5 Reasons Why Removal of Forward Camps Will Save PvP in ESO

Lfehova

Domander wrote: »

smassareub17_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@c0rp Siege damage vs. Players and Walls/Doors are next on the list to look into after the dust of Forward Camps settles. As I'm sure everyone in this thread and the Alliance War thread knows as a whole, moving one piece in the jenga castle of Cyrodiil isn't as easy as it always sounds

Semfim wrote: »

diskiukas wrote: »

That is very bad change, that only benefits only all you awesome players from awesome guilds. Casual players, that actually keep this game afloat, since they are biggest contributor to sub fees will not want to die over and over. Yes , I know you going to say -learn to play, spend 7 hours every day to study all skills and which works or not in PVP, find a group etc, but that is not that casuals going to do. If you think that they will stay just for the horse ride, I suggest you think again. I enjoyed PVP so far immensely, Maybe I am wrong and it'll turn to be great change, however I don't see it.

Not really. The big problem with PvP before this patch was that big trains of said not casual players would blood port where ever there was a menace. Where I play (hello Azura EU) a very organized guild just storms every single move made against their faction using blood porting. It's not like the opponents don't use blood porting but the more time stronger groups need getting to places where the action is greater are the chances of PUG's to do something meaningful. The practical uses of this include 2 groups attacking very distant but important keeps and have the big players go to one place and not being able to prevent the other group from succeding.

I still havent played the new patch but I'm waiting for good times. I literally hated the mechanics of "we need to be somewhere fast, everyone suicide at a enemy resource, OH AND DONT FORGET NOT TO USE SKILLS SO THE WE DONT TAKE THE RESOURCE"... Gankers will also have a use, not just being a fast travel mechanism.

Of course I know that keep attacks be riskier, mainly with the crazy NPC's that detect stealthed chars from miles away, take a bunch of non elite people to take down and mostly make it easier to defend than to attack. But i feel the game now will be more leveled and will allow for strategies other than best builds and group synergies.

Everyone "dies" in the PVP area. Just wait ....after your tenth death....and you are riding yet again to be with your group.....and you have lost tons of AP cause you are not with your group.....oh, and you get pulled off your horse again!~ not so much to look forward to is there?

Tintinabula wrote: »

so yea..even people who are fine with it are admitting they're having to totally rebuild their char and rotations...

This is a RIFT ackward bass way of forcing your client base to respec every month in order to keep them a little longer and draw out their sub.

If you think that's bad, just wait until next update, and then the champion system.

sigh, hopefully it won't be bad. I like where the game is now, if they just add to it, it would be great.

I think we differ greatly here. A game that doesn't force you to change your build is a stale game. And I wouldn't pay a penny a month to play it.

Anazasi wrote: »

On Thorn, the removal of camps has not impacted lag, zerg-balls, or the rebirth of small scale pvp. The removal of camps has only instituted a moratorium on low population factions.

The removal of camps hasn't impacted the lag as much as I would've thought because people still have camps. Even if it was laggy the laggyness shouldn't last too long as one side inevitably whittles down the other side.

However, when one side messes up and gets wiped, they drop a camp and instantly replenish full forces and go back to lagging each other out again. So if all camps were gone for good, I think we would see a marked reduction in lag hours. Obviously, if 100 DC wait at bleakers for the 150 EP pushing to break down the wall to come in, it will lag until that fight is over.

Agrippa_Invisus

Lfehova wrote: »

Domander wrote: »

smassareub17_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

@c0rp Siege damage vs. Players and Walls/Doors are next on the list to look into after the dust of Forward Camps settles. As I'm sure everyone in this thread and the Alliance War thread knows as a whole, moving one piece in the jenga castle of Cyrodiil isn't as easy as it always sounds

Semfim wrote: »

diskiukas wrote: »

That is very bad change, that only benefits only all you awesome players from awesome guilds. Casual players, that actually keep this game afloat, since they are biggest contributor to sub fees will not want to die over and over. Yes , I know you going to say -learn to play, spend 7 hours every day to study all skills and which works or not in PVP, find a group etc, but that is not that casuals going to do. If you think that they will stay just for the horse ride, I suggest you think again. I enjoyed PVP so far immensely, Maybe I am wrong and it'll turn to be great change, however I don't see it.

