Foward camps

Sharee

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Sublime wrote: »

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.

I am slightly paranoid when it comes to scroll defense, so every now and then i port to warden/rayles(when they hold scrolls) and do a round around the outer wall to check whether it is under attack or not. And the absolute majority of time, there isn't a soul present anywhere in the keep. So i respectfully disagree with your opinion that there is 'usually a defense at the border keeps'. No-one wants to stand around and do nothing for hours while there is heavy action elsewhere, just in case a sneaky enemy force comes to steal a scroll.

And launching a surprise attack is not a problem, the problem is that currently the surprise attack will be able to breach the keep and steal the scroll before any defense could realistically be mounted. What should be the highlight and centerpoint of the PvP conflit - a battle for a scroll - instead becomes a PvE encounter.

I am all for nerfing camps, and for allowing surprise attacks - as long as there is enough time for the defenders to react, and the scroll battle becoming a pvp encounter. One solution might be only allowing a limited number of siege engines to damage a single piece of wall at any time, so that 20 of them cannot be used to kill a wall in seconds.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

Then the solution here is clearly to make defenders having time to react while preventing free instant travels on death.

I'm going to copy past an answer I did in another thread because it is relevant here too. I actually thought I posted it here originally.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/comment/1140659/#Comment_1140659

The way it ties to give defenders more time to react is that the keep remains connected to the transitus network longer.
Losing one resource at a scroll keep would mean a warning and players enclined to defend would go there and bind there.
And more importantly, even after being cut off, dedicated defenders would be able to maintain the defense until backup arrives.

Here is a possible solution:

- When you die, you can only respawn to forward camps if you are in their effective area, at the "Revival shrine" you are bound at or back to the entrance wayshrines.
- You can be bound to only one revive shrine at a time.
- Add a casting time to the transitus network based on the number of "jumps" in the network. (15secs per jump would be nice)

- Keeps under attack break the transit lines after them, however
- Keeps at the edge remain linked as long as they own 1 resource.

- Keep stores have limited stocks that refill only when owning appropriate resources. (ex: lumbermill for siege engines)
- Keep store AP prices increases the lower the stocks are.

- You can no longer setup a forward camp in the courtyard of a keep.
- There is a revival shrine in the courtyard you can activate to revive in the keep.
- Revival shrines can be destroyed.

Explanations:

The idea here is to add more phases and side objectives to the assault and defense of a keep.
For attackers, capturing and defending resources to prevent reinforcements, breaching the wall, breaking the revival shrine and intercept backup.
For defenders, attack resources to restore travel/buffs, defend the walls, take out enemy forward camps and siege engines

Think about CS: Counters/terrorist are initially defenders/attackers but when the bomb is planted, the roles switch.
Here there would be a lot of dynamic interaction where a group on either side will have to react to a shifting context.

The death rules and transitus casting time would mean that in order to swicth front, you'd have an opportunity cost.

The connectivity rules would add strategic behind the lines actions where attacking an outpost would cut off backup to a front. It gives roles for smaller groups as spec ops and counter spec ops.

The revival shrine guarantees that people defending a keep can keep defending it. But the keep stores would run out of resources or the defenders would run out of AP.
Effectively laying a siege and starving out the defenders.

The shrine also let guilds claim a keep and defend it by always being able to revive at it even when fighting elsewhere if they never bind to another keep.
It is a trade off to having a harder time defending elsewhere, but keeping your spot in the world.
I think that more "player ownership" of the world can only be positive.

Atreius86

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

So, except the tons of carebears here that dont wanna run for 1 minute from a keep to another keep with the risk of getting ganked (go play pve please), there are some good points in all the thread, that btw is wrong because just ask if yes or not, while the problem is how the FC have to work to be better.

In order of importance:
1: FC must be usable from group members or guild members of the FC owner, not from pugs.
2: FC not placeable inside camps and keeps (activate you brain guys and try to put it in an hidden zone instead of a camp with 15 guards).
3: You can revive on a FC only if died within the FC radius.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

I do believe that in a game where there can be solo players and group players coexisting, the two population should need each other.
Private camps sort of segregate the playerbase.

