New Forward Camp Suggestion

Sanct16

Hey everyone,

Let's talk a bit about Forward Camps. Quick sum up on the old camps from my perspective:

Pro: Spreading people over the map. The reason why I liked Forward Camps in the past was because they allowed people to quickly travel long distances over the map to spread out people. You didnt need to zerg from Alessia to Sejanus 24/7. You could just take a camp whereever you liked to and help out there. You could go up to an enemy homekeep with a small group and start sieging it and get support from other people respawning at a camp you placed there. There were a lot of people complaining about "blood porting" and while it might feel a bit unintuitive, I still think it was fine this way in order to help with the performance.
........
Contra: Long lagfights. A complain that many people brought up was that FCs contributed to lag as it allowed everyone to easily respawn at the same keep so we would end up with the whole faction at the same keep and it was a problem in some cases without any doubt.
........
Now, looking at the way they plan to bring back camps (respawn only if you die within the area of the camp), the positive aspect of spreading out people over the map will not be available anymore. Instead, it will help even more to center the action on the map. Once you got to a big fight, you can respawn there even if you die while its under attack. This will most likely contribute to those long lagfights again that everyone hated in the past.

Thats why I think this change will be VERY bad for both the performance and arguably also for the game experience as it will make the action on the map even more onedimensional meaning there will probably be one 3 fights on the map. AD vs DC (at Nikel), AD vs EP (at Sejanus) and (EP vs DC) at Bleakers basically.
........
I think, the following idea would be a way better approach:
Make it so that you CAN'T respawn, if you die inside the area of the camp. That way, the camps couldn't be used to contribute to lagfights as people would not be able to directly respawn at the same keep if they die but would still allow people to use camps in order to get to keeps further away. If a faction wants to bring everyone to the same keep and run it down with 60 people it could get countered easily by small groups putting up camps at enemy home keeps and start sieging them. This would force the 60 man zerg to either spread their forces or take 1 keep at the cost of losing 2 other keeps. This would most likely lead to many different smaller fights across the map rather than only a few big fights. The people who enjoy large scale siege warfare battles will still get bigs fights; there will still be those big zergs roaming back and forth the outposts, just that if you want to get away from that, there will be more alternatives on the map.

Another change to go along with this should be a cooldown on respawning. You can only get survived once every 2 minutes, no matter by Soul Gem or Forward Camp to give defenders/attackers a chance to clear out the enemies. It sure isnt very interesting if you can't take/defend a keep because everyone kill just stands up like a zombie. Again and again and again.
........
Please let me know what you think about this suggestion so that we can hopefully have a constructive discussion about it

If you disagree with me/dont like the idea, it would be interesting to hear what you dont like about it, if there would be a way to adjust the idea to improve it or if not, what system you would personally prefer and why. There is only so many details I can/want to write down here so this is just a quick overhaul of an idea and not fully thought out yet
And please, try to bring arguments. I just said my opinion here and don't expect everyone to share it but stuff like "blood porting is bad" etc doesn't help anything if you don't even try to explain which part about it is bad in your opinion.

PS: Sorry for the uncreative Thread name

WRX

I agree with your pro's and con's almost entirely. Personally, I always loved the forward camps and how they operated for the most part. Not because it made sense or really any other reason other than it made fights a blast. You could go and get a keep, and then fight there until essentially everyone was dead. However there were some issues that the majority of the people in PvP hated, and I can't say I blame them.

The biggest one was blood porting across the map and making transit useless, followed by troll camping and camp spamming.

That said, I don't believe ZoS will ever bring back that blood port mechanic. I'm not even sure that they should to be honest, but it did make for some fun fights. The only good part was to spread out huge groups, and while these new camps wont be quite as effective, they will still spread people out I think.

I know I will certainly be more keen on going to any relic keep and speed capping it when I know that even if I get zerged (which will happen), that we can place a camp and get back into the fight. Then just make sure not to lose in the next 2 minutes and we are good. Same idea going open fielding. This will force people to spread out also, as the huge zergs would never really skip keeps anyways.

