Foward camps

Sotha_Sil

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.

ZOS make it happen !

Sharee

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

While i am not a fan of forward camps, they are a neccessary evil as long as the game suffers from what i call 'cardboard keeps' syndrome.

Basically, when a sizable force arrives at an undefended keep and starts sieging it, by the time the keep shows as under attack, it will be too late to save it unless there is a camp nearby.

Currently the time to take down a keep wall from 50%(when the keep announces it is under attack on map) to zero is measured in seconds.

If there were no forward camps, there would be no castle sieges - only castle trading of undefended structures.

Atreius86

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

is not a question of YES or NO.
Is HOW to change them, because now they are just bad, a mass teleport for everyone everywhere anywhere.
Why they made a big map like this if they made random tp for everyone?

Sublime

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.

Someone please give that man a cookie.

Sharee wrote: »

While i am not a fan of forward camps, they are a neccessary evil as long as the game suffers from what i call 'cardboard keeps' syndrome.

Basically, when a sizable force arrives at an undefended keep and starts sieging it, by the time the keep shows as under attack, it will be too late to save it unless there is a camp nearby.

Currently the time to take down a keep wall from 50%(when the keep announces it is under attack on map) to zero is measured in seconds.

If there were no forward camps, there would be no castle sieges - only castle trading of undefended structures.

That's all correct, but there usually is a defense at the border keeps, even without forward camps. And being able to launch a successful surprise attack on a keep at the back is only legit in my eyes and also quite realistic.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

It's actually very entertaining to sit here and read all the comments about FC. Are most of you on dead campaigns with no defense? Or are you on wabbajack where the pop is always locked and it's just 100 man zerg vs 100 man zerg 24/7? Do any of you actually play on a competitive campaign?

Every single person asking for changes to FC must not like pvping, you must be PvE'ers wanting to participate in the pvp battle. Is it because you are forced to because of the pvp bonuses you can get in PvE?

This game already goes too quickly. I mean look at trials for example...the boss fights lasts 1-2 minutes tops then you're on to the next one. PvP 1v1's the dmg output out weighs the health/armor of players so 1v1s usually go very fast. Everything in this game is too damn fast. You people who want changes to FC actually like this style play? If you change FC from how they are setup those big fights you get in all the time will be gone. You will spend more time running around a big ass map and less time fighting. Why can you not understand this? FC allow you to get into large scale fights, and actually keep them going for hours.

Let me break this down for you. An organized crew can take both walls of a keep down to 51% without triggering any sort of "alarm". Once both walls are at this point you can throw up 16-20 siege and tear the outer wall down in under 30 seconds. With light resistance, you can have the inner wall down in about 30 seconds. That means if something goes under an "alarm" enemies have 1 minute until the keep walls are down. The guards inside will cause about 1 minute delay from flipping the keep. This means you have 2 minutes to show up to the keep before it is flipped. As soon as the keep is flipped you can start the repair process, which with 20 people you can get the walls up extremely fast. The entire process can be complete in 3 minutes or less. Now if FC were not available for travel, any keep taken by this type of organization will have no defense and will be turned regardless how many people are coming to defend it.

If you think about it. Even with an alert add-on it will take you roughly 10-15 seconds to respond to the alert, if you are not at a keep that is next to the keep under attack, you have to find a way to die so you can get to the closest keep, let's give the benefit of the doubt and say an enemy has a resource at the keep your at, and there is a keep available next to the keep under attack. By the time you go suicide, load into the other keep (granted you don't crash or get stuck in loading screen) it will take you over 1 minute before you can even start running towards the keep under attack. It takes over 1 minute to run to said keep with max horse and max rapid. That gives you less than 1 minute to get into the keep on the flag and fighting before it gets flipped. This leaves no time for any sort of defense, and leaves you scrambling and hoping you are able to kill more of them than there are you.

You also should make note, that was 1 person getting to the keep. try organizing 20-30 people doing this in that same amount of time, assuming they have max speed horse and max rapid.

The only people who even stand a chance at saving that keep are organized groups, which even those would have a very hard time doing. if game play in pvp were like this you really think organized groups and good players would continue to play? Nope, it would get way too boring way too quickly.

So instead of complaining and calling out "abuse" like a lot of people like to do, take a minute to think about what it is that you are actually upset about.