Perhaps an alternative to private forward camps could be to give them higher sustainability?

Non group members respawning on a FC give (forward_camp_price / 20 X 3)AP

Then organized groups would benefit from randomers respawning there, because for each one of them, it means having the price of the camp reimbursed AND making a profit.

On the randomers side, there will always be a FC around for them to remain in the fight, so they would benefit from organized groups/people.

Atreius86

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

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Perhaps an alternative to private forward camps could be to give them higher sustainability?

Non group members respawning on a FC give (forward_camp_price / 20 X 3)AP

Hmm and so with this ap bonus you will see like 20 FC in the map just to farm ap, nah, i don't think this coulda be a good solution.
Too many teleports, ppl have to move from keep to keep.

Raid FC must be an expensive privilege of coordinated and organized big guilds that maybe have the ownership of that keep.
Maybe they can make group FC, cheaper but only for 1-4 people, ideal for small groups of romaers/gankers.

there are not only zergs and trains guys, please realize that.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

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

Atreius86 wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Perhaps an alternative to private forward camps could be to give them higher sustainability?

Non group members respawning on a FC give (forward_camp_price / 20 X 3)AP

Hmm and so with this ap bonus you will see like 20 FC in the map just to farm ap, nah, i don't think this coulda be a good solution.
Too many teleports, ppl have to move from keep to keep.

Raid FC must be an expensive privilege of coordinated and organized big guilds that maybe have the ownership of that keep.
Maybe they can make group FC, cheaper but only for 1-4 people, ideal for small groups of romaers/gankers.

there are not only zergs and trains guys, please realize that.

Read my previous comment. Forward camps should not let you teleport accross the map but help the fights have some stability as offensive tools.
So this suggestion was in the context of having FC limited by range.

But I do think that private camps would not be desirable. We need positive interactions between allies to have a ralm pride occur.
Having Forward camps always present in assaults thanks to allies would help out feeling like they are useful.
And having randoms respawn help you sustain your forward camps so that you can always afford spare ones would make organized group regard the randoms as something useful.

It doesn't have to be x3, maybe x2.5 is enough, but support roles need to be rewarded for them to occur. So healing, setting up camps, reviving, and so on need to have an equivalent AP reward than combat activities.

Zubba

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

I prefeer PvP without the camps. it will make people think.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

DontBeAfraid wrote: »

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.

Stop my fanboi talk? lol that's funny seeing as i'm the one disagreeing with most of you. Oh and that sucks to hear how jacked up your EU server is, it's not like that at all on our campaign. Maybe this is why i don't see an issue with what is going on in pvp, because people on our campaign actually know how to play and have fun with what we have.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

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.

actually you are the one under assumption that fast travel benefits, i'm saying it's necessary for this style game play. Maybe this is the reason our opinions on how pvp should be...you mention the casual player wanting to run around and look at all the pretty stuff all over the place. I myself could give a crap about the looks and pretty stuff in a video game. I want the mechanics to play right so when im in heavy battle and try to do something it actually works. I want to be in a fight all the time this is what I enjoy. Not running around for 20 minutes hoping I find something.

You will never satisfy everyone in a game. The only thing that can be attempted is to balance things so both sides can come to a compromise.

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: »

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.

actually you are the one under assumption that fast travel benefits, i'm saying it's necessary for this style game play. Maybe this is the reason our opinions on how pvp should be...you mention the casual player wanting to run around and look at all the pretty stuff all over the place. I myself could give a crap about the looks and pretty stuff in a video game. I want the mechanics to play right so when im in heavy battle and try to do something it actually works. I want to be in a fight all the time this is what I enjoy. Not running around for 20 minutes hoping I find something.

You will never satisfy everyone in a game. The only thing that can be attempted is to balance things so both sides can come to a compromise.

RvR games are designed around traveling time to make troop commitments have a meaningful impact and defeat be a real set back.
Logistics enable amazing game experiences, like the cavalry charge that came and saved the day. The rising adrenaline of not knowing if you are going to make it in time. The calm before the tempest.
This isn't about casual players but about having an engaging game experience.

