Forward Camps Have Made The Game Worse

zyk

Forward camps:
- extend already laggy battles; both via easy respawns and because few players will push out of tick range to end fights
- encourage reckless gameplay
- render close fights meaningless; a group is wiped and they're back with full resources almost right away
- give ordinary keep battles emp-depose-lag via masses of players attracted to big tick

The game was better without them. Many of the changes in 2.3 may have improved lag if not for the return of FCs.

Edit: My issues with FCs relate to objective combat only. I do not believe they cause any problems when used away from objectives.

Zheg

All I can think of at this point, whether forward camps, siege, VD, prox det, rapids nerf ...

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

All I can think of at this point, whether forward camps, siege, VD, prox det, rapids nerf ...

Basically Forward Camps are the problem right now...Just like last time when they were introduced.

You listing Siege/VD/Prox Det/Rapids nerf as reasons for any of the things he listed is silly...You basically just listed things that directly impact your zerg.

Lord_Hev

I disagree.


Forward Camps have revived the spike of life I missed from the old days. Prior, all the battles were always at keeps or outposts, and the in-between were either dead empty, or fast lanes for zerg trains. For the first time since 1.6, I've participated in some pretty wild open field fights between keeps, because forward camps were placed by the enemy, and then by my own faction.


Forward camps have also brought back some really nice small scale fights while at the same time reducing the painful horse simulator. And I'd say the recklessness is a good thing, but now comes with a price with the camp's 2 min timer on the next immediate respawn. So all in all, it balances out.

Zheg

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

All I can think of at this point, whether forward camps, siege, VD, prox det, rapids nerf ...

Basically Forward Camps are the problem right now...Just like last time when they were introduced.

You listing Siege/VD/Prox Det/Rapids nerf as reasons for any of the things he listed is silly...You basically just listed things that directly impact your zerg.

We used to have fights between alliances at more than one keep. Forward camps are one reason, they prolong the battle. All of the other poorly executed changes are another because they discourage or completely prevent groups from being able to push objectives with just their own and not the support of their entire alliance dropping forward camps every 5 minutes.

zyk

Lord_Hev wrote: »

I disagree.


Forward Camps have revived the spike of life I missed from the old days. Prior, all the battles were always at keeps or outposts, and the in-between were either dead empty, or fast lanes for zerg trains. For the first time since 1.6, I've participated in some pretty wild open field fights between keeps, because forward camps were placed by the enemy, and then by my own faction.


Forward camps have also brought back some really nice small scale fights while at the same time reducing the painful horse simulator. And I'd say the recklessness is a good thing, but now comes with a price with the camp's 2 min timer on the next immediate respawn. So all in all, it balances out.

I don't think forward camps used in the way you describe are causing many, if any, issues. It is at objectives where they cause issues. I would have no problem with them if they could only be used away from objectives.

Elong

Seen way more battles out in the open because of forward camps, having loads of fun, the problem is once again the software.

KenaPKK

I wasn't around for OG forward camps, but I like these. I like that battles are extended and more forgiving. It makes for more action and counterplay opportunity when a ball group can't rush in with a proxy bomb and take a whole keep. Anything less than a highly organized large group requires multiple breaches through defended structures now, and penetrating a keep inner takes time. But then a well placed VD bomb or siege barrage can repel those large groups. I've always thought taking keeps was too easy..

Also, combined with stronger siege, forward camps have facilitated open field battles, which rarely happened before. If The game wasn't so damned buggy, I think it would be in a generally better place than before the last patch.

That said, I still think proxy and VD are just as poor design as the AoE caps that require we use them...

Xsorus

Zheg wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

All I can think of at this point, whether forward camps, siege, VD, prox det, rapids nerf ...

Basically Forward Camps are the problem right now...Just like last time when they were introduced.

You listing Siege/VD/Prox Det/Rapids nerf as reasons for any of the things he listed is silly...You basically just listed things that directly impact your zerg.

We used to have fights between alliances at more than one keep. Forward camps are one reason, they prolong the battle. All of the other poorly executed changes are another because they discourage or completely prevent groups from being able to push objectives with just their own and not the support of their entire alliance dropping forward camps every 5 minutes.