The only chance I actually agree with is raising the cost for guild/group camps so Pugs don't use yours and not replace it leaving you to a failed attempt.

Enodoc

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

andrewb14_ESO45

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Not every player has time to spend their entire life in Cyrodil riding across the map on horse through teams of gankers. The gank groups are the only people removing this benefits.

Some of us only have a few nights per hour to play and just want to hop into pvp and get straight to the action. The restrictions on porting in cyrodil are enough as is.

Fix the zone crashes, bugged perma root, bugged skills and leave the stuff that is working alone.

Enodoc

andrewb14_ESO45 wrote: »

Not every player has time to spend their entire life in Cyrodil riding across the map on horse through teams of gankers. The gank groups are the only people removing this benefits.

Some of us only have a few nights per hour to play and just want to hop into pvp and get straight to the action. The restrictions on porting in cyrodil are enough as is.

Fix the zone crashes, bugged perma root, bugged skills and leave the stuff that is working alone.

It can't be right though that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

Enodoc

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

As I say above,
It can't be intended that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

As I say above,
It can't be intended that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

Sounds to me like PvP'ing in this game is not for you.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

As I say above,
It can't be intended that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

Sounds to me like PvP'ing in this game is not for you.

So to you, rewarding someone for failing is a good basis for competitive play?

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

Have you?
The time to kill in this game is extremely long even compared to other mmos.
The only way you'd get killed quickly is if you were not paying attention at all.
And even if this wasn't the case, losing is still a failure.

You could make a case for reducing the punishment, for instance having forward camps set up in range to compensate combat failure by enabling a way of succeeding at logistics.
But you can not make a case for rewarding someone for his death.

Agrippa_Invisus

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

How does that have anything to do with someone intentionally suiciding to a player or guards and then getting a free teleport out of it?

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

How does that have anything to do with someone intentionally suiciding to a player or guards and then getting a free teleport out of it?

If the dmg output was more balanced vs health/armor there wouldn't be as big a need for FC. Fights would last longer than 10 seconds therefore not having to use camps left and right.

The pvp play style is very fast past, to change the way camps work would not slow down this fast past, it will cause the fights that do last awhile, to die off even quicker.

People who disagree with my statements, please answer these questions so I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.

1. Do you only like quick fights?
2. Do you not want other alliances to put up a good defense against you while you are trying to take something from them?
3. Would you rather fight a bunch of NPC's than other players?
4. Does fighting for something for over an hour and losing *** you off and make you want to rage quit?

I'm curious to your answers to these questions.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

Have you?
The time to kill in this game is extremely long even compared to other mmos.
The only way you'd get killed quickly is if you were not paying attention at all.
And even if this wasn't the case, losing is still a failure.

The time to kill in this game is extremely long?...Sir, if you would please enlighten me with your class and build I can give you some pointers to help you kill people faster. I play a dk, nb, and sorc and each of these classes can take down most people I run into within 10 seconds.

If you are referring to zerg on zerg, then yes...it is long and this is because of camps. If camps did not exist those fights would be way too fast to even be considered fun.

DontBeAfraid

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

obviously the wrong people are active on this forums..
the outcome of the poll is just .. wow

Enodoc

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

As I say above,
It can't be intended that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

Sounds to me like PvP'ing in this game is not for you.

Whether PvP is for me or not is irrelevant. Forward camps were advertised as a way to get back into a battle when you die in that battle, not to join a battle from the other side of the map. That's what the Transitus Network is for.

DontBeAfraid

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

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

As I say above,
It can't be intended that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

Sounds to me like PvP'ing in this game is not for you.

Whether PvP is for me or not is irrelevant. Forward camps were advertised as a way to get back into a battle when you die in that battle, not to join a battle from the other side of the map. That's what the Transitus Network is for.

atleast someone understands it.. u got my agree vote!

Enodoc

DontBeAfraid wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

@bigzz03‌ so are you saying that the bug by which you can port to any forward camp, anywhere, on death, rather than just one you are in range of (which I believe is why FCs have ranges), shoud not be fixed?

The "bug"? Again, why is it that every single time something doesn't work the way you want it to, it's a bug or an exploit or some other <insert random complaint here>?