Not to mention that traveling enables other type of gameplay and tactics like cutting off backup.

It is possible to be always in a fight ,though, and I've made a suggestion that would contribute to improve that. (revival shrines at keeps)
But it shouldn't be possible to reinforce a front for free from any location on the map but that front itself.

The cost should be either in time(travel/cast time), in resources (gold/ap) or by losing other opportunities. (binding to a single keep)

Mojomonkeyman

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

The poll is kinda not hitting the point. It`s less about yes camps or no camps at all, but more about whether they are hurtful to the overall playing experience in its current state.

I totally think they are. In my experience AB EU is one of the most developed campaigns regarding forward camp placement. Most of the time every faction will have permanently camps up in any owned keep which is important, has scrolls, could be attacked soon as well as near potential target objectives and, of course, whereever the action is going on right now.

Those camps will be regularly refreshed without any downtime inbetween. We often hit even the faction wide hard cap on camps placable.

This, at the current state, totally destroys any form of punishment for dieing, makes travel time (just suicide) and the need for management of reinforcements totally obsolete.

It takes away from the game`s strategical value. Not only that, it completely negates any chance for small man roaming, since instant reinforcements everywhere at any time will make small encounters within minutes become massive zergfights. Areas inbetween keeps will have noone passing by, because they`ll just wait for the next camp to spawn.

It should be difficult to invade enemy territory, it should take time to arrive there, it should be tied with "danger" to catch up to your own army deep into enemy territory. Cutting off supply lines & reinforcements (via horse or shrine) has lost its value.

Please consider a solution that enables smart, strategical & tactical play and small scale fights. Cyrodiil was never meant to be an instant gratification pvp experience where death doesnt matter.

Best regards

DontBeAfraid

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

DontBeAfraid wrote: »

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.

Stop my fanboi talk? lol that's funny seeing as i'm the one disagreeing with most of you. Oh and that sucks to hear how jacked up your EU server is, it's not like that at all on our campaign. Maybe this is why i don't see an issue with what is going on in pvp, because people on our campaign actually know how to play and have fun with what we have.

well alright, the fainboi phrase was a stupid choice of words from my part. sorry.

but well EU has 8 ghost campaings and 2 permenant locked zerg campaings which are exactly how i described.

also camps are abused massivly. i could name at least 10 people who do not much else than porting / running to any keep (no matter which color) and place a camp and take care that its permanently up.
so where ever the fight moves - every player will be there immediatelly.

i even kinda understand that casual players prefer an instant access to the ongoing battles.
but this all happens on cost of any quality and potential cyrodiil could provide for anyone.

before the camps were "fixed" i was playing A LOT of pvp.. and now like all my friends and many many many other people who like tactic and skilled pvp including myself rarely play longer than an hour before we either start some duels in our crossfaction guild or just log off frustrated or bored.

i currently even prefer motif farming over this pvp. and this should tell alot..

Renuo

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

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?

Are you kidding me? It's PvPers that are asking for changes... it's easy mode zergers desperately wanting it to stay the same.

The issue of surprise attacks has not changed AT ALL with forward camps. That's another issue where the best fix is a mix of warning the map earlier (e.g. @ 75% wall hp) and being able to upgrade walls with more HP. At the moment it is a joke that 20 ballistas get full HP and upgraded walls down in a few minutes.

Atreius86

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

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?

I hope you are new in the mmorpg world.
Cuz all what you say in your posts is totally dumbness.
The best RvR experience mmorpgs didnt need teleports, like Dark Age of Camelot, where u have to move your ass risking to encounter enemies in your path, and THATS the fun of the rvr with a map like this.
You want an ARCADE game, teleport-die-respawn-die-respawn, without penalties, and thats what people whant now in mmorpgs, they dont want any form of death punishment, A WORLD OF CAREBEARS!

And for the other guy, is not a question of "running around for 20 minutes looking how wonderful are the trees", but is more "going to castle A to B with your horse, with high risk to fight people in that path, because there are no FC random teleports everywhere" and all that people have to run for like 2 mins from a keep to keep, not 20 mins.