Not really. The big problem with PvP before this patch was that big trains of said not casual players would blood port where ever there was a menace. Where I play (hello Azura EU) a very organized guild just storms every single move made against their faction using blood porting. It's not like the opponents don't use blood porting but the more time stronger groups need getting to places where the action is greater are the chances of PUG's to do something meaningful. The practical uses of this include 2 groups attacking very distant but important keeps and have the big players go to one place and not being able to prevent the other group from succeding.

I still havent played the new patch but I'm waiting for good times. I literally hated the mechanics of "we need to be somewhere fast, everyone suicide at a enemy resource, OH AND DONT FORGET NOT TO USE SKILLS SO THE WE DONT TAKE THE RESOURCE"... Gankers will also have a use, not just being a fast travel mechanism.

Of course I know that keep attacks be riskier, mainly with the crazy NPC's that detect stealthed chars from miles away, take a bunch of non elite people to take down and mostly make it easier to defend than to attack. But i feel the game now will be more leveled and will allow for strategies other than best builds and group synergies.

Everyone "dies" in the PVP area. Just wait ....after your tenth death....and you are riding yet again to be with your group.....and you have lost tons of AP cause you are not with your group.....oh, and you get pulled off your horse again!~ not so much to look forward to is there?

Tintinabula wrote: »

so yea..even people who are fine with it are admitting they're having to totally rebuild their char and rotations...

This is a RIFT ackward bass way of forcing your client base to respec every month in order to keep them a little longer and draw out their sub.

If you think that's bad, just wait until next update, and then the champion system.

sigh, hopefully it won't be bad. I like where the game is now, if they just add to it, it would be great.

I think we differ greatly here. A game that doesn't force you to change your build is a stale game. And I wouldn't pay a penny a month to play it.

Anazasi wrote: »

On Thorn, the removal of camps has not impacted lag, zerg-balls, or the rebirth of small scale pvp. The removal of camps has only instituted a moratorium on low population factions.

The removal of camps hasn't impacted the lag as much as I would've thought because people still have camps. Even if it was laggy the laggyness shouldn't last too long as one side inevitably whittles down the other side.

However, when one side messes up and gets wiped, they drop a camp and instantly replenish full forces and go back to lagging each other out again. So if all camps were gone for good, I think we would see a marked reduction in lag hours. Obviously, if 100 DC wait at bleakers for the 150 EP pushing to break down the wall to come in, it will lag until that fight is over.

Yesterday there was some phenomenal lag on Thornblade due to the huge fights happening around the Glademist area, and it was affecting most of the Thornblade NA campaign.

It didn't help that there was an AD zerg spawning out of Ash going north, an EP zerg spawning out of Aleswell going west, and a DC zerg spawning out of Glademist and circling the keep looking for enemies.

I gave up and went and fought around the Sejanus area. Somewhat better there.

eventide03b14a_ESO

PvP feels like it did in beta again and I love it. Killing an enemy actually makes a difference now, and people are playing more strategically. I am also seeing a lot more variation in armor and weapons. People that are complaining about it are the suicide bombers who rush in with destruction staff and robe spamming impulse and trying to take out as many enemies as they can before they die. Now if someone rushes in like that they no longer get rewarded and we don't have to see that idiot for 5 blessed minutes as they run back.

eventide03b14a_ESO

heng14rwb17_ESO wrote: »

wow,look like there is a lot of benefits to remove FC..........
But is it really?

This is the real effect of FC removal.
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/138225/low-population-bonus-300-points#latest

That's a problem with how the bonus is applied not forward camps. This doesn't show any correlation between the two. Try again...

eventide03b14a_ESO

Lfehova wrote: »

Tintinabula wrote: »

why it won't save PvP: They're being brought back

Yeah well the alterations to forward camps that wheeler was talking about, will actually achieve the same purpose the removal was supposed to cause. But add in some sense of instant gratification for the call of duty generation. The key alteration being a global cooldown on spawning at a fwc.

