Foward camps

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · July 2014

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:
'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members

'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 voted no to make a point, but I want them in the game under the conditions highlighted by the person I quoted.

I played PS2 a lot, and instant redeploys in combination with the lattice system killed that game.

Logistics should be a primordial skill to have as a leader.

Renuo · July 2014

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

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

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.

If we must keep this horrid thing then at least restrict them.

I know the huge majority of you like the idea of no risk and just smashing into the enemy mindlessly maybe pressing a button maybe just clicking the mouse a couple times, but it's starting to get a little silly. Was stealth watching an AD vs EP siege trying to pick off people who manage to find themselves slightly away from the swash of allies, constantly worth less than 30AP because they are all dying within 2 minutes and resing back at the endless stream of forward camps supplied just behind them. Meanwhile the other team is doing the same.

Hell, even I have gotten caught into the thought of, heck I'll just run out and have a go and if I die whatever I'll res back at the forward camp!

Death has to mean SOMETHING, there has to be a danger to getting smacked. I've even been whispered when I found some guy out in the open (I know, crazy right!) "Thanks for the lift to the FC didn't want to run all the way to ales" (to suicide at our keep). I'm not asking for a UO/Mortal Online die and lose all your stuff, I'm atleast asking for some level of time loss or something to stop this risk-less play.

And to the guy who said this means you can't defend away from the action keeps... how?? If anything it is hurting that as a group of 12 can have one guy run to the middle of nowhere and place a FC and they have 20 balistas on that keep firing straight away. By the time it is on fire and one of your guys can respond to drop a FC in range they will still have the wall down. The only thing it would change removing them is that everyone will have to run there (and if you have the better supply line you can get there before them...)

Tintinabula · July 2014

camps need to be able to be taken down and like the devs idea on siege weapons degrading at a faster pace if they're not being used; FCs should degrade at a faster pace as well. Spies are using FCs to prevent REAL FCs being placed near keeps.

dbishop · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

If you want to PvP, FC's are a must. If you want to PvE in Cyro then your playing the wrong game.
The whole riding game simulator isn't fun either.

I think FC's should require at least one resource point to be captured or have to be placed further from the Keep or Resource which would prevent ninja job's being done. It would also allow an attacking force the ability to push the defenders out.
Also Zeni need to find a way to bring into the game some of the outer-lying structures/towns to be used as spawn points as well. It's all good and well having a nice little PvE quest line in a cute little town but these towns should be able to be used as staging points for attacks as well.
There is a lot more that can be added to the map to bring more of the map into play.

Renuo · July 2014

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

Riding game simulator? It's hardly any time at all to go from two connecting keeps. Let's be real it's all about how instant it can be.

There would be no calls of FCs are a must if there were no FCs to begin with.

If they need to buff horse speed to make people happier then do that instead.

Vizier · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Ghenra wrote: »

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:
'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members

'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!

Agree with all of this. Would be a relatively easy fix.

I think I'd actually reduce the rez radius as well by a good 30-40%

Might perhaps make it a little easier to place camps. As is right now they space of level ground necessary to put up a tent is a bit over the top.

Rhorlak_Wulfmare · July 2014

Forward camps can not be removed from Cyrodiil but as others have said they need adjusting.
Aside from the other proposals how about synergies? You need more than one person to set a forward camp so it's more of a task. Press x to set up forward camp anyone??

•cooldowns would be nice
•only spawn within radius
•optional "guild" FCs
•and perhaps "synergies"

Maybe even have it so the more people that use the synergy, the "stronger" the forward camp allowing more to spawn there etc.. Maybe even have it so every 1 person that synergies adds 10 to be able to spawn. Idk but something should change.

madangrypally · July 2014

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

Change how FCs work.
1: Forward camps have a cooldown before a player can use them again. IE: I spawn at a forward camp then I cant use them again for short amount of time. 5 mins is short enough imo.

2: Make using a forward camp cost AP for the who uses it. IE: I die and spawn at a forward camp. I get a message it will cost 1400 AP and if I accept I rezz at it.

3: Upgrade the Roads in Cyrodil to increase movement speed by 25% while on them. That will allow players to travel from keep to keep faster and will add in some nice ambush spots.

Krinaman · July 2014

If you change forward camps so you have to be in range then defending keeps becomes nearly impossible. So other changes would be required as well.

Currently, you get no warning of an attack until the keep is bursted and then you can't travel to it. Sure you can leave scouts everywhere but who wants to be the guy stuck in the keep being a look out?