New generation players wanna be too much babysitted.

Enodoc

Enodoc wrote: »

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.

It may be good actually if @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ were to pop in here and just clarify whether or not this is working as intended, and whether you are supposed to be able to die anywhere and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map at a camp you are not within the range of. Then we can move on from the "is it right or not that you can do this" discussion and back to the one on improving forward camps in general.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Renuo wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

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?

Are you kidding me? It's PvPers that are asking for changes... it's easy mode zergers desperately wanting it to stay the same.

The issue of surprise attacks has not changed AT ALL with forward camps. That's another issue where the best fix is a mix of warning the map earlier (e.g. @ 75% wall hp) and being able to upgrade walls with more HP. At the moment it is a joke that 20 ballistas get full HP and upgraded walls down in a few minutes.

This is the point im trying to make. If you change FC now and do not change the defensive system or even the offense system, flipping keeps will be easy as hell because no one will be able to get there in time if we can't use FC like they are being used right now.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Atreius86 wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

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?

I hope you are new in the mmorpg world.
Cuz all what you say in your posts is totally dumbness.
The best RvR experience mmorpgs didnt need teleports, like Dark Age of Camelot, where u have to move your ass risking to encounter enemies in your path, and THATS the fun of the rvr with a map like this.
You want an ARCADE game, teleport-die-respawn-die-respawn, without penalties, and thats what people whant now in mmorpgs, they dont want any form of death punishment, A WORLD OF CAREBEARS!

And for the other guy, is not a question of "running around for 20 minutes looking how wonderful are the trees", but is more "going to castle A to B with your horse, with high risk to fight people in that path, because there are no FC random teleports everywhere" and all that people have to run for like 2 mins from a keep to keep, not 20 mins.

New generation players wanna be too much babysitted.

New? Not even close. I've been playing MMO's for 17 years. You guys obviously are not seeing the point i'm trying to make here, which means you obviously didn't even read my entire post as I gave a clear example as to why FC should not be changed yet.

You do realize that if FC didn't work like they do right now, that a group of 15-20 people could ride to a keep that isn't theirs and siege the inner and outer wall to 51%, then load up 20 siege and be inside the inner walls in just over 1 minute right? There would be no way possible for the opposing alliance to give defense to it. How fun would that be, to lose keeps within a couple minutes and have no way to get there except a casual stroll through the map, and by the time you get there it's already been flipped.

If FC were to change there would need to be several other changes to the mechanics of pvp changed as well, so if your going to sit here and whine and complain about the current state let's not just talk about FC make sure you include EVERYTHING else that needs to be changed with FC.

Oh and before you try to call me out on not wanting punishment, like nothing but zerg on zerg, and want to be babysat, try actually reading the posts I make as that's not my play style.

Skafsgaard

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Please give us the option to lock camps. Then they actually can be uses in a larger strategy (some small grp go waay behind enemy lines, while main group attack a keep) ALL reds/blues/yellows rush to that keep to defend it. You keep sieging attacking untill so many enemies are that that the lag sets in. Now you suicide and use the camp that your small scouting group has set up and stab the enemy in the back. Right now anyone will just spawn at that interesting looking faraway FC and inst feasible.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Enodoc wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

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.

It may be good actually if @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ were to pop in here and just clarify whether or not this is working as intended, and whether you are supposed to be able to die anywhere and res in the middle of a battle all the way across the map at a camp you are not within the range of. Then we can move on from the "is it right or not that you can do this" discussion and back to the one on improving forward camps in general.

Yeah, but he won't, and even if he does it'll be some general random comment about them improving pvp, and it will still leave people wondering. Just like chain pull a huge discussion took place, people asked for clarification, he came in said some random statement that wasn't about chain pull, and everyone got their panties in a bunch. Couple weeks later they remove the vertical (as i said they would) without thinking about the right way to correct the issue.