My big fear really is about the radius of the camps. If its only the size of the keeps and their walls, that means attackers are at a huge disadvantage. From this PoV, the camps need to cover keeps and its resources, because otherwise it will be even more improbable to take keeps from that 60 man zerg. They will just spam camps, while the attackers can't use your camps.

And troll camping will be a thing again if there is a max, but lets hope this changes.

I agree soul gems need some sort of cooldown, but maybe not 2 minutes, and something closer to 30-60 seconds on the 2nd revive.

Merlight

I'll tell you upfront that in my opinion blood porting was bad. It led to stupid "tactics" like keeping 1 enemy resource at own keep, people calling others names if they capped it, etc. What was the fastest way to get from A to B? Suicide. Maintaining transit lines? What for?

Sanct16 wrote: »

I think, the following idea would be a way better approach:
Make it so that you CAN'T respawn, if you die inside the area of the camp. That way, the camps couldn't be used to contribute to lagfights as people would not be able to directly respawn at the same keep if they die but would still allow people to use camps in order to get to keeps further away.

So people will ping-pong between FCs, or respawn at keep and suicide at resource. You're just making it more tedious, while solving nothing.

frozywozy

Crazy how some people can see the entirely opposite effect on something that simple. Same goes for siege discussion in these forums. People are either freaking blind or hiding their real motivations and desires under some bad excuses.

Having a restricted range to respawn on a forward camp HELPS people spreading out. The fact that people cannot suicide anywhere as soon as they see a camp on the map DISCOURAGES people to stack at one place.

Having a restricted range to respawn on a forward camp incentive people to stop pushing the typical transit line and to go deep in enemy territory, thereby spreading out from the zerg.

Nowadays, the best scenario I can give you is when DC stacks 3 guilds in Chalman and wait for EP to push it wiping them over and over again. Sometimes EP will push Dragon and Bleakers but that's it. It doesn't go any further. With the new camp system on place, EP could use Dragon to ride deep in DC territory near Rayles, Warden and Glade and apply some pressure there.

Now, with the restricted range, it DENIES all EPs to instantly port to that camp, exactly like it should. The goal to hit DC on Rayles is to spread DC out of Chalman, while the rest of EP keeps pushing it. If you remove the range restriction, all EPs would instantly suicide and spawn at Rayles and the main goal to get Chalman would be ruined while risking to stack all EP players on Rayles.

I'm enjoying the system that Brian wanna put in place and I really hope it goes exactly as he explained it.

Mojomonkeyman

Great post, Sanct. I agree entirely. ZOS still doesnt understand the dynamics of their game obviously shown by their approach on this.

Sad part for me, your solution would be even worse (for me).

I want forward camps only to have a second spawn when I die solo somewhere in the desert cuz an unexpected zerg comes around. Your solution would function like a magnet to all AD´s in the mornings (my playtime) to join my fights. I don`t want my rare solo fights to become zergfights.

For my playstyle FCs will be terrible, either way.

frozywozy

Mojomonkeyman wrote: »

Great post, Sanct. I agree entirely. ZOS still doesnt understand the dynamics of their game obviously shown by their approach on this.

Sad part for me, your solution would be even worse (for me).

I want forward camps only to have a second spawn when I die solo somewhere in the desert cuz an unexpected zerg comes around. Your solution would function like a magnet to all AD´s in the mornings (my playtime) to join my fights. I don`t want my rare solo fights to become zergfights.

For my playstyle FCs will be terrible, either way.

So you open saying that you agree entirely and you conclude saying that FCs will be terrible.

Sanct16

@wrx
Sure some guild groups will use it take back keeps. But I dont think that will help much with the problem, at least i am pretty sure it wont on azura EU. The new camps will spread out organised groups but all the pugs will still zerg the same keep, just that they will not even have to run again. I guess if azura na is populated it might help for you. Azura EU doesnt haveany guildraids left. We have Elite stacking 1-3 raids on ep side, honor with 1-3 raids on dc side and ad is just mostly pugs. Regarding smallr grps we got exile on dc side and bs on ad side but both grps dont care too much about the campaign unless they defend emp. So there wont be any guilds to really go for back keeps and pugs will never organise in such a way that they all skip a certain keep. So we will have 60 dc, 60 ep and 60 ad moving together spamming camps whereever they go.