So I would change the warning/transit system as well.

- NPC's would put out a warning once enemies are spotted/wall is attacked.
- Travel to keep via transit is available longer. At least till outer is completely down. Maybe 50% of inner or make the transit damageable so attackers could siege it once inside the outer.
- You can only spawn at a fwc you are within range of but you can also transit to any fwc within range of a transit.
- A destroyed forward camp doesn't immediately get removed from the map. A destroyed camp will stay unusable and prevent a new camp within it's range for X amount of time. This makes destroying a camp more meaningful. A used up camp immediately goes away so you can spawn a new one.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · July 2014

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

Krinaman wrote: »

Currently, you get no warning of an attack until the keep is bursted and then you can't travel to it. Sure you can leave scouts everywhere but who wants to be the guy stuck in the keep being a look out?

I understand why you believe this, you see the practicality of it, but it wouldn't really work out this way.
It is far more likely that people would just split up and commit to a front line. Especially if guilds really gained something from keep ownership and wanted to fight to defend them.

Using forward camps as a redeploy tool is a form of instant travel that make troops commitment inexistant. One group could pretty much defend two fronts at the same time by redeploying from one to the other without an opportunity cost.
A sane strategy meta game can't exist under these conditions.

You need efforts on both sides to matter. Some permanence in the context of the frontline. Each death, each siege engine destruction and wall that had to be repaired are a price in time and resources you are forcing your enemy to pay.
It is an attrition war.

If all of a sudden, a full group gets added instantly to one side, it can invalidate all the efforts of both parties and reset the situation to a point where all previous actions were meaningless.
It is not okay to let this happen if there are ways for that group to disappear and do it again elsewhere immediately.

Without fast travel, that group would be reinforcement. It would change the situation all the same, but at a price.
It will leave their current fight, weakening one front line and it will be out of the fight compeltely while traveling. There is risk vs reward here.

So at the very least, forward camps need to change so as to have a radius at which teh yare available.

shanersimms_ESO · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Lowbei wrote: »

... 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.

Well you have to suicide into enemy players or nodes with "PvP" NPCS. So players can't just die to wolves outside the Zone entrance gates and spawn deep in enemy territory for example. You at least have to die within the enemy's battlefront.

Although I do agree it somewhat nullifies the need for supply lines. If the enemy is pushed up to your inner keeps you can die and spawn near one of their inner keeps with forward camps. If your team's front is in enemy territory you can fast travel nearly all the way there anyways.

I think that's why having a 20 person cap before the camps de-spawn is essential. It would be needlessly costly to bring down an army using just the camps, when you could just use that army to expand your supply line network. So this adds at least a small amount of encouragement to value supply lines.

In sum I don't believe removing forward camps for the sake of adding value to supply line maintenance (as cool as it sounds on paper) would offer a more rewarding experience. Forward camps allow for fun tactics like sneak attacks/takeovers of castles deep in enemy territory, quick scroll theft, etc. to happen more often; all the fun moments that grab the teams' attention. No forward camps would promote more of the same back and forth tug of war between enemy fronts. Not as fun imho.

shanersimms_ESO · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

madangrypally wrote: »

Change how FCs work.
1: Forward camps have a cooldown before a player can use them again. IE: I spawn at a forward camp then I cant use them again for short amount of time. 5 mins is short enough imo.

2: Make using a forward camp cost AP for the who uses it. IE: I die and spawn at a forward camp. I get a message it will cost 1400 AP and if I accept I rezz at it.

3: Upgrade the Roads in Cyrodil to increase movement speed by 25% while on them. That will allow players to travel from keep to keep faster and will add in some nice ambush spots.

Rebuttals:

1. No comment.

2. Immersion breaking. Would be similar to an in-game currency store in my mind: "For just 1,400 AP you too can rez with your friends at the FC!" It already costs resources to place the camp. Charging people to use it seems like a double charge.

It would also lead to issues when trying to run with your guild. "Ok Mike and I rezed down at Fort X, you guys coming? Tim: Well Rick and I can't because we just dumped all of our AP on Forward Camps. Also, James is a lvl 10 noob and has spent 14k tonight already rezzing at FCs just to keep up with us. He said he's going back to PvE". Should consider there is a whole category of players that might find it difficult to earn 1,400 AP before dying and needing to use a FC to stay up with their friends.

3. There are already many choke points in the game leaving no shortage of ambush spots. I feel dedicating production resources to map out all of the "faster movement" terrain would be a little superfluous. Also the argument that it will "allow players to travel from keep to keep faster" seems odd to me, because from anywhere on the map you are essentially between two keeps. In my opinion, it would be nice to encourage people to go slightly off-road a little more often other than just for heading to mundus stones/delves.

