now), they can still teleport in. They can then proceed to buy the associated FC and plant it, but you can't have people from all over the map TP there by suicide.

Attack commences but both sides have limited FCs available. Defenders have at most 20, depending on how long since last attack and how many res have been retaken. Attackers have at most 30 (10 per res), a little more due to the keep wall advantage of defenders.

With the limitation of ressurection range, the only way to get reinforcements in after the siege has started is the onerous one of physically moving there (on foot or horse). This may put attackers on a disadvantage, especially if you go for ninja caps on far removed enemy keeps, but it is a worthwhile disadvantage - you can now really lock down a faction by taking the central home keep (Arrius, Glademist or Faregyl) as long as they don't have one of the outlying ones.

It gives added importance to keeps not directly related to emperorship, limits the length of a battle, stops troll-camps and rewards having scouts all around to investigate enemy movement.

your thoughts on this?

Cody · August 2014

I don't think it would be a problem if modifications were made. here are my thoughts on what could be done:
1. Only be able to use an FC if you are in its radius.
2. Only be able to place them on resources(would also make resources actually matter)
3. Don't start players from them fully recovered!
Im sure there are other things I missed.

smeeprocketnub19_ESO · August 2014

Suhxtob-yu wrote: »

I would like to have to select a "main faction" for my account and only be able to earn AP for that faction.

This would eliminate "troll camps" and at the same time not force ZOS to have to force deleted characters upon us.

Also, if this is to be implemented, they have to also make sure that siege/camps cannot be used by an opposing faction. What I mean is that someone wouldn't be able to buy siege/camps on their main toon then bank the items for their alt on different faction to use.

I agree with this, the troll camps are obnoxious. Recently someone put an AD troll camp up where the only way out of the area was via slaughterfish. Well done as far as trolling goes, but it's in poor taste and can throw a fight.

I'd just like to see people only be able to rez at a camp they are in the radius of.

Soloeus · August 2014

But troll camps. Spies and Trolls will set up badly placed camps to block you from placing a proper one. To combat this, you suicide and burn their camp so your friend can set up the real one.

There are also trolls who suicide/rez at camps just to screw other teams within their own faction.

Lodur · August 2014

How does having a forward camp in a castle make any kind of sense? This really bugs me.. But keep defense would be too hard without them currently.

I would like to see forward camps re-balanced together with castles.

Goals:

Dying should not be rewarded (Blood porting)
Castles should not need forward camps in them for defense.
Deal with troll camps

Changes for forward camps:

Can not be placed inside a castle. Castle should provide similar features.
Connects to the transport network. If the radius a FC includes a castle or outpost then the FC is connect to the transport network by the included nodes. Don't need to die to use an FC now. You can not chain link FC; an FC should only join the transport network via castles or outposts. Transport to an FC uses a charge just as reviving.
Can only revive in an FC if you died in the radius of the FC
Show the name of the player that dropped a forward camp on the map.
Let the Top X (50?) players on the leader board be able to destroy FCs from the map interface. Via a vote?

Changes for castles:

Castles inner keep need to allow revives within the area and surrounding area of the castle, much like a forward camp.
At 75% (?) outer wall HP or 90% (?) inner keep HP mark the keep as under attack on the map. Castle is still connected to the transport network.
At %50 (?) outer wall HP disable the castle from the transportation network.
At 10% (?) inner keep HP disable revive to inner keep (FC like features)
A dead player can only revive at castles that they are in the revive radius of or if the castle connected to the 2 home bases. ( No blood ports to distant, unconnected, but not under siege castles. )

madangrypally · August 2014

Forward Camps:

Remove Forward Camps and replace them with something else. Forward Camps are destroying Cyrodiil.

Players use a forward camp should start with 10% Magicka/Stamina and 15% health only. Starting with 100% is a major issue and needs resolved fast.

Suggestion: Make it possible after 2 resources are owned the players can place a Forward Base that allows players to respawn at. The Forward Base is at one of the 2 resources. For keep defenders they must have 1 resource plus the keep to have a Forward Base that is inside the keep. Only those who have died in the radius of the Forward Base can respawn at them.

jackyd · August 2014

How about this ...have scouts spread out around your strategic assets so they can report in if some1 drops a FC to sneak armies behind enemy lines.

Srsly everything you ppl are complaining about can be resolved by the players themselves by employing some warfare tactics.

What there should be in game is some kind of strategic assets that prevents FCs from being errected and players needing to destroy those in order to setup FCs kinda like the Cynosural System Jammers in New Eden.
These assets should not be permanent but be needed to build/place/bought by the faction conquering a keep and then be placed by them in a certain radius around that keep.

To me dropping a FC to cap a keep is the same as dropping a cyno to jump in your fleet on a given mark.

ZOS should give players the tools to deal with such tactics and not put in some arbitrary restrictions on how FCs can be used.

Dudis · August 2014

Just make it so you can't resurrect across the whole damn map. If there's a FC in a keep for example, you shouldn't be able to resurrect to it from much further out than the mine/mill/farm.

That way you can have your epic endless sieges and there will be stuff to do for roaming groups killing off reinforcements from both sides. Everyone's happy.

From the perspective of someone that usually avoid the keeps altogether, I'd like personal or group-only camps. I don't know how much but it's a lot of AP that I've spent on putting down FCs that are just gone when I actually want to use it.

eliisra · August 2014

Dudis wrote: »

Just make it so you can't resurrect across the whole damn map. If there's a FC in a keep for example, you shouldn't be able to resurrect to it from much further out than the mine/mill/farm.

That way you can have your epic endless sieges and there will be stuff to do for roaming groups killing off reinforcements from both sides. Everyone's happy.

I'm not happy with that. But everyone disliking forward camps might be.

With the right raid I take keeps in 3-4 minutes, sieging inner and outer simultaneously. Than AoE down the NPC's and stack on flag. By the time the keeps shows up as contested the enemy have around 1.5-2 minutes to get there before it's flipped. If there's no camp nearby, they loose it, because riding takes to long.

Taking keeps without forward camps is like stealing candy from kids really. Especially for raids capping the entire map after midnight or in the morning. There's no way to defend against coordinated blitz groups, without camps and free re-spawn.

You would have to reinforce the keeps severely, as in thicker walls and doors, if you want to restrict the travelling.

Dudis · August 2014

So the solution then is to make it take longer to capture the keeps.

As far as i can tell there are 3 ways to do that
1) Simply increase the HP on the walls/door/guards and make it take longer to capture the flag
2) Give more advantages to the defenders, like giving a port window of a few minutes.
3) Redesign the whole keep to make it easier to defend with more chokepoints for example and remove the AoE cap.

Komma · August 2014

just have keeps show under attack at 75% instead of 50 and don't allow the inner to be hit until the outer wall is down. Let us upgrade keeps. There are many ways to improve the system and get away from the suicide porting which is the main issue here imo.