@Merlight
As i mentioned there should be a cooldown to stop people avoiding the rule of not respawning at a close camp.

Against bloodporting they could include that you must have died to a player to be able to respawn at a camp. This would discourage suiciding on a resource.
Maintaining transit lines would be important as it wouldnt be possible to respawn at the same keep so being able to run again will still grant you an advantage. However it wont be as important as it is now which would encourage spreading all factions out.

@frozywozy

It is currently not possible to instantly respawn at a certain keep and obviously people dont spread out so your "argument" that it DISCOURAGES stacking is proven wrong. Moreover it is already possible to attack relic keeps in order to spread out a big attacking force. We do it very often during emp defences etc. Most groups (fully including my own group) is looking for fights tho and dont want to do spend a lot of time riding and sieging keeps.

You are quite optimistic if you think that guild groups will suddenly start to care about playing the campaign when they dont at the moment.

You mention that camps in the way i suggested them would end up with all EP at rayles and it can happen for sure but once people die at rayles they will respawn at other camps.

@Mojomonkeyman
For my personal playstyle i am fine with the new camps. I only want to farm anyway so i dont want any pugs at our grindspots. However i tried to write this thread from an objective point of view trieing to improve performance for everyone.

@frozywozy (post #5)
He clearly said that camps will be bad for HIS playstyle as he just wants smallscale fights.

Merlight

Sanct16 wrote: »

As i mentioned there should be a cooldown to stop people avoiding the rule of not respawning at a close camp.

If someone can't survive 2 minutes it doesn't really matter where on the map they are, and if they can, they'll just jump different FCs.

Sanct16 wrote: »

Against bloodporting they could include that you must have died to a player to be able to respawn at a camp. This would discourage suiciding on a resource.

You can be sure that gap on the market would quickly be filled -- resource assassins for hire.

Sanct16 wrote: »

It is currently not possible to instantly respawn at a certain keep and obviously people dont spread out so your "argument" that it DISCOURAGES stacking is proven wrong. Moreover it is already possible to attack relic keeps in order to spread out a big attacking force.

That doesn't prove him wrong. Without FCs the whole faction generally has 1 or 2 spawn points close to battle; no matter where they die, they'll go back to where everyone else is. If there were FCs spread across the map, each serving as an additional respawn point for those inside its radius, it would allow a PORTION of players to STAY AWAY from the trenches.

Sanct16 wrote: »

We do it very often during emp defences etc. Most groups (fully including my own group) is looking for fights tho and dont want to do spend a lot of time riding and sieging keeps.

And yet you suggest a mechanic that will allow 1 guy to bring their entire faction to the farthest keep and PvDoor it before any defense arrives. I don't want to be mean, just... please drop it.

Sublime

Personally I like your suggestion, since I like bloodporting in all of its forms. But I also understand that some people dislike how it destroys the feeling of war.

As for (or not) spreading out, I believe it would help distributing the players since guilds would place down camps at different locations on the map giving ungrouped players the choice which fight they want to join in.

I understand that some players will always go where the biggest fight is, but i also know players that prefer medium sized fights. And those will be the ones that take the camp with the smaller battle cross, effectively resulting in a more distributed playerbase.

Manoekin

I'll be fine either way, but I like your idea too Sanct. It was always fun to die and then see a random FC spawn at a good spot and have your group just spawn up there and get some action going wherever it was. I can see the cooldown being enough of a deterrent that there can be a discussion for removing the "only spawn inside the radius" type thing.

themdogesbite

But how are people going to spread when they can only spawn inside the radious of a camp? Bloodporting is quite stupid but i dont see how it would hurt..

WRX

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

But how are people going to spread when they can only spawn inside the radious of a camp? Bloodporting is quite stupid but i dont see how it would hurt..

It wont be nearly as good.

Just a small incentive knowing if you die, that you get another shot at it.

themdogesbite

WRX wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

But how are people going to spread when they can only spawn inside the radious of a camp? Bloodporting is quite stupid but i dont see how it would hurt..

It wont be nearly as good.

Just a small incentive knowing if you die, that you get another shot at it.