Ghenra · July 2014

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

Forward Camps are destroying absolutely the roam and gank lines in Cyrodiil, I can't understand how the people want this RvR system.

A nerf for only can use it if you die in its influence zone and more AP cost is necessary, I played around 2h this afternoon and all the time the fights had occurred near keeps or outposts and I saw a lot of people trying to gank lines attacking only one player (lows levels without party) every 15min, really you want this boring style? I don't like

ShiftControl · July 2014

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:
'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members

'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.

So one blue, red and yellow will rez at the camp @ the same time, it will be no running back to the keep to defend or attack its genius idea.
Then I show up and burn it, screwing up my ppl and all my enemies as well awesome.
Or maybe not, because we didn't need that camp anyway, none of you came back from that camp to attack either to defend anyway.
Oh I forget we will announce seize fire for the time being you ppl rez and run back to attack or defend, I never thought about it, this is awesome.
In addition simple any1 should be able to re spawn @ any alliance starting zone as well if you die within its range.
It feels like this folks being outsmarted by some camps in Cyrodill, and they want revenge.

Renuo · July 2014

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

ShiftControl wrote: »

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:
'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members

'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.

So one blue, red and yellow will rez at the camp @ the same time, it will be no running back to the keep to defend or attack its genius idea.
Then I show up and burn it, screwing up my ppl and all my enemies as well awesome.
Or maybe not, because we didn't need that camp anyway, none of you came back from that camp to attack either to defend anyway.
Oh I forget we will announce seize fire for the time being you ppl rez and run back to attack or defend, I never thought about it, this is awesome.
In addition simple any1 should be able to re spawn @ any alliance starting zone as well if you die within its range.
It feels like this folks being outsmarted by some camps in Cyrodill, and they want revenge.

What?

Xsorus · July 2014

They should remove Forward Camps, and then make it take more then 3 minutes to bring down a wall in this game.

*edit*

Actually better idea

To place a Forward Camp near a Keep, you must control 2 out of 3 of the Resources.

Lowbei · July 2014

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

rez sickness would remove the effectiveness of freshly respawned toons, fixing the forward camp issue imo

eliisra · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Renuo wrote: »

Riding game simulator? It's hardly any time at all to go from two connecting keeps. Let's be real it's all about how instant it can be.

There would be no calls of FCs are a must if there were no FCs to begin with.

If they need to buff horse speed to make people happier then do that instead.

No, you be real...

Or have you already forgotten what is was like when you where noob?

It take ages for a new player to move around without Rapid Manoeuvre and apple feed mounts. Than you always get ambushed and killed before reaching the keep. It's a 50/50 risk. So respawn and do it all over again when you have a 16 speed mount, much fun.

I would probably stop PvP'ing all together if they removed forward camps. That's how much I like riding simulators and getting murdered while mounted.

Renuo · July 2014

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

eliisra wrote: »

Renuo wrote: »

Riding game simulator? It's hardly any time at all to go from two connecting keeps. Let's be real it's all about how instant it can be.

There would be no calls of FCs are a must if there were no FCs to begin with.

If they need to buff horse speed to make people happier then do that instead.

No, you be real...

Or have you already forgotten what is was like when you where noob?

It take ages for a new player to move around without Rapid Manoeuvre and apple feed mounts. Than you always get ambushed and killed before reaching the keep. It's a 50/50 risk. So respawn and do it all over again when you have a 16 speed mount, much fun.

I would probably stop PvP'ing all together if they removed forward camps. That's how much I like riding simulators and getting murdered while mounted.

I do remember what it was like earlier on before this FC madness. A much better game (especially when you factor in the server lag/crashes and fps issues weren't existent yet)!

Heaven forbid players be forced to learn and adapt to any conditions outside of:
Step 1: Suicide on closest enemy guards
Step 2: Teleport to forward camp at friendly zerg
Step 3: Follow zerg into death
Step 4: Return to step 2.

shanersimms_ESO · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Renuo wrote: »

eliisra wrote: »

Renuo wrote: »

Riding game simulator? It's hardly any time at all to go from two connecting keeps. Let's be real it's all about how instant it can be.

There would be no calls of FCs are a must if there were no FCs to begin with.

If they need to buff horse speed to make people happier then do that instead.

No, you be real...

Or have you already forgotten what is was like when you where noob?

