Maintenance for the week of June 24:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – June 24
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – June 24
Foward camps
-
Ghenra✭✭✭No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.For all the noobs that are posting here, FC are the worst casualized thing ever in a RvR game.
I want a complete remove from ZOS or maybe a total reconstruct, more AP needed, only res if you die in its area and reduce to 5 from 20 the people that can res.1 -
Morvul✭✭✭✭✭No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.
a seperate "under attack warning" and "under attack therefore cut-off from transitus network" would be helpfull...0 -
ZOS_BrianWheelerPvP & Combat LeadWe are currently looking into ways to make new types of forward camps that are usable by guildmates only.Wheeler
ESO PVP Lead & Combat Lead6 -
FENGRUSH✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We are currently looking into ways to make new types of forward camps that are usable by guildmates only.
Well done.0 -
Xsorus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We are currently looking into ways to make new types of forward camps that are usable by guildmates only.
You looking into maybe changing how Forward Camps work right now? Cause right now they're basically being used as Mobile Port Platforms.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXpX7JMwRXtczc5GTrIYRIw
ESO and GW2 PvP videos0 -
k4vet_ESOSoul ShrivenI am on the fence with this one. I feel that if they are removed then I would make it so you have to follow the supply chain... in other words you can only attack a keep that is next in line, if you hit a keep that's on the other side of the map, then you should have a siege penalty say 10 instead of 20 since you have limited supplies. I would also have a 1 time use area camp on a cool down if your not following the supply chain.
0 -
Enodoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We are currently looking into ways to make new types of forward camps that are usable by guildmates only.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler that's good to hear, definitely a nice idea.
Are you also looking into the fact that people are using them as a free teleport all the way across the map, negating the main purpose of the Transitus supply network? We would be interested to know whether that is currently working as intended. (Quoted below for reference)DontBeAfraid wrote: »
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.@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.
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.
UESP: The Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages - A collaborative source for all knowledge on the Elder Scrolls series since 1995
Join us on Discord - discord.gg/uesp0 -
dbishop✭✭✭Yes I want it because they are necessary.Well to stop the free TP at the home keeps - New Rule - Resources that have not been occupied by a player of the attacking faction for a period of X minutes will flip back to the owner of the keep. That would at least stop the "don't cap that resource as we are using it for TP'ing" on zone which is definitely a tweak that should happen.
I'm all for FC's but there definitely could be some tightening up of the current rules.0 -
Myrdrett✭No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.I fully agree. Forward camps should be removed from the game, for more open field-pvp.1
-
Myrdrett✭No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.- Remove the possibility to place forward camps inside camps and keeps.
This would give the attackers of a keep a big advantage.
Attackers can port to a FWC and respawn. And Defenders not ?
No....thats not fair !
Better to remove Forward-Camps at all.
1 -
No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.I'm repeating myself, but this seems appropriate here: How about a destructible bindstone inside the courtyard to accompany the removal of FC in keeps..
Players can bind to it when they anticipate a fight to defend the keep and respawn at it.
They can be bound to only one keep at a time.
This way defenders have stability, and can do sorties to deal with enemy FC and cut down enemies presence like that.
Attackers can cut off the transitus network by fighting first around the keep for the resources. Perhaps add the "being attacked" alert when the first resource gets taken. Or even add a new warning like "under siege" for that case.
If you are not part of the "keep's garrison", then you will have to reinforce it by foot, and run into the possibility of being cut off by enemy forces.
This leads to emergent gameplay.
The bindstoen is in the courtyard and can be destroyed so that the last alive defenders can be taken care of without becoming a stalemate of infinite respawns vs infinite respawns in a small choke point.Edited by frosth.darkomenb16_ESO on August 2, 2014 8:19AM1 -
Myrdrett✭No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.These destroyable Bindstones in the courtyard sound good to me.
But the attackers should not be able to respawn infinite reinforcements too.
I suggest:
- No more Forward Camps
- Or only one Forward camp that can be used only by the battlegroup of the builder. Visible on the map for enemies. And if a Forward camp was destroyed you get a timer of 30 min where no other FWC's can be build in a large radius of the attacked keep.
Edited by Myrdrett on August 2, 2014 10:04AM0 -
No, I don't want it because are destroying the roam, tactics and sense of Cyrodiil.I see your point, and honestly, I wouldn't mind to having FC at all.
But I can see some good with them.
They can be an interesting tool for defenders two ways:
Short term victory and predictability: They let the wave stop when you destroy one, or push it backwards. And aside from organized groups, most enemies will come from the same direction so i can make the defensive use of siege be easier.
An FC is also a context where the attackers switch to being defenders.
This is positive for the game, because it's one more vulnerability the attacker has that the defender can exploit.
I have a lot of experience in planetside 2, and the FC are reminiscent to sunderers. There are sunderer hunters, just like there could be FC hunters.
Whether or not FC should be removed is a very long discussion.
But the very least would be to prevent them from being fast travel tools.0