Hm. well organised raids already go to back keeps as it it but the puglings just runs in a straight line. With old camps you could atleast nudge them to where they needed to be..

Sanct16

WRX wrote: »

johan.danielsson1994b16_ESO wrote: »

But how are people going to spread when they can only spawn inside the radious of a camp? Bloodporting is quite stupid but i dont see how it would hurt..

It wont be nearly as good.

Just a small incentive knowing if you die, that you get another shot at it.

Dont think groups will suddenly start going to back keeps if they didnt already do that without camps already.

WRX

I get what both you guys are saying about using it for pug spawns and the transit zergs, but my hope is it will encourage the less organized groups to branch out meanwhile letting the strongest groups hold onto and win fights against the hordes.

I guess we will just see, we all know it wont be as nice as the old ones.

Manoekin

Yeah the radius is starting to bug me more now. Unless you can place them in enemy keeps now I don't see the point. They won't be "forward" camps because the radius won't reach the team fighting inside the enemy keep, and their use will be almost entirely defensive except for farming at a resource or open field.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler would it be possible to see a screenshot of the radius on the map? That way we have a little more idea of what to argue about. If an offensive camp can't reach the team inside the keep I don't see the point, and can only imagine it keeping people in one place.

Also, please check @Sanct16 's concerns. Maybe being able to spawn outside the radius isn't so bad with a significant cooldown?

AbraXuSeXile

Completelt agree.

Needs maybe a battle fatigue so your weaker or a cooldown.

I personally had nothing against blood porting, to make rez only inside radius is probably the worst thing you could do.

Hektik_V

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Sanct16

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Hektik_V

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Well those 5 combined raids would still have been in BRK as they would be spamming resurrections with soul gems instead of using a camp that would spread them out. The difference is we were able to focus more on killing with the security of the camp where as they had to focus on survival without the insurance that a camp provides.

Sanct16

Hektik_V wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Well those 5 combined raids would still have been in BRK as they would be spamming resurrections with soul gems instead of using a camp that would spread them out. The difference is we were able to focus more on killing with the security of the camp where as they had to focus on survival without the insurance that a camp provides.

But if the new camps come to the game those 5 raids would also have a safe camp.

Hektik_V

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Well those 5 combined raids would still have been in BRK as they would be spamming resurrections with soul gems instead of using a camp that would spread them out. The difference is we were able to focus more on killing with the security of the camp where as they had to focus on survival without the insurance that a camp provides.

But if the new camps come to the game those 5 raids would also have a safe camp.

Depending on the radius. If the radius is small enough it will heavily weight in the defender's favor.

Erondil

Hektik_V wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Well those 5 combined raids would still have been in BRK as they would be spamming resurrections with soul gems instead of using a camp that would spread them out. The difference is we were able to focus more on killing with the security of the camp where as they had to focus on survival without the insurance that a camp provides.

But if the new camps come to the game those 5 raids would also have a safe camp.

Depending on the radius. If the radius is small enough it will heavily weight in the defender's favor.

So the map would be even more static than it is now? If new camps really heavily helps defenders over the attacking side, added to the new siege weapons I doubt a medium sized group (12-15) will ever be able to take a defended (by 20+ people) keep. Boring.

Xiphyla

Hektik_V wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Well those 5 combined raids would still have been in BRK as they would be spamming resurrections with soul gems instead of using a camp that would spread them out. The difference is we were able to focus more on killing with the security of the camp where as they had to focus on survival without the insurance that a camp provides.

Where is frozn when we need him ? He was all against forward camp long ago. Now suddenly everyone ask for forward camp to come back. Was hilarious .

Rune_Relic

I used to be the worst culprit when Camps were around and just starting PvP.
I use to die/logon, look on the map for the battle symbols, jump to the nearest camp as the keep was closed or transit line dead.
I wanted to be where the action was regardless.
I was oblivious of the consequences.

