Would you like to see Forward Camps Removed from the Game?

michaelb14a_ESO2

I believe in balanced, simple wording when it comes to structuring survey questions to try and make them as accurate as possible.

The ability to post to the discussion after responding to a poll here on the forum pretty much appends a "but" to any option answer. The up or down vote is really there to measure the sentiment of FC's current effect on game-play and the pain point level for players. In other words, it's extreme on purpose.

When I word polls I don't like to pigeon hole people into a solution by trying to measure more than one thing in one question. I would much rather people qualify their responses in the discussion rather then trying to build that response bias into the poll itself.

You can follow different views on this issue in c0rps's excellent thread "Remove Forward Camps from the game" found here:

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/133892/remove-forward-camps-from-the-game

Edit: for clarity

Thanks!

Nox_Aeterna

NO

To put it in few words:

When i do play PvP , i dont want to play a walking simulator. Pretty much i dont want to walk a lot more than actually fight.

bertenburnyb16_ESO

I DON'T KNOW

not completely removed, but reworked, since how their working now is not as it should be, for example as I started I thought you could only respawn in a camp if you died inside the radius of the camp, which I thought logical

Nidwin

NO

Nox_Aeterna wrote: »

To put it in few words:

When i do play PvP , i dont want to play a walking simulator. Pretty much i dont want to walk a lot more than actually fight.

This.

Those FC when used properly and wisely gives us also very dynamic keep defenses and offenses.

Sharee

YES

Yes. However they should be replaced by another mechanic, to prevent the 'walking simulator' scenario.

1, players are able to rez at resource towers and keeps under attack, but only if they died within certain distance of them

2, rezzing this way starts a timer. you cannot rez again until the timer ticks down to zero. This means you can rez instantly after dying, but only once. If you die again too fast, you will have to wait. This is to prevent players from suicide rushing over and over, and also allows for a keep to be captured eventually. (the timer might be only a few seconds or a minute, depending on what works best. open to debate)

3, all keeps are made more difficult (slower) to capture so that defenders have time to react/get there in time to mount a defense without relying on suicide porting(since that won't be possible anymore). Alternatively, make it possible to port into keeps under attack as long as all resources are not captured.

michael_bimson

YES

Forward Camps certainly need reworking. Put simply you should not be able to suicide on one side of Cyrodiil in order to arrive at a keep that is under attack on the other side of Cyrodiil and in the process undermine the"keep under attack" mechanism that prevents new defenders porting to the keep through the Transitus network.

I also think that it is a drawback that defenders may place camps within the keep walls and sometimes within the keeps themselves to enable repeated suicide attacks at the siegers. Death has no penalty in Cyrodiil, so there is nothing to discourage a tactic that somewhat ruins the immersion of siege battles.

I like Sharee's suggestion of a respawn timer for an under siege keep, although for clarity I am assuming that you would be able to respawn at a keep not under siege as you do at the moment. This timer could get longer each time you are killed with the respawn cooldown debuff on you (i.e. keep doing the suicide runs and you'll be waiting minutes to respawn.)

Making resources respawn points as well would enable attackers to have a respawn point without a forward camp and would mean that defenders would need to take the resource to prevent respawns (which I feel to be a positive) and therefore would encourage alliances to not keep back a hostile resource for suicide porting - however it would mean that suicide porting to resources on the other side of the map would now be possible (for attacking) which may be an unfair advantage for attackers (negative).

Sharee

YES

michael_bimson wrote: »

...however it would mean that suicide porting to resources on the other side of the map would now be possible (for attacking) which may be an unfair advantage for attackers (negative).

The idea is that you can only rez somewhere if you died a certain distance away from it, withing the 'rez radius'. So suicide porting across the map(and suicide porting in general) should be a thing of the past.

Muizer

I DON'T KNOW

I don't know. I really think the only way to find out how that would work out is just to try it. I mean, I'm sure people would find ways to exploit that situation as well in ways that don't benefit the overall game.

Nidwin

NO

Sharee wrote: »

So suicide porting across the map(and suicide porting in general) should be a thing of the past.

Can you give us numbers about those "suicide porting in general"?

I've played, more than I should, past 2 weeks (EP on Thorn) and I don't have the feeling this being common practice.

Also suicide with 2.2K-2.5K health isn't that easy, except if you have a known way to do it efficiently. Tell me about how to do it, just in case, you know?

I've been moving from spot to spot after teleports from linked building to move to keep offense and defense and I had plenty of company from players doing exactly what I was doing.

Xsorus

YES

Nidwin wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

So suicide porting across the map(and suicide porting in general) should be a thing of the past.

Can you give us numbers about those "suicide porting in general"?