As I say above,
It can't be intended that you can go die anywhere* and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map that you were not previously part of. I hesitate to call it such, but to me, that is an exploit of death, and something that is therefore not working. There should be no benefits gained from dying, and fast-travel to a battle you want to join is a benefit.
* As long as you die to a player

Sounds to me like PvP'ing in this game is not for you.

Whether PvP is for me or not is irrelevant. Forward camps were advertised as a way to get back into a battle when you die in that battle, not to join a battle from the other side of the map. That's what the Transitus Network is for.

atleast someone understands it.. u got my agree vote!

Of course, if this is intended, then perhaps @bigzz03‌ is right, and PvP may not be for me. But at this time I can't believe that something which gives you a benefit for dying and is in opposition to that which was advertised, is working as intended.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

ya know. With as long as some of these things have been going on you would think ZoS would at least comment on some of these big issues to let us know if in fact they are as intended or not, and if they are working/looking at different options. Anything spoke on the forums like this is all hearsay and doesn't mean anything until ZoS speaks up or makes a change.

I can tell you though, if FC are changed to where you can't use them as they currently stand, pvp is going to slow way down.

If there are going to be changes to FC there are a lot of other mechanics in pvp that will need to change with it not after it.

As i mentioned before, the only change that should happen is guild/group FC at a higher cost. I could get into all the other changes that could happen with them and other changes that would effect that, but im already gettin behind on my work and need to get back to it :P

DontBeAfraid

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

ya know. With as long as some of these things have been going on you would think ZoS would at least comment on some of these big issues to let us know if in fact they are as intended or not, and if they are working/looking at different options. Anything spoke on the forums like this is all hearsay and doesn't mean anything until ZoS speaks up or makes a change.

I can tell you though, if FC are changed to where you can't use them as they currently stand, pvp is going to slow way down.

If there are going to be changes to FC there are a lot of other mechanics in pvp that will need to change with it not after it.

As i mentioned before, the only change that should happen is guild/group FC at a higher cost. I could get into all the other changes that could happen with them and other changes that would effect that, but im already gettin behind on my work and need to get back to it :P

just to say it simple:
when the FCs were bugged (from beta till .. 4-5 weeks ago?) PvP in Cyrodiil was working fine and all tactics you know today were already existent.

only difference is - pvp was way more fun compared to todays zerg-only-fest.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

DontBeAfraid wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

ya know. With as long as some of these things have been going on you would think ZoS would at least comment on some of these big issues to let us know if in fact they are as intended or not, and if they are working/looking at different options. Anything spoke on the forums like this is all hearsay and doesn't mean anything until ZoS speaks up or makes a change.

I can tell you though, if FC are changed to where you can't use them as they currently stand, pvp is going to slow way down.

If there are going to be changes to FC there are a lot of other mechanics in pvp that will need to change with it not after it.

As i mentioned before, the only change that should happen is guild/group FC at a higher cost. I could get into all the other changes that could happen with them and other changes that would effect that, but im already gettin behind on my work and need to get back to it :P

just to say it simple:
when the FCs were bugged (from beta till .. 4-5 weeks ago?) PvP in Cyrodiil was working fine and all tactics you know today were already existent.

only difference is - pvp was way more fun compared to todays zerg-only-fest.

yeah im aware of the bugged out camps. I was there during beta and at launch, and no Cyrodiil was not working fine, and not all tactics I know today were already existent. Maybe things are different over on the EU server, but on the campaign I play it isn't just "zerg-only-fest". There are actual guild groups that are organized and setup different tactics and try to out smart the other alliance.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

Have you?
The time to kill in this game is extremely long even compared to other mmos.
The only way you'd get killed quickly is if you were not paying attention at all.
And even if this wasn't the case, losing is still a failure.

The time to kill in this game is extremely long?...Sir, if you would please enlighten me with your class and build I can give you some pointers to help you kill people faster. I play a dk, nb, and sorc and each of these classes can take down most people I run into within 10 seconds.

If you are referring to zerg on zerg, then yes...it is long and this is because of camps. If camps did not exist those fights would be way too fast to even be considered fun.

I guess it's a matter of personal experience, but 10 seconds to kill is extremely long to me. I have played full loot open world PvP games with the longest fights being 10 seconds.

And as for zerg on zerg, I'd want them to be more meaningful, but that's not the discussion at hands here.

The point about forward camps is that if they don't have a max range, they are a method of fast travel rewarding failure.
And that's not the only problem, it also means destablilizing troop commitment.

