Naming camp placers - Tired of losing keeps because of troll camps

Grim13

ZOS_PierreL wrote: »

Nothing prevents you to report a player directly in game.
Making a "wall of shame" on the forum is just against our policy.

Thank you to respect that.

lol

This kind of response explains a lot about the ridiculous Customer Service responses I get when I do report an issue.

2/3rds of the time you can outright tell they've neglected to actually read it... let alone taken the time to comprehend it.

Couldn't be bothered, I guess.

ZOS_PierreL

Hello, all.

We would like to apologize, as there has been a misunderstanding. The thread's topic was misread, and our previous posts were attempting to address what was perceived as the intent (naming and shaming).

Please rest assured that we do take all feedback very seriously, and thank you all for being understanding.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Poor guy.
If you weren't a zos account no one would have flamed you. But the tag made it a matter of state.

Anyway, consider adding names not only for negative reasons but also for positive ones.

Someone spending his own ap to support a push needs some recognition.
That's a cool interaction to have with another player.

æxæ

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Anyway, consider adding names not only for negative reasons but also for positive ones.

Someone spending his own ap to support a push needs some recognition.
That's a cool interaction to have with another player.

Well said and implementing this feature might also push players to place
camps more rapidly. Wait....maybe we should get rid off camps completely?
Add more tactics whilst eliminating the endless floods of attackers/defenders and forcing a penalty on death, too? Yeah, I'd like that to be honest.

1. Get rid off camps for good, have a rez sickness, make the huge lands of cyrodiil work on players as they will have to organize their people better in order to defend keeps efficiently and protect them and not being able to travel by a click (Same works for attacking a keep in deep enemy territory, such as the ones close to scrolls for all factions).
2. Erase "blood porting", used by groups for mass suicide to quickly port to a placed camp in a troubled keep.
3. Avoid "AP-farming-spots" like taking a resource and camp there for days (wink at AD and DC using EU TB EP Arrius Keep to farm people).
4. Making a scroll takeover dangerous and therefore much more rewarding as you are unable to spawn in front of the scroll and cannot go back but actually have to ride back and put the scroll takeover in danger as the enemy might take it back on the way home.
5. Putting a meaning to ganking as this could actually cut enemy supplies with endless reinforcements, no more "sure gank me, I wanted to use that forward camp way down south anyways"
6. Best of all, no more troll camps, no discussion about naming/shaming.

One disadvantage: We have to get used to it.

Bleakraven

What exactly are these "troll camps" btw?

Mitharus

Bleakraven wrote: »

What exactly are these "troll camps" btw?

Camps placed in out of the way areas, yet close enough to where keep pushes/defenses are happening to stop a camp from going up in a more appropriate location.

In other words, a camp that was placed to keep defenders/attackers from actually placing a camp where it would be useful.

This could be because solo players are doing their own thing, but the timings of them going up a lot of times doesn't leave one with the best impression of that being the case.

-M

Bleakraven

@Mitharus‌ Cheers, had no idea this was going on. Hope something is done about it.

DlSTORTlON

Remove camps/limit them and Cyrodiil will be one step closer to how it was after launch. Make death mean something.

c0rp

Remove them from the game. Too much BS they add to the game. Cyrodiil will be better off without them. They just lead to excessive zergs and blobbing anyway.

demonlkojipub19_ESO

c0rp wrote: »

Remove them from the game. Too much BS they add to the game. Cyrodiil will be better off without them. They just lead to excessive zergs and blobbing anyway.

I think zergs and blobs are more likely to own the map much easier without them. There are various other things they can do, and some they are doing.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

Well I'm not for nor against removing camps.
I would probably prefer Cyrodiil without them, but they serve a purpose for lowering the barrier of entry. This is an understandable goal.

If they were to be kept, which is most likely, those that place them should get a reward for their faction supporting actions. AP would reduce the attrition aspect, so public recognition is the second best.

Camps being accessible from everywhere on death does lead to excessive zerging. There are no penalties in focusing all your strength at one point as, in case of an attack, you can just die and get back to defend the other spot.
One zerg can hence defend two locations at the same time.

Obviously, the solution to fix blood porting is to use the radius as a rez zone, this should have been fixed months ago.

demonlkojipub19_ESO

One of the things in the works should definitely remove the infinite respawn radius from FC's and make them within the bubble that they already have.