It take ages for a new player to move around without Rapid Manoeuvre and apple feed mounts. Than you always get ambushed and killed before reaching the keep. It's a 50/50 risk. So respawn and do it all over again when you have a 16 speed mount, much fun.

I would probably stop PvP'ing all together if they removed forward camps. That's how much I like riding simulators and getting murdered while mounted.

I do remember what it was like earlier on before this FC madness. A much better game (especially when you factor in the server lag/crashes and fps issues weren't existent yet)!

Heaven forbid players be forced to learn and adapt to any conditions outside of:
Step 1: Suicide on closest enemy guards
Step 2: Teleport to forward camp at friendly zerg
Step 3: Follow zerg into death
Step 4: Return to step 2.

This doesn't address any of that guy's fine rebuttals....

Edit: typo

Renuo · July 2014

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

shanersimms_ESO wrote: »

Renuo wrote: »

eliisra wrote: »

Renuo wrote: »

Riding game simulator? It's hardly any time at all to go from two connecting keeps. Let's be real it's all about how instant it can be.

There would be no calls of FCs are a must if there were no FCs to begin with.

If they need to buff horse speed to make people happier then do that instead.

No, you be real...

Or have you already forgotten what is was like when you where noob?

It take ages for a new player to move around without Rapid Manoeuvre and apple feed mounts. Than you always get ambushed and killed before reaching the keep. It's a 50/50 risk. So respawn and do it all over again when you have a 16 speed mount, much fun.

I would probably stop PvP'ing all together if they removed forward camps. That's how much I like riding simulators and getting murdered while mounted.

I do remember what it was like earlier on before this FC madness. A much better game (especially when you factor in the server lag/crashes and fps issues weren't existent yet)!

Heaven forbid players be forced to learn and adapt to any conditions outside of:
Step 1: Suicide on closest enemy guards
Step 2: Teleport to forward camp at friendly zerg
Step 3: Follow zerg into death
Step 4: Return to step 2.

This doesn't address any of that guy's fine rebuttals....

Edit: typo

Kind of did mate. Already discussed potentially increasing horse speed. Also suggesting players learn to adapt and not have an easy way out.

Fshober28b14_ESO · July 2014

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:
'alliance' forward camps visible and usable by all alliance members

'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.

PERFECT, that's exactly what I was thinkning also, THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN ZOS!! This would solve the problem of the way they are getting used as suicide fast travels... and scroll interceptors.

Halrloprillalar · July 2014

Lowbei wrote: »

rez sickness would remove the effectiveness of freshly respawned toons, fixing the forward camp issue imo

Some kind of global 'use camp' cooldown similar to the soul gem passive thing in world skill line would be appropriate.

Tega_ · July 2014

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

They need to be redesigned ...
right now oyu have an ADVANTAGE when beeing dead (respawn anywhere across the map right to the Action or to surprise attacks).
a system where you are at an advantage when you are dead is BROKEN...i die more often a suicide-death to do a quick-travel then actually at the hands of enemies.

Enodoc · July 2014

Having not played enough PvP, I considered myself ineligible to vote, but since I thought I might give it a go soon, l thought I might make some comments. First though:

Dleatherus wrote: »

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

D.

What? I assumed that was already the case... why else do Forward Camps have a range/radius at all?

Rez Sickness (60 secs for camp, 10 secs for soul gem or transitus shrine) sounds like a good idea.
Cooldowns on use of camps by one player (5 mins) sound like a good idea.
Cooldowns on placement of camps within a certain radius after one is used up (2 mins) or destroyed (5 mins) sound like a good idea.
Keeping transit available into a keep until the outer wall is down sounds like a good idea (unless of course all the resources are taken, then transit is unavailable anyway).
Different sizes of camps with different sized ranges and different number of respawns sounds like a good idea. (Does this not exist already? I thought I saw a "Limited Forward Camp" somewhere.)
Only allowed to place a camp within a keep's "grounds" if you control one of the keep's resources, and then only near that resource. Then the more resources you control, the more camps you can put closer to the keep.
Guild and group camps sound like a good idea.
25% movement increase on roads has also been suggested for PvE. I would support this for both PvP and PvE.

Fshober28b14_ESO · July 2014

TRIP233 wrote: »

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.

That's the point of the strategy of this map they made. Zos didn't intend for any factions to do what you just said. Your faction has to gain and hold essential keeps/lines to hold those more distant keeps if your faction wants to maintain them. It was a built in system of checks & balances to make sure it TOOK THAT OTHER FACTION A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME to reach that keep for a reason.