I think TBH, a lot of the problems with camps was not showing all conflicts of any scale....and often a delayed update.
Cyrodiil is a vast place and other than camping home keeps there really isn't a guarantee of where enemy players will be.
Groups normally keep chat within the group....so zone doesn't always get battle info they could use for positioning.
Especially with the trolling/spy issues causing groups to observe a communication blackout.
Even worse when troll camps are thrown in.
Diabolical when troll leaders start PUGs specifically for AP farming.
ZOS says people can always find a way to do spy trolling....so its not worth the time and expense.
I think we are heading for a disaster where whole guilds will just farm their own multiple factions for AP.

30 mins of horse riding isn't the way to go.
Camp bloodporting made the whole transit line concept meaningless where you have to build a line across the map to make progress from one faction to another.

I would have preferred somewhere between the two where you could setup camp upto a line between keeps....but only within the keep boundary line that you own.
But this makes enemy progress predictable...even if it did cut out a lot of the travel time.

Perhaps observation towers that could display all enemy movement within a limited radius would be a better way to go.
Something that scouts could carry.
This would give instant battle info to the whole faction....but is temporary and can be destroyed.
/Shrugs. Making camps work is hard. They have too much of an impact.

edit.. typo.

Anazasi

Forward camps was and will always be a bad idea.

why do I say this? Simple they promote zerging. It wont matter how small the radius is or how long they last or even how well thought out they are designed. Simply fact you die at a battle next to a keep and you rez next to the keep at a camp = zerging.

Every skilled group leader knows how long it takes to make it from an unflagged keep back to the battle. Every player knows when a keep gets flagged and they die if they stand a chance to get back into the battle. Bringing back any form of camps will only make the game worse.

I understand the mechanics of the changes currently being proposed and certainly they will make fighting at a keep longer and will make it more likely a defended keep wont fall which means small numbers will defend against larger numbers. However, bringing back camps mean you are increasing the attrition process exponentially and smaller numbers will not be able to match this without the removal of AOE CAPS which I have heard has been taken off the tables. (Please correct me if I am wrong).

Camps are bad, they will be abused, and they will add nothing to the game that we have not already seen.

You will have gank groups log in one of their alts drop a camp and simply feed off the AP of the players dumb enough to rez at it.

DEVS spend your time removing the group que feature. Spend your time balancing weapon and spell damage, spend your time fixing steel tornados or wrecking blow. But to waste hours of discussion and development on something you and everyone else knows is not going to help pvp is just poor management.

RoamingRiverElk

I like the idea of not being able to spawn at a camp the radius of which lies on top of you - if the radius is small enough.

On the other hand, if the radius is small and you can only spawn at a camp that overlaps the point where you died, my big concern is that it will favor numbers again. Why? Because you need to be able to defend the camp as well, because it will be found very easily by enemy players due to the small number of places where you can actually place one.

If camps go in the way Wheeler has described it, I can see a huge, endless fight going on at Arrius on Azura EU. Big enough to be causing huge lag. Both sides will spam camps.

Small radius will also make it difficult to attack a keep with a small group - let's say five, because it is pretty much guaranteed that the camp will be destroyed as soon as enemy players get to that keep - unless you actually make the fight be about protecting the camp, rather than about attacking the keep (sometimes you can combine these two a bit by sieging from a resource and having the camp there as well, but this just applies to the actual sieging of a wall of a keep, not much more).

Placing a camp somewhere far away from the zergy fights: Good thing - your own faction pugs can't use your camp. Bad thing - your own faction pugs can't use your camp.

Dalglish

Only allowing porting after a player death (not resource/keep guards) and only allowing your own group to spawn at the forward camp would remove the need for radius in my opinion.

The resurrect cooldown will take care of the constant respawns.

We could bring the radius option in for pugs, so if they die within the radius of a camp (even if they aren't grouped), they are able to resurrect if they are close enough.

Maulkin

I can't agree with this suggestion Sanct. We've been here before.

Suiciding at a resources. Groups teleporting all over the map. It just means almost the entire PvP population will be at every keep fight knowing they can catch a camp to the next keep fight. Makes transit lines useless so long you have 1 resource to suicide at. Also, what's the point of me going behind enemy lines and plopping a camp down if I can't use it but everyone else can?

If anything, I think the circle needs to be a bit bigger to cover keep and resources comfortably. Remember smaller circles means more camps can be placed around the fighting spot. And you should only spawn when you died inside it. I don't want to donate free rezes and teleports to the entire faction except myself. Feck that.