For instance, if there is one skirmish won on one front, and a forward camp open on another one, part of the losers will leave the front without having to make an effort.
The result is that the previously winning force will now have even more of an advantage and in the end no one gets to have fun.
The winners have no challenge, the losers get frustrated and resentful against their own allies.

I commented here, or in another thread, about how I'd like to have the transitus network take up a more important role to encourage strategic play.
For instance, by having keep merchants have limited stocks requiring resources to be owned, and getting depleted when cut off.
Preventing forward camps to be placed in keeps but having a revival shrine players have to bind to.
In the end, even if the keep is cut of, people at the fight could still respawn there and forward camp with a range would be mainlyan offensive tool rather than a defensive one.

Resulting in more meaningful and interesting fights.

Krinaman

While we are fixing forward camps let's remove the restraint on putting a forward camp in the range of another camp.

The reason for this is the new thing to do is to have someone placing camps for the opposing faction in the middle of nowhere to block placing camps close to the action. I.E. faction A attacks faction B's keep. Faction B has alt log in and place FC as far from keep as possible while still being in range. Faction A is now running much further to get back to battle.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

Have you?
The time to kill in this game is extremely long even compared to other mmos.
The only way you'd get killed quickly is if you were not paying attention at all.
And even if this wasn't the case, losing is still a failure.

The time to kill in this game is extremely long?...Sir, if you would please enlighten me with your class and build I can give you some pointers to help you kill people faster. I play a dk, nb, and sorc and each of these classes can take down most people I run into within 10 seconds.

If you are referring to zerg on zerg, then yes...it is long and this is because of camps. If camps did not exist those fights would be way too fast to even be considered fun.

I guess it's a matter of personal experience, but 10 seconds to kill is extremely long to me. I have played full loot open world PvP games with the longest fights being 10 seconds.

And as for zerg on zerg, I'd want them to be more meaningful, but that's not the discussion at hands here.

The point about forward camps is that if they don't have a max range, they are a method of fast travel rewarding failure.
And that's not the only problem, it also means destablilizing troop commitment.

For instance, if there is one skirmish won on one front, and a forward camp open on another one, part of the losers will leave the front without having to make an effort.
The result is that the previously winning force will now have even more of an advantage and in the end no one gets to have fun.
The winners have no challenge, the losers get frustrated and resentful against their own allies.

I commented here, or in another thread, about how I'd like to have the transitus network take up a more important role to encourage strategic play.
For instance, by having keep merchants have limited stocks requiring resources to be owned, and getting depleted when cut off.
Preventing forward camps to be placed in keeps but having a revival shrine players have to bind to.
In the end, even if the keep is cut of, people at the fight could still respawn there and forward camp with a range would be mainlyan offensive tool rather than a defensive one.

Resulting in more meaningful and interesting fights.

As i mentioned earlier, yes there could be changes made, but there are a lot of other things that play into changing camps. if they just go out and make changes to camps it's going to end pvp for a lot of people. I guess maybe the campaign that I play on hasn't really had a lot of the issues that have been discussed here, and maybe that is why im against changing them. Historically, ZoS has made really bad decisions when it came to changing/nerfing something and I don't want that to happen to pvp since it's the main reason I even came to this game. They already pissed me off with adding a bunch of NPC's that I now have to deal with while pvping. Then that wasn't enough so they added more and made them do more dmg than any player in the game, but that's for another discussion.

Ley

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)
  D.

^ this

DontBeAfraid

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

DontBeAfraid wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

ya know. With as long as some of these things have been going on you would think ZoS would at least comment on some of these big issues to let us know if in fact they are as intended or not, and if they are working/looking at different options. Anything spoke on the forums like this is all hearsay and doesn't mean anything until ZoS speaks up or makes a change.

I can tell you though, if FC are changed to where you can't use them as they currently stand, pvp is going to slow way down.

If there are going to be changes to FC there are a lot of other mechanics in pvp that will need to change with it not after it.