You can still push objectives just fine; you just can't rely on poor mechanics to hold your hand anymore.
They also aren't causing the lag either... The giant battles right now are a result of the forward camps removing the running back after dying in fights. Now half the people seem to enjoy this because they don't wanna run back.. And it's doubtful they'll remove them a second time.

At this point they're going to have to come up with a way to move people away from the keeps and the objectives next to the keeps aren't good enough.

You could add side objectives further out which might help but I'm not sure what you could do... Since people gravitate towards the action basically.

Xvorg

In pre 1.6 people used to hunt down the camps. There were groups of scouts that looked for camps around the battle area, as well as enemies who were not engaging in the battle (most of the time, they were carrying those camps).

It seems the zerg ball wiped out all those (nice) strategies and tactics.

Anyway, I think FW camps should receive a minor nerf regarding the places they can be deployed: outside the keeps, not within them.

Mojomonkeyman

As expected the camps are as bad as they have been. Endless keep battles that lag the entire map for prolonged periods of time. Stupid siege wars, wave after wave. Less smallscale since less transit.

Camps are the pest and have only always been loved by lazy zergers.

But the main reason I really dislike them is, they or the fights they prolong increase lag substantially!

Mojmir

meh they get burned down quick enough or dont last long.

NovaShadow

I used a forward camp once.

It gave me a loading screen.

Nurf camps.

kevlarto_ESO

I got used to life with out them, and find them more of a pita now, like other have said all it does is extend laggie battles, to the point of a slide show.

Draxys

Lord_Hev wrote: »

I disagree.


Forward Camps have revived the spike of life I missed from the old days. Prior, all the battles were always at keeps or outposts, and the in-between were either dead empty, or fast lanes for zerg trains. For the first time since 1.6, I've participated in some pretty wild open field fights between keeps, because forward camps were placed by the enemy, and then by my own faction.


Forward camps have also brought back some really nice small scale fights while at the same time reducing the painful horse simulator. And I'd say the recklessness is a good thing, but now comes with a price with the camp's 2 min timer on the next immediate respawn. So all in all, it balances out.

^

We need a rez penalty anyway, so just make it so that you can't be rezzed or use a camp for a minute or 2 after you die a second time. Solved the endless respawn issue without ruining the fun factor of camps.

And the lag issue stands on its own and at its core has nothing to do with camps.

kuro-dono

lol. people too blind to realize whats causing lagg. the moment i point it out in each topic somehow gets diverted or they die.

camps or zergs have nothing to do with lagg btw.

Zerg= filthy casuals who are just trying to have fun. about 1% of them running with whole bar setup for aoe spamming. while the real pros and wankers/gankers etc, ballerinaz, blobs etc, they run 100% aoe.

++

Try figure out again what is causing lagg in this game.

TequilaFire

As we were running our Ghartok scroll back from Bloodmayne we came across this huge open field between Bloodmayne and Drakelowe and our guild talked about that it would be nice if we could get big organized open field battles going there.
A forward camp for each side would be perfect for such a thing.

This was on PS4 Azura's.

Of course this would take conversation between the alliance leaders.
#goodluckonthat

strikeback1247

I'm really loving the forward camps so far! What I'm not loving is the fact that all the azura zerg/lag groups came to trueflame

Waseem

strikeback1247 wrote: »

I'm really loving the forward camps so far! What I'm not loving is the fact that all the azura zerg/lag groups came to trueflame

trueflame is a dead campaign.
keep status do not change unless other factions are sleeping
you find 50-60 other faction players doing absolutely nothing but waiting in the keep until some1 attacks it so the "defend" it

Humphie

Waseem wrote: »

strikeback1247 wrote: »

I'm really loving the forward camps so far! What I'm not loving is the fact that all the azura zerg/lag groups came to trueflame

trueflame is a dead campaign.
keep status do not change unless other factions are sleeping
you find 50-60 other faction players doing absolutely nothing but waiting in the keep until some1 attacks it so the "defend" it

What are you talking about? Have you been on TF, PC, NA? Not what happens there.