Now I understand your worry, I think. Currently a large group can afford to keep insta-rezzing each other non stop against a smaller group that can't interrupt all the rezzes happening around them. It's a pain. It's pretty much the same effect as what we had with camps before, you fight the same people constantly it's almost a form of zerging. I guess that's what you want to see less of.

My suggestion would be that spawning at the camp should be considered like a player rez. You shouldn't have all your stats when you spawn. And since both are considered "rezzes" you can then put some form of cool-down on rezzing.

My suggestion on cool-downs would be:
1) First death after a wayshrine spawn allows for instant rezing with no time penalties.
2) Second death has a 2' rez timer. A minute added for every death death after that.
3) The cool-down is cleared when you go 5' without death or when you spawn at a wayshrine.

That means you can use the camp as a fall-back option when you suffer big loses beyond what you can recover with rezzes. It adds value when you want to go behind enemy lines. But if you keep dying you will not be able to spawn there fast enough to help your mates and when the group has an almost full wipe with some people on long cool-downs they will have to take the spawn at the nearest keep if they want to stay together.

I think this way camps are valuable but not OP. In fact rezzing overall would be brought a bit more in check, which I think is needed.

frozywozy

Xiphyla wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

I disagree. The BRK fight we had today on the NA server just would not have been as fun without a camp we could spawn at. It allowed my group to push the courtyard against the 3 raids of blues and 2 raids of yellows that were descending upon that keep. Sometimes having a second chance at a battle is all a smaller group needs.

Not, if those enemy raids can just instantly respawn too.

And well, dont get me wrong. I dont say that there arent scenarios where the new camps wouldnt be nice. I just think it would be better for the game if those 3 blue + 2 ad raids you talked about would be forced to respawn somewhere else instead of respawning at the same keep. Maybe the cooldown will help with a bit but looking at how hard it already is to clean 50 people out of a keep with a grp of 12-15 due to everyone spamming soul gem rezzes I doubt that small grps will be the ones profiting the most of oneclick instant respawn camps.

Well those 5 combined raids would still have been in BRK as they would be spamming resurrections with soul gems instead of using a camp that would spread them out. The difference is we were able to focus more on killing with the security of the camp where as they had to focus on survival without the insurance that a camp provides.

Where is frozn when we need him ? He was all against forward camp long ago. Now suddenly everyone ask for forward camp to come back. Was hilarious .

I was against forward camps in the beginning because they were the main cause of server bad performances. During a major keep battle, people would drop camps over and over and over on both sides (often 3sides) and after 25minutes of fighting there, the whole populations from all 3 factions were in the same are causing insane framerate drops.

Not to forget all those players who used to camp suicide ressources 16hours a day for d ticks.

I'm all for the new system just as Brian suggested it. It will give more keys to counter groups who turtle a keep with 3 raids by flagging their home keeps. Yes, people already ride to hit home keeps but with the new camps, I believe it will motivate people who are actually lazy about doing it.

Anazasi wrote: »

Forward camps was and will always be a bad idea.

why do I say this? Simple they promote zerging. It wont matter how small the radius is or how long they last or even how well thought out they are designed. Simply fact you die at a battle next to a keep and you rez next to the keep at a camp = zerging.

I disagree with this. Just imagine this scenario again where DC stacks 3 raids in Chalman and keep patrolling between Bleakers <=> Chalman farm in a defending posture. Now you have the EP zerg who keep pushing Chalman without any results because being on a defensive posture gives an advantage, especially when performances are bad because of 60+ players on the screen.

Now you have this organized group who get Dragon and push Warden. They know how to 50/50 properly and successfuly capture Warden. They have several camps at their disposal so no matter if the keep flags, they can still reinforce it and hold it for a long time, in the meantime spreadout out from the large groups fighting at Chalman, and maybe convince some of the DC stacking Chalman to regain their home keep.

With the old camp system, the other EPs pushing Chalman would probably get really tired of getting farmed and would probably all blood port to Warden, and nothing constructive would result in this.

It would be the same problem again with everybody stacking and zerging one single keep.

Ishammael

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Can you show us how big the radius will be?