No. The point of being under attack is pressure. If you throw down a camp, that pressure is gone. And it turns into a war of attrition. I remember back in beta before people did this, being attacked in a keep was pretty intense. And killing an enemy while attacking a keep meant something.No, it makes it cost resources (for the camps), not "defeats the whole purpose". There's a difference.
No. The point of being under attack is pressure. If you throw down a camp, that pressure is gone. And it turns into a war of attrition. I remember back in beta before people did this, being attacked in a keep was pretty intense. And killing an enemy while attacking a keep meant something.
Tintinabula wrote: »In beta I plopped camps inside keeps all the time.
Patrol the inner courtyard and burn them.
It defeats the whole purpose of losing resources. Being under attack is supposed to prevent enemies from re spawning in the keep. Seeing how thats how the game treats attacks.
The same could be said for a siege that uses forward camps. An army depending heavily on a supply line in order to maintain a siege. If the people outside a keep can have their replacement troops spawn right outside a keep, those inside the keep should be able to do the same.