You are trying to impose a method of time reduction via an item/mechnaic not inteded for that purpose to circumvent the maps inherent strategy system. Trust me Zos will make changes soon for this.

GaldorP · July 2014

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

Here's my suggestion

- Don't allow forward camps right next to or even inside castles and ressources (both friendly and enemy ones).
- Make forward camps group-specific (can only be used by members of the group) but don't let forward camps block other forward camps (so group B can put up a forward camp right next to the camp of group A). This would mean that forward camps could only be used if you are in a group.
- Make it so that each group can only have one forward camp up at a time (players cannot set up a new camp when the group already has one, if a player is in the middle of the animation of setting up a camp while another player in the group just put up a camp, the animation is cancelled but does not cause a bug

).
- A forward camp can also be picked up again by the player who put it down. In that case the camp disappears but the player does not regain the item.*
- On the map, each player can only see the forward camp of their own group (if the group has a camp).
- There is a timer that shows how much time is left on the forward camp (instead of a Health value) which can be seen on the map as well (only for group members again). The timer goes down a lot faster when the camp is burning (just as the camp's Health did before). The total duration of each camp is ten minutes (if not shortened by burning).
- Allow players to teleport to their group's forward camp from friendly keeps and starting zones for a small fee (maybe about 100 AP) to offer an alternative to the mass suicide.
- When a forward camp disappears for any reason (because it expired, was burned down or picked up again by the player who put it down) everyone in the group will be unable to put up a new forward camp (or respawn at/teleport to a forward camp if they join another group) for 2 minutes.
- The same penalty of 2 minutes is applied when a player leaves the group.**

This system avoids forward camp spamming, it creates an incentive for people to group up and it still allows organized groups to travel large distances with the help of a scout. It also solves the problem of spies from enemy alliances that can see all forward camps on the map or put up forward camps in a bad position on purpose to block the setting up of other forward camps in the same area or use it as a trap to get free kills. It also solves the problem of other people using up forward camps of organized groups.

* The player cannot regain the item because of the 2 minute penalty system: Camps that had only a few minutes or even seconds left would be a problem. And if camps that were picked up would reset to their full duration of ten minutes then there would be no cost for camps any more (a group could use the same camp over and over again).

** This penalty when leaving the group is necessary to avoid group hopping which would abuse the one camp per group system.

Alternative non group-specific suggestion: Only people within the radius of a forward camp can respawn there (however, this wouldn't stop camp spamming, spying and griefing, other people using up camps of organized groups).

Cody · July 2014

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

I don't think people should be able to go across the map, to a scroll keep, without taking the keeps along the way, and use an FC and spawn an army there, but FCs are needed.

seneferab16_ESO · July 2014

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

I rather have a magicka based resurrection skill, complete with long casting time and resurrection sickness. Right now people aren't ressing at all. To keep from abuse you could be very vulnerable while ressing; taking a 2 sec stun from any direct attack.

Atreius86 · July 2014

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

I love this game pvp, it's the only game that reminds me good daoc times.

But i think that cyrodiil needs some adjustements to be less zerg-based.
More options for ganking/small scale pvp/ roaming without the implementation of "arenas" or "bg" will be nice for a lot of people that dont like the 40+vs40+ battles.
Probably the imperial city patch will help in this, but the times are so long.

Less Teleports means more people running around in the map, and means more "random" and fun fights/encounters.

An advice that i can give to you as a normal player that loves ganking and small scale pvp, is to make some changes to forward camps for first.
- Make forward camps usable only from members from the same raid of the owner, this will prevent a random ppl teleport everywhere.
This will increase the number of solo/groups people moving around, leaving the insta-zerg to high pop coordinated raids/guilds.
- Increase their cost in AP.
- Remove the possibility to place forward camps inside camps and keeps.

People have to move by itself around Cyrodiil, you created an awesome map, but if everyone can teleport everywhere with forward camps, the fun to run and fight for going from point A to B is halved.

If i see a keep under attack, i love to hide between that keep and another keep to gank all the people that wanna reach and fight for that keep. If all this people just teleport to a near FC in a camp near the attacked keep, there will be no one man running around from that keep to the other.

nb: im not asking to remove tp from keep to keep.

i hope you will consider my suggestion, there are lots of people and guilds that will love more variety in pvp, based less on numbers and more on coordination and skill.
Now its just a rotation like this:
Attack keep>place tent in a camp near the keep for attackers>place a tent inside keep for defenders>zerg vs zerg> keep claimed/defended.