NBrookus

While they are a PITA inside a keep or on top of a tower, I like forward camps because they add strategic objectives: find and take out their FC, hide and defend your own.

dylanjaygrobbelaarb16_ESO

if camps are here to stay then the max pop needs to come down agian. its fine until all are poplocked then its a stutterfest

GRxKnight

2 minutes is too fast of a respawn penalty...it needs to be higher like 5 or 10 minutes imo...groups like Haxus, VE, Vic will all fight around that timer...if we just respawned at a camp, kite until 2 minutes or opponent over extends...this is the meta we've been given

bitaken

First off : Meta - please stop saying it. I don't think you are all even aware of what it means:

met·a
ˈmedə/
noun
noun: meta; plural noun: metas

1.
short for meta key.

adjectiveUS
adjective: meta

1.
(of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.

meta
A term, especially in art, used to characterize something that is characteristically self-referential.

"So I just saw this film about these people making a movie, and the movie they were making was about the film industry..."
"Dude, that's so meta. Stop before my brain explodes."

Second, camps are not the problem - and a 2 minute window may need to be examined. The problem is the method of rewarding the ticks in the game. Everyone goes to a keep or outpost under siege because they want to get the "tick" after 60 seconds of no death around the resource if they still own it.

Now, if you make the timer 3 minutes on rez - this will just encourage tower humping for 2.5 minutes and then out to engage again.

The real issue - that needs to be dealt with somehow - is the way these ticks are handed out. There is no timer you can put on camps that works - but 2 minutes does seem a bit low.

By the way - the word you guys want to use is convention. The current convention is magicka - the current convention is rez at the camp wait 90 seconds then go engage and try to wipe the zerg again.

_Chaos

bitaken wrote: »

First off : Meta - please stop saying it. I don't think you are all even aware of what it means:

met·a
ˈmedə/
noun
noun: meta; plural noun: metas

1.
short for meta key.

adjectiveUS
adjective: meta

1.
(of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.

meta
A term, especially in art, used to characterize something that is characteristically self-referential.

"So I just saw this film about these people making a movie, and the movie they were making was about the film industry..."
"Dude, that's so meta. Stop before my brain explodes."

Second, camps are not the problem - and a 2 minute window may need to be examined. The problem is the method of rewarding the ticks in the game. Everyone goes to a keep or outpost under siege because they want to get the "tick" after 60 seconds of no death around the resource if they still own it.

Now, if you make the timer 3 minutes on rez - this will just encourage tower humping for 2.5 minutes and then out to engage again.

The real issue - that needs to be dealt with somehow - is the way these ticks are handed out. There is no timer you can put on camps that works - but 2 minutes does seem a bit low.

By the way - the word you guys want to use is convention. The current convention is magicka - the current convention is rez at the camp wait 90 seconds then go engage and try to wipe the zerg again.

LOL
Welcome to the internet pal.

Kas

i really like the forward camps etc.
when pvp'ing my downtime (no, not because of dying all the time and riding to my factions zerg, but because of sitting on resources i turned waiting for someone to show up when solo or sieging empty keeps when in group) has DRASTICALLY been reduced. It's so much more fun and less boredom now!

That said, I agree that tactics and strategy for the fight for objectives suffer a bit. however, f*** objectives if the map gets turned into some color every night, anyway.

---

concerning "meta":

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

the prefix alone is often used to abbreviate meta-game

i.e. you abstract from the concept of playing your part (build, play-style, animation cancelling, etc) and discuss the bigger picture (tactics, strategy, what works in general and what doesnt) instead. perfectly valid. imho you should stop quoting definitions if you think that, for a word with more than one meaning / uses, it is valid to pick one of them criticize people if their usage does not fit to the one definition that you quoted...

Shunravi

bitaken wrote: »

First off : Meta - please stop saying it. I don't think you are all even aware of what it means:

met·a
ˈmedə/
noun
noun: meta; plural noun: metas

1.
short for meta key.

adjectiveUS
adjective: meta

1.
(of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.

meta
A term, especially in art, used to characterize something that is characteristically self-referential.