People are always wanting to suicide port to somewhere, and if they can't do that they get all mad and don't wanna come help. That behavior needs to end.

The Guild FC's mentioned by mr wheeler should help a lot with with preventing troll camps, but hopefully Group FC's come into play too since those won't be of much use to the mighty pug groups.

If they add both group and Guild FC's and remove the infinite respawn radius, things will be much better with them and cyrodiil.

Takuto

Camp placement could be limited to players who are 'homed' in that campaign, this would likely cut down on this sort of behavior.

Also, please remember that ideas on good camp placement vary. The zerg will want the camp in the closest place possible so they can do a 'zerg respawn-rush'. Smaller guild groups want their camps out of the way and hidden so that they are hard to find and destroy. Since you can't tell the range of the forward camp when you are putting it down, it is easy to clip the side of a keep or other location considered prime forward camp real estate, without meaning to.

Bramir

dcincali wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

I would say it is cheap, disgusting exploit to take/defend keep by camp spam in the first place.

When your guild can not make a dent in the outcome of a campaign, you have no place to comment. Casuals be gone please. Yes, Camps need names.

While I totally agree with the premise of this thread...what a *** *** comment. I don't care what your guild can do, or how well they carry your ***. Keep your elitist *** to yourself or someone is going to make you eat it.

dcincali

Bramir wrote: »

dcincali wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

I would say it is cheap, disgusting exploit to take/defend keep by camp spam in the first place.

When your guild can not make a dent in the outcome of a campaign, you have no place to comment. Casuals be gone please. Yes, Camps need names.

While I totally agree with the premise of this thread...what a *** *** comment. I don't care what your guild can do, or how well they carry your ***. Keep your elitist *** to yourself or someone is going to make you eat it.

I'd like mine with bacon please. Thanks!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

I really dislike the notion of group or guild based camps

This is supposed to be a virtual war. You're not in a free for all, facing other groups, you're part of a faction and you need to colaborate for victory.

There were many times where two organized groups fought alongside eachother. If they had access to group canps, eventually one would have been wiped, effectively cutting in half the faction's presence at that location and making both groups lose through misguided greed.

Morticielle

ZOS_PierreL wrote: »

Hello all,

We would like to remind you that "naming" is against our community rules.

To avoid any future sanctions, please refrain you from doing that.

Thank you.

Hello all ZOS,

We would like to remind you that ignoring of issues, bugs, exploiters etc. is against the legitimate interests of your paying customers and therefore is a very foolish behavior.

To avoid any future loss of paying customers, please refrain from doing that.

Thank you.

Malveria

Removing camps is a bad idea, because basically any keep siege/defense will be won by who brought the most people to the fight, or who can kill the most people.

Whilst it makes sense to try and promote mobility, if you have a 50-man group sieging a keep, and a 10 man group manages to wipe them, it's severely demoralizing.

Similarly, if you have three people on a keep defending, and the 50-man group gets in, they have no chance to hold the keep if no help comes.

Fights will be short, boring, rare, and literally the 'zerg ball wins' without camps.

GRxKnight

Here's a solution where you can keep FC's in the game and avoid both blood porting and troll camps.

1) Reduce the radius of the FC so that the new radius is equal to the distance from the center of a keep and any one resource (since I believe they're all the same linear distance away from the keep anyway). This will remove troll camps all together as the area of the circle that prohibits you from placing another camp will be much smaller and you'll be able to fit another camp in the area somewhere closer should someone attempt to sabotage a defense/attack.

2) As people have eluded to earlier, only allow for the resurrection of a player to a FC INSIDE the area of the forward camp. By doing this you get rid of the blood porting that everyone uses and a defense/attack will actually have to be legit and strategic.

A generic offense discussion in TS (or any other voice com) in the current state of the game.

Person A: Does anyone see a forward camp up?

Person B: Yes/No.

If yes

Person A: Burn it or we're not going to be able to take this.

If no

Person A: Good easy take...make sure no one sets up a FC or this is a no-go.

In the current state of the game all it takes is for one person to ride to a keep while under attack, place a camp, and 50 people instantly show up to repel the attack after consuming 2 camps. Instead emphasis should be put on riding from one keep to another in order to get to the defense. This will also allow for more ganking opportunities as gankers (from both sides offense and defense) can sit in the most likely path of travel that will be taken by the factions to get to the flagged keep.