I've played, more than I should, past 2 weeks (EP on Thorn) and I don't have the feeling this being common practice.

Also suicide with 2.2K-2.5K health isn't that easy, except if you have a known way to do it efficiently. I've been moving from spot to spot after teleports from linked building to move to keep offense and defense and I've had nearly always plenty of company of players exactly what I did.

Then you clearly haven't been playing PvP...

To even say this isn't common practice is hilarious

david271749

NO

I would like to see camps that only allow respawn if you're in the camp's area.

Nidwin

NO

@xsorusb14_ESO‌

And by constantly flaming people posting around here you lose any credibility in any kind of "discussion".

I've posted what I experienced past two weeks, you only flame mate.

GFBStarWars

NO

I would prefer to get them to work in a different way, maybe adding a cool down to their use so that they will become more of a strategic resource than a "position a new one when the old camp is expired".

This will allow a much more interesting way of playing, where using a camp at the wrong time could cost you the siege of the keep .

kewl

There is a middle ground. For example, you can't rez at an FC unless you die in its radius. There are many more, excellent, suggestions on the forums. I hope ZOS is taking notes.

Cody

NO

I hate the idea of spending half of the time in PvP not actually PvPing. They should not be removed, just re-worked. only being usable if you are in the radius would be a good start. having players spawn with decreased stats....

we cant just remove them. Id much rather see them fixed than removed myself.

Cody

NO

Nidwin wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

So suicide porting across the map(and suicide porting in general) should be a thing of the past.

Can you give us numbers about those "suicide porting in general"?

I've played, more than I should, past 2 weeks (EP on Thorn) and I don't have the feeling this being common practice.

Also suicide with 2.2K-2.5K health isn't that easy, except if you have a known way to do it efficiently. Tell me about how to do it, just in case, you know?

I've been moving from spot to spot after teleports from linked building to move to keep offense and defense and I had plenty of company from players doing exactly what I was doing.

blood porting is a very common practice. Group leaders are constantly saying "suicide at <blank> and port to <blank>!"

Nidwin

NO

@Cody‌

Till now I was never told to do this in all the pug groups I was in. Leader always told to port to objective X, group up and leave together to reach objective Y.

Anyway.
Suicide is a common practice in MMORPG, both PVE and RvR.

Morvul

YES

I dislike the "blood porting".
But what I dislike even more, is that currently there is no downside to dying what-so-ever. Whereever there is a somewhat bigger fight - you just see two endless streams of bodies rushing out of their respective forward camps to meet in the middle and die over and over and over again. Only ending when one side has a group of "morons" despawning the camp and refusing to plant another.

Sharee

YES

Nidwin wrote: »

Also suicide with 2.2K-2.5K health isn't that easy, except if you have a known way to do it efficiently. Tell me about how to do it, just in case, you know?

Have you ever wondered why one of your keeps deep within your territory has one of the resources controlled by the enemy?

That's how.

Nidwin wrote: »

@Cody‌

Till now I was never told to do this in all the pug groups I was in. Leader always told to port to objective X, group up and leave together to reach objective Y.

Anyway.
Suicide is a common practice in MMORPG, both PVE and RvR.

That is what you usually do when you go to attack an enemy structure. But you cannot do that if you want to defend a keep that came under attack, because it would be taken before you could ride halfway towards it.

If keep X suddenly starts showing 'on fire' on the map, the first thing you hear in chat is "someone place a camp at X fast!!!" followed by "NO, don't take lumber at Y, we need it to suicide to get to X!"

Dudis

YES

Dying in this game right now is just a quick way to replenish your magicka and stamina. There are of course legit users but honestly, tents are simply too easy to abuse.

I see a lot of people just going all-in trying to get as many kills as possible and releasing to a tent every 30 seconds. Hell, I'm guilty of this sometimes.

Nidwin

NO

Sharee wrote: »

If keep X suddenly starts showing 'on fire' on the map, the first thing you hear in chat is "someone place a camp at X fast!!!" followed by "NO, don't take lumber at Y, we need it to suicide to get to X!"

Haven't witnessed this in the past 2 weeks (3 week-ends) EP on Thorn US. I'm not saying it doesn't happen although. I'm certain it's common practice amongst those pointy high elves ears and their lapdogs, but honor isn't their cup of tea, we all know it. ;-)

In DaoC and Warhammer (the 2 big references for RvR) this practice would actually been seen as "normal", just to speed up stuff and to make sure you wont's miss the big fight.

In Warhammer we even had scrolls and the war report to move from to zones quickly.