"So I just saw this film about these people making a movie, and the movie they were making was about the film industry..."
"Dude, that's so meta. Stop before my brain explodes."

Hey, looks like you missed part of the definition there;

meta-
combining form
prefix: meta-; prefix: met-
1.
denoting a change of position or condition.
"metamorphosis"
2.
denoting position behind, after, or beyond.
"metacarpus"
3.
denoting something of a higher or second-order kind.
"metalanguage"
4.
CHEMISTRY
denoting substitution at two carbon atoms separated by one other in a benzene ring, e.g., in 1,3 positions.
"metadichlorobenzene"
5.
CHEMISTRY
denoting a compound formed by dehydration.
"metaphosphoric acid"
Origin


But as its relavent here, 'most efficient tactic available'

As urban dictionary puts it;

In the gaming world. The meta is what is in RIGHT NOW. What are the best strategies, plays, options.. Things of that nature. Often referred to as "Meta-Game".
Example 1. "Woah Dude! That Magic the Gathering deck is crazy!"

"Yes... It is the meta."
Example 2. "Dude! The your build is crazy!" (moba players)

"Yes...... It is in deed.. The meta."


Meta is the game within and beyond the game.

Skyy

zyk wrote: »

Forward camps:
- extend already laggy battles; both via easy respawns and because few players will push out of tick range to end fights
- encourage reckless gameplay
- render close fights meaningless; a group is wiped and they're back with full resources almost right away
- give ordinary keep battles emp-depose-lag via masses of players attracted to big tick

The game was better without them. Many of the changes in 2.3 may have improved lag if not for the return of FCs.

Edit: My issues with FCs relate to objective combat only. I do not believe they cause any problems when used away from objectives.

The first point is an issue with how ap is awarded, not the camps themselves. The rest of the issues are merely a result of you not adapting your play to fit a new style. Now you have to hunt down forward camps and try to take them out so people can't respawn at them. Overall I like the change in gameplay.

s7732425ub17_ESO

Disagree. Forward camps bring back the long, action packed battles of old. I don't want to PVHorse for 5 minutes to get to a keep and then die immediately and have 5 more minutes of PVHorse back. I want to be in a battle and stay in a battle killing players for a long time.

Xsorus

GRxKnight wrote: »

2 minutes is too fast of a respawn penalty...it needs to be higher like 5 or 10 minutes imo...groups like Haxus, VE, Vic will all fight around that timer...if we just respawned at a camp, kite until 2 minutes or opponent over extends...this is the meta we've been given

The funny thing is; you'd be surprised what groups will do to stay within a powerful timer.

During early days of DAOC...Albs had EXTREMELY powerful Realm Rank abilities...So powerful that popping them would usually be a 100% chance to win the fight...The Alb 8 mans that ran would run out...Pop their Realm Rank abilities on another 8 man..then run back to the Port Keep after the fight..and wait the 15-20 Minutes for them to come back up.

bitaken

Xsorus wrote: »

GRxKnight wrote: »

2 minutes is too fast of a respawn penalty...it needs to be higher like 5 or 10 minutes imo...groups like Haxus, VE, Vic will all fight around that timer...if we just respawned at a camp, kite until 2 minutes or opponent over extends...this is the meta we've been given

The funny thing is; you'd be surprised what groups will do to stay within a powerful timer.

During early days of DAOC...Albs had EXTREMELY powerful Realm Rank abilities...So powerful that popping them would usually be a 100% chance to win the fight...The Alb 8 mans that ran would run out...Pop their Realm Rank abilities on another 8 man..then run back to the Port Keep after the fight..and wait the 15-20 Minutes for them to come back up.

SOS was strong - beyond that everything was the same. It was a difficult thing to find a minstrel to run with regularly. More often than not we had sorc speed in the groups I ran in DAOC. It was a fun game - but this does not really relate.

2 minutes is very different from 15-20 that RA's were back in DAOC. I think you are comparing a stream to the Mississippi river.