Atreius86

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

bigzz03 wrote: »

cut

several changes or maybe just make the "under attack" status @95% of keep hp instead 50%.

era5or

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Ghenra wrote: »

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

Because they are needed in order to defend a keep, but however they need to implement a way to stop groups abusing fast travel to them, eg, death travel miles away to get there fast (localize death check within area of a camp for example)

Also ability to restrict camps to just ure group would be nice, maybe smaller camp radius to allow more camps but run by groups only or increase the amount of people that can spawn at the current camps because 1 camp for 20 people dies really fast when your fighting off almost 50-60 enemy's.
Also increased hitpoints on camps would be helpful, they burn down way to easy, you get msg camps under attack, u pass msg to ure group, b4 anyone can get there to defend it, its burnt down and gone...

Also a nice touch would be the ability to place hired mercenary there seems no use for those at the moment, they could also do with a longer time when setup or only die once hitpoints depleted (x allowed to b spawned in x area would be nice), they seem to de- spawn very fast when u have moved a short distance away.

bigzz03

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Atreius86 wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

cut

several changes or maybe just make the "under attack" status @95% of keep hp instead 50%.

or allow transit to the keep until the inner wall is down...but yes some sort of indicator that hey this keep is under attack, crap lets hurry up and get there. Possibly even not allowing the inner wall to be damaged until the outer wall is down or under a certain %. It should not take 2 minutes or less to take down a wall of a castle.

Enodoc

bigzz03 wrote: »

Atreius86 wrote: »

bigzz03 wrote: »

cut

several changes or maybe just make the "under attack" status @95% of keep hp instead 50%.

or allow transit to the keep until the inner wall is down...but yes some sort of indicator that hey this keep is under attack, crap lets hurry up and get there. Possibly even not allowing the inner wall to be damaged until the outer wall is down or under a certain %. It should not take 2 minutes or less to take down a wall of a castle.

I would agree with this. Make the under attack flag pop when outer wall is at 95% and allow transit into the keep at least until the inner wall is under fire (does that currently disable at outer-wall 50% as well?), with the inner wall not being attackable until the outer is down. (Of course if all the resources are taken, transit is not available anyway.)

dbishop

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

I see a problem with group only camps. I can put my camp up with only me in my group and then how far will the next camp be able to be placed? I have no idea what the camp radius is but it's definitely open to griefing.

Enodoc

dbishop wrote: »

I see a problem with group only camps. I can put my camp up with only me in my group and then how far will the next camp be able to be placed? I have no idea what the camp radius is but it's definitely open to griefing.

One member does not a group make.

I'm thinking if group camps were to exist, then there would be minimal/no restriction on a different group putting a camp somewhere near it, but a standard restriction on the same group putting a camp near it. Or, maybe group camps should be related the radius of an unrestricted faction-wide (ie, standard) camp.

dbishop

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Enodoc wrote: »

One member does not a group make.

True but even if I get one friend we have a group

Enodoc wrote: »

I'm thinking if group camps were to exist, then there would be minimal/no restriction on a different group putting a camp somewhere near it, but a standard restriction on the same group putting a camp near it. Or, maybe group camps should be related the radius of an unrestricted faction-wide (ie, standard) camp.

We don't want the FC's to turn into a game of whack-a-mole with all the rules around various groups having their own FC around the one Castle.

The discussion is great but I think leave it as is for the time being.

DlSTORTlON

Yes I want it because they are necessary.

Should be able to spawn at a camp ONLY if you die within it's radius and limited amount of camps during a siege.

Make death mean something...

Xsorus

Forward Camps should just be removed, and they need to strengthen Walls to actually be hard to get through.

Doors should be the easiest method to get into a keep by breaking them down...

It should take more then 1 minute to break down a wall in this game.

Enkil

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

I think if they do adjust forward camps, the ability to port to a keep under attack should be allowed until the attackers take out some type of teleport-enabling device.

Why does it just shut off because some outer walls are damaged? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Xsorus

Enkil wrote: »

I think if they do adjust forward camps, the ability to port to a keep under attack should be allowed until the attackers take out some type of teleport-enabling device.

Why does it just shut off because some outer walls are damaged? Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Could just make people able to port there till you take 2 out of 3 of the Supply Camps, then remove Forward Camps

That'd at least give people Warning that the keep is about to get hit.

It'd also remove this silly Forward Camp non sense.