And as a destro player
Waterfall jump in Tier 2 Elf
Dragonwake jump from cliff at WC. Once changed it was take PVE route to keep.
Thunder Mountain -> lava jump
and so on and so on

Dudis

YES

Nidwin wrote: »

In DaoC and Warhammer (the 2 big references for RvR) this practice would actually been seen as "normal", just to speed up stuff and to make sure you wont's miss the big fight.

Didn't play Warhammer much but in DAoC you had to run back if you didn't get a ress.

Oh, and you also got ress illness and lost all buffs.


That said though, it was a lot easier to ress people in DAoC. That's a problem that could (and should) easily be fixed in ESO when/if they nerf tents.

Traveller

YES

I've lost track of how many times PVP comes to an end in Blackwater Blade becomes sides run out of camps. Level 10 players do not last long especial against VET 5 NPC's! Also getting from A to B is part of the fun when you can attack or be attacked at any moment. Rez at the nearest resource, keep or run the risk of riding, which I think adds to the fun.

Davadin

NO

It's broken and poorly designed, but without it, like hell I'm going to spend 30% of my time in Cyrodiil travelling on horse since PUGs are bad and people who resurrects are rare. Yes, even with a fully speed-spec horse.

It just increase ganking and waste a lot of times, especially with the server loads issue where players can be stuck on a loading screen indefinitely.

michaelb14a_ESO2

YES

Dudis wrote: »

Dying in this game right now is just a quick way to replenish your magicka and stamina.

I agree 100% the lack of a meaningful death penalty gives surviving and "winning" in PVP no value

Davadin

NO

Yes. Somebody make a poll of "should dying in PvP have (at least a bit) of penalty" and it'll be clear as day.

Dying should have penalty. Maybe not something that uses gold, but AP is easy and fair to get back and definitely can be used as penalty.

I can go on and on with the benefits of (a little) pvp penalty and yes it is that good.

aclarkob14_ESO

YES

Fix keep defense/transitus system. It really wouldn't become a walking simulator if they removed them. The transitus system was created to make a flow of combat, and the forward camps completely throw the flow out the window. PvP has become zerg at the forward camps or be bored.

Thechemicals

YES

Forward camps should only be placed in resource nodes by either faction. I just gave you a diamond. Think about it and youll realize how much better this is.

Ghostbane

YES

I would like to see them removed, and replaced with the following mechanic,

If you die within an agreed radius of an under attack keep, you can re-spawn at it provided there is at least X mages powering that transitus shrine. If the max amount of mages are present and alive, there is no cap on res' per x. If there is only 2 mages out of 4 alive, then there would be timer to res or something.

This brings in the question, can the defending faction res the mages? In the balance of things I would like to think so. I don't know what the respawn timer is on them at present. If they can res the mages, soul gems?

As for the walking simulator bit. I believe forward camps or something similar should be present. But, they have to be outside of the keep and at an X distance.

This encourages more tactical thinking of the opposition and the defence.

c0rp

YES

Until camps are removed from game they will continue to lead to zerg blobbling, lag, and make the strategy of supply/transit lines moot.

LonePirate

NO

c0rp wrote: »

Until camps are removed from game they will continue to lead to zerg blobbling, lag, and make the strategy of supply/transit lines moot.

Zerg blobbing and lag are independent of camps and occur with them. Removing camps will not put an end to either phenomena. Nor will we see much of a reduction in zerg blobbing. In fact, we might even see more of it as people who resurrect at a camp will likely wait a few moments for the allies to form a zerg rather than continue the steady stream of players into a keep siege like we see today.

Also, the supply lines reason is a weak one when confronted by reality. All sides use camps for both offensive and defensive purposes. There is no victim here that needs to be protected.

If camps are removed, one or more of these will happen.

-- Battles involving all three factions at the opposite ends of the maps (the north for AD, the southeast for DC and the southwest for EP) will be much more rare.

-- Far fewer instances of two factions teaming up against the other to take scrolls will occur. Events like this weekend's actions on Thornblade NA where DC and EP simultaneously attacked and stole both of AD's scrolls will largely be a thing of the past.

-- Diversion tactics where one faction captures and holds an enemy's gate keep but no other nearby keeps will largely vanish.

-- Scrolls will be stolen less frequently as combatants for both sides will not be able to rejoin the fight easily. If a scroll is stolen, the third alliance with focused and fully supplied forces can wait and ambush the depleted squad with the stolen scroll.

-- Nightcapping or daycapping will increase in frequency and intensity as that will be the only time some keeps or scrolls are captured. It may also be the only times an Emperor is ever crowned.

-- Those complaining about ESO being a Horse Simulator will be more vocal than ever as noticeable amounts of time will be spent on horseback rather than in siege battles.

Some people may be frustrated with them but removing them will have a negative effect on the game.