As i mentioned before, the only change that should happen is guild/group FC at a higher cost. I could get into all the other changes that could happen with them and other changes that would effect that, but im already gettin behind on my work and need to get back to it :P

just to say it simple:
when the FCs were bugged (from beta till .. 4-5 weeks ago?) PvP in Cyrodiil was working fine and all tactics you know today were already existent.

only difference is - pvp was way more fun compared to todays zerg-only-fest.

yeah im aware of the bugged out camps. I was there during beta and at launch, and no Cyrodiil was not working fine, and not all tactics I know today were already existent. Maybe things are different over on the EU server, but on the campaign I play it isn't just "zerg-only-fest". There are actual guild groups that are organized and setup different tactics and try to out smart the other alliance.

well i highly doubt there is much difference between EU and US.

curremtly on EU at least there is ONLY Ball-Up-Bomb Groups and Zerging.
People join Cyrodiil run to the next opposing Ressource (That is the only time ever they walk somewhere) and suicide.
Then they spawn at a one of the 1-2-3 camps near / in a keep and zergfight there for some hours until they log off.

this is NOT ENJOYABLE. not even a little bit.

Ressource Lines are absolutely meaningless. Smaller Scale Pvp is non existent.

THIS NEEDS A REWORK.


and now open your eyes and stop your fanboi talk. thank you.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

For failing? lol have you played this game? do you not understand the fact that the dmg output vs the health/armor in this game is way unbalanced?

Have you?
The time to kill in this game is extremely long even compared to other mmos.
The only way you'd get killed quickly is if you were not paying attention at all.
And even if this wasn't the case, losing is still a failure.

The time to kill in this game is extremely long?...Sir, if you would please enlighten me with your class and build I can give you some pointers to help you kill people faster. I play a dk, nb, and sorc and each of these classes can take down most people I run into within 10 seconds.

If you are referring to zerg on zerg, then yes...it is long and this is because of camps. If camps did not exist those fights would be way too fast to even be considered fun.

I guess it's a matter of personal experience, but 10 seconds to kill is extremely long to me. I have played full loot open world PvP games with the longest fights being 10 seconds.

And as for zerg on zerg, I'd want them to be more meaningful, but that's not the discussion at hands here.

The point about forward camps is that if they don't have a max range, they are a method of fast travel rewarding failure.
And that's not the only problem, it also means destablilizing troop commitment.

For instance, if there is one skirmish won on one front, and a forward camp open on another one, part of the losers will leave the front without having to make an effort.
The result is that the previously winning force will now have even more of an advantage and in the end no one gets to have fun.
The winners have no challenge, the losers get frustrated and resentful against their own allies.

I commented here, or in another thread, about how I'd like to have the transitus network take up a more important role to encourage strategic play.
For instance, by having keep merchants have limited stocks requiring resources to be owned, and getting depleted when cut off.
Preventing forward camps to be placed in keeps but having a revival shrine players have to bind to.
In the end, even if the keep is cut of, people at the fight could still respawn there and forward camp with a range would be mainlyan offensive tool rather than a defensive one.

Resulting in more meaningful and interesting fights.

As i mentioned earlier, yes there could be changes made, but there are a lot of other things that play into changing camps. if they just go out and make changes to camps it's going to end pvp for a lot of people. I guess maybe the campaign that I play on hasn't really had a lot of the issues that have been discussed here, and maybe that is why im against changing them. Historically, ZoS has made really bad decisions when it came to changing/nerfing something and I don't want that to happen to pvp since it's the main reason I even came to this game. They already pissed me off with adding a bunch of NPC's that I now have to deal with while pvping. Then that wasn't enough so they added more and made them do more dmg than any player in the game, but that's for another discussion.

I understand what you are saying, but you are working under the assumption that instant travel benefits gameplay.
In a context without it, the game experience will be different, sure, but not "end pvp for a lot of people". It would perhaps allow players to have a better experience.

There is still the transitus network which is nearly instant and has meaningful mechanics.

Also, ESO is a game based a lot around immersion and it has a very well put together world. If all the fights occur watching walls crumble, players will never discover or use the landscape.
You'd miss the opportunity of giving players an awesome experience of first hearing a battle, then as you get near, start hearing the shouts and clang of weapons and, passing over the next hill,seeing the masses colide and the siege engines unending rain flying above their heads.
It is iconic, and the more casual players you are trying to "defend" would get even more hooked by that.

You also need downtime, especially in pvp games. Travel time is an excelent tool to let players socialize and rest their mind to be surprised by stumbing upon a fight.
You need lows to notice the highs.

So yeah, fast travel should be limited.