Where are these changes posted? Do they include a spawn radius or are we back to death porting?

Insurrektion

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Rylana‌ and @Insurrektion‌

I think this is an interesting discussion. One that has been brought by the removal of FC and is a compliment to that change.
We wouldn't have any opportunity to disagree as the FC's best use was way too straightforward and boring.

My comment about offense being the best defense was more about how people believe they have to use scouts or "man the walls" and wait for attackers to show up now that FCs are gone.

This is wrong and a remnant of the old meta of being able to pile all the population of a campaign in one or two fights.

All you have to do is man the frontlines, and keep the fights active rather than wait.
Groups should spread themsleves out and keep the fights going on their frontline, applying pressure and having reserve groups switching lines to create local contexts with an advantage.

Think about mobas and how you have various lane, with junglers and support units. Imagine that now at a larger scale with each unit being a group of organized players and the creep being the solo players holding the front.

It's also more advantageous to fight in the field rather than let the enemy get to your walls, as you keep the transitus up longer. If you fail, you still have a second chance either trhough the transitus, or through falling back to man your walls. If you win, you're already half way to the opposing keep and can get there before they have time to fully regroup.

Yea I've been playing mobas since DotA on RoC.

Manning the front lines, as you've stated and set forth an example with "creeps/minions" being the basic soldier heading from your frontline home keep directly to the enemy's frontline home keep, applying constant pressure to the enemy and forcing them to fight the frontlines as well, is all good and dandy, but doesn't really offer up and strategy. You ARE 100% dead on when it comes to defending in the field outside a keep and give more transitus time to defenders. However, applying constant pressure to a keep, citing offense as the best defense and your example as a basic template on how to achieve this, has many many strategical faults.

What if the enemy has superior numbers and/or capability? You'll lose the day.
What if the enemy sends a group behind your frontlines and sacks a keep that prevents your faction from 'porting to your original frontline keeps? You'll starve out and lose the day, or be left scrambling to readjust your lines and adapt.
What if someone grabs a scroll? Say goodbye to your frontlines.

When I made my previous comment about "kuddos to ad/dc/ep," it was due largely in part to strategies that were implemented against overwhelming numbers to win the day. We did all of what I just mentioned. We attacked deep to cut off their ability transport to their frontlines in hopes of starving out their numbers and throw off their momentum (their entire faction was grouped and focused and knocking down keep after keep). We had their rear keep before they even got to us. Then we charged down the field at the frontlines and bolstered our frontlines and hammered keep after keep while they scrambled to recover. We threw them off balance.

Let me say that one more time. We threw them off balance. We WON the day because we threw them off balance. You cannot throw an enemy off balance with clearcut understandable frontlines.

I'm not going to argue against the capability of applying constant pressure to multiple keeps. I'm offering something better.

I've learned through playing many RTS combat games that knowledge really is power. Scouting is knowledge. It gives a faction advance notification regarding numbers, location, and direction of enemy troops. It allows a faction more freedom in regards to where to attack and with how many people can be spared to attack in that location. If I have information that 10 AD are about to attack nikel outpost, I can stick 5 defenders on the wall and attack Brindle with 20-30 people. I'll have brindle before they have nikel. Then I can split the brindle attack force in half, have 1 half attack and wipe the ad at nickel, and the other half attack the location the AD came from, and win everything.

I cannot use enough examples or stress enough how important it is to know where your enemy is (and isn't). Simply letting nightblade gankers do their thing and sit outside enemy keeps picking off onesy-twosies and reporting large groups in zone chat is literally an indispensible benefit to the entire faction of which they are a part of.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO

I entirely agree with you.

It seems I'm having a very hard time getting understood. Perhaps due to oversimplifying my idea the first time I exposed it.

I'm not saying to never defend but to never be passive or reactive.
Keep the initiative and be the group flanking and keep the enemy off balance.
We've been saying the same thing more or less.

My point was to respond at people saying they "don't want to wait at keep walls in case there would be a fight".
Which is nonsense, and just a weak argument against the removal of FCs.