That last bit is probably the NB in my speaking, wanting to get more solo kills and AP away from the rest of the group; but it sure does open the door for that style of play, which is currently dead at the moment.

Thoughts?

Xsorus

Malveria wrote: »

Removing camps is a bad idea, because basically any keep siege/defense will be won by who brought the most people to the fight, or who can kill the most people.

Whilst it makes sense to try and promote mobility, if you have a 50-man group sieging a keep, and a 10 man group manages to wipe them, it's severely demoralizing.

Similarly, if you have three people on a keep defending, and the 50-man group gets in, they have no chance to hold the keep if no help comes.

Fights will be short, boring, rare, and literally the 'zerg ball wins' without camps.

Rofl... I hate to tell ya, that's how it should be.

Also right now...Zerg Balls tend to use Camps to the most advantage in these situations as in they keep coming back over and over again despite being killed.

The Camps should go, and they should increase the HP of Keep Walls...

Make Supply Routes actually mean something again.

Lionxoft

Bleakraven wrote: »

@Mitharus‌ Cheers, had no idea this was going on. Hope something is done about it.

Here's an example.



ZOS:
This needs to end... Soon ®

bertenburnyb16_ESO

Fixitfixitfixit

fritzOSU03

This was the map yesterday evening at around midnight (EST) in Thornblade, NA. The tenth camp had just expired. Note the obvious northern camp and combat marker as well as the camp placed in the southeastern city. With proof like this, there's no possibility of the guilty faction being able to claim any kind of honorable, legitimate victory.

GRxKnight

fritzOSU03 wrote: »

This was the map yesterday evening at around midnight (EST) in Thornblade, NA. The tenth camp had just expired. Note the obvious northern camp and combat marker as well as the camp placed in the southeastern city. With proof like this, there's no possibility of the guilty faction being able to claim any kind of honorable, legitimate victory.

Guarantee that group of reds are the group that came over from chillrend. All they know how to do is cheat when faced witha challenge

dcincali

fritzOSU03 wrote: »

This was the map yesterday evening at around midnight (EST) in Thornblade, NA. The tenth camp had just expired. Note the obvious northern camp and combat marker as well as the camp placed in the southeastern city. With proof like this, there's no possibility of the guilty faction being able to claim any kind of honorable, legitimate victory.

This is why I have an EP alt and am making a DC one as well, So i can burn the troll camps. Usually when AD is troll camped its by someone real SNEAKY. Not like they haven't admitted to it either. Sneaky sneaky buggers..

Tripwyr

We currently have a disgruntled player griefing the AD with troll camps. He isn't cross faction or anything, I've chased him around blocking him with siege and everything.

Agrippa_Invisus

Tripwyr wrote: »

We currently have a disgruntled player griefing the AD with troll camps. He isn't cross faction or anything, I've chased him around blocking him with siege and everything.

Would this be a player who considers himself particularly sneaky?

Tripwyr

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Tripwyr wrote: »

We currently have a disgruntled player griefing the AD with troll camps. He isn't cross faction or anything, I've chased him around blocking him with siege and everything.

Would this be a player who considers himself particularly sneaky?

No, I don't think that player would go so low. The player I'm referring to does not have a EP or DC character as far as I know.

The sneaky vegetable is (I hope) above troll camping. I also doubt his cross-faction group would tolerate such behavior.

Agrippa_Invisus

Tripwyr wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Tripwyr wrote: »

We currently have a disgruntled player griefing the AD with troll camps. He isn't cross faction or anything, I've chased him around blocking him with siege and everything.

Would this be a player who considers himself particularly sneaky?

No, I don't think that player would go so low. The player I'm referring to does not have a EP or DC character as far as I know.

The sneaky vegetable is (I hope) above troll camping. I also doubt his cross-faction group would tolerate such behavior.

Good. I would have been greatly disappointed in him, as I like him personally and find him funny to chat with.

I can't imagine spending the amount of AP necessary to troll camp when you can't benefit from it in some way -- aside from just being a jerk. Different people have different priorities.

"Some men just want to see the world burn" and all that.

dcincali

Both of you will be sad to learn that said vegetable has admitted to troll camping AD. Take it for what it is, when I see him near a scroll I make sure I grab it first. I don't trust the guy... At all.