Forward Camp Respawn Timer Too Short

Zheg

vamp_emily wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

You argued you need camps because you can't stay alive without them, and are now telling good pvpers to L2P? Makes sense.

I'm just pointing out that FCs do not need a time increase ( 5 minutes is kind of crazy when you can travel keep to keep within that time frame ). I am also pointing out that FCs are good for small groups.

You're missing the point completely. It's the RESPAWN timer. You die, you can take the camp without any issue whatsoever. You get one freebie. If you die again because you're a baddie, you now have to wait 5 minutes or run back. Your choice. In no way is that eliminating the original goal of the camp, but it certainly does stop baddies from constantly rezzing up at a camp because their preferred method of play is to zombie zerg things down and have no consequences for poor gameplay and bad choices.

And everyone knows that there are benefits for small groups, it's just that most people seem to realize the negatives outweigh the benefits.

Zheg

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

vamp_emily wrote: »

zyk wrote: »

Every reasonable person can see this. The reason there's pushback is because the core game is super casual and these players can't stand "horse simulator". They want instant respawn COD gameplay in AvA. The huge dtick quagmires that go on for an hour? They *like* this. "OMG SO EPIC!!!" /headache

Every reasonable person?

If you are loosing every single fight your group might have a learn to play issue, and are just blaming FCs. Or are you exaggerating a little?

OMG FCs are SO OP /lol

You argued you need camps because you can't stay alive without them, and are now telling good pvpers to L2P? Makes sense.

Zheg don't argue with Pug, Pug is unreasonable and you will get no where fast here.

I always win my arguments with you though...

Not true, remember how I won the Jesus Beam is OP argument

No you didn't, I just adopted the following advice: Zheg don't argue with Pug, Pug is unreasonable and you will get no where fast here.

Xsorus

Again; the solution to this problem is found in previous games *cough* daoc *cough*..........

Add Rez sickness when using Camps.

Basically when you rez with a Camp your max stats are 50% less, every minute after rezzing at a the camp this drops by 10%.

This means after 5 minutes your rez timer is gone.......

NBrookus

Any more than 3 or 4 minutes on the respawn timer, and players can usually ride back to the battle in that time. (Unless they are raiding deep into enemy territory, which has its own risks.) I'm not sure just slightly changing the timer would be an effective change on it's own.

The fact that people rez at a FC with full stats is a bigger issue for me. There's no reason why a rez at a relatively safe FC should be better than a higher risk battlefield rez; if anything it should be worse so the player is at greater risk while returning to battle.

Ghost-Shot

Xsorus wrote: »

Again; the solution to this problem is found in previous games *cough* daoc *cough*..........

Add Rez sickness when using Camps.

Basically when you rez with a Camp your max stats are 50% less, every minute after rezzing at a the camp this drops by 10%.

This means after 5 minutes your rez timer is gone.......

@GRxKnight hey do you remember that one time in DAOC???

vamp_emily

Xsorus wrote: »

Again; the solution to this problem is found in previous games *cough* daoc *cough*..........

Add Rez sickness when using Camps.

Basically when you rez with a Camp your max stats are 50% less, every minute after rezzing at a the camp this drops by 10%.

This means after 5 minutes your rez timer is gone.......

Not sure if anyone is planning on playing CU.

I heard Camelot Unchained had planned not having any rezzing in the game, until they got feed back from the community. With no fast travel it should be interesting to see what they do.

Elong

VE ARE ZERGING THE THREAD, ABORT! ABORT!

Ghost-Shot

Elong wrote: »

VE ARE ZERGING THE THREAD, ABORT! ABORT!

FFS, can't take those guys anywhere with out them zerging it down!

The-Baconator

I would defiantly love to see the rez timer increased to 5 minutes. The extra ap is nice but there are times when I would like pug hordes of +60 to be capable of actually wiping when you have less than a dozen players.

Zheg

NBrookus wrote: »

Any more than 3 or 4 minutes on the respawn timer, and players can usually ride back to the battle in that time. (Unless they are raiding deep into enemy territory, which has its own risks.) I'm not sure just slightly changing the timer would be an effective change on it's own.

The fact that people rez at a FC with full stats is a bigger issue for me. There's no reason why a rez at a relatively safe FC should be better than a higher risk battlefield rez; if anything it should be worse so the player is at greater risk while returning to battle.

The issue isn't individual players, it's entire raids. An entire raid moving on transit lines gets called out, their defeat actually means something and the defenders/assaulters now have enough time to maybe gain control of the objective without having to worry about the entire raid they just killed being back in 20 seconds again. And again, this is after dying TWICE. If I kill you twice, you should have to run back or sit there dead for 5 minutes FFS. I shouldn't have to deal you with flinging your body at the fight over and over.

frozywozy

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

smacx250

Sharee wrote: »

Throwing another idea into the mix:

- adjust auto-release timer to be shorter than the camp-respawn timer.

Reasoning: Currently you can not get rid of an enemy group. All they have to do is have one member stay cloaked out of sight, and drop a camp everytime the group wipes for an instant group rez. If you wipe the group again and they now are facing the 2-minute camp respawn timer, the hidden camp-placer just waits 2 mins before placing a new camp -> whole group insta-rezzed again. Repeat ad infinitum.

You can not prevent this by destroying the camp because there is no time to destroy it after it is placed - the whole enemy force instantly respawns as soon as the tent appears. All you can hope for is to find the hidden camp-placer by sheer luck (you have to cover an area equivalent to the camp rez radius, and you must find him withing two minutes).

Alternative solution might be putting a timer on the camp itself, not allowing rezzes at it before certain time elapses after it was built, so there is a chance for the opposition to spot the tent and destroy it.

Why not only allow a respawn at a camp when the death occurs within the camp radius? As in, the camp must already be there when the death occurs in order to allow a respawn? Frankly, that's how I thought it was supposed to work - but I don't usually wait around when I die so I haven't noticed.

Zheg

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

People attacked deep in enemy territory for over a year when camps weren't in the game. Your point doesn't hold water against that fact. And if you remove the capacity to only camp when on offense, you encourage the giant zergs we currently see throwing themselves at keeps. Bad ideas all around man.

zyk

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

I have not observed more deep incursion groups since FCs were reintroduced. I notice fewer as players are now more condensed than ever. A long battle at any keep attracts players from across the map as it is indicative of a potentially large tick.

Changing camps so they can't be used defensively is a terrible idea which inexplicably gives the respawn advantage to attackers.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler You must have data that describes the actual impact of FCs. Can you please share some of that with us?

Joy_Division

I have more of an issue with rezzing at full resources than the timer as it actually creates a scenario when it advantageous to die. Anyone rezzing at an FC should have like 10% resources and their ultimate counter reset to zero.

Zheg

Joy_Division wrote: »

I have more of an issue with rezzing at full resources than the timer as it actually creates a scenario when it advantageous to die. Anyone rezzing at an FC should have like 10% resources and their ultimate counter reset to zero.

Both? I like the resetting of ultimate counter.

Barbet

Agreed, the timer should be longer. The time should be, you can use one when your worth ap again. It becomes tiresome killing the same person(s) over and over again because they used a forward camp and now you don't even get paid for killing them again, but they get paid if they kill you.

Barbet

Or better yet, you can only use a forward camp once and not again until a new one is set down.

Zheg

Barbet wrote: »

Or better yet, you can only use a forward camp once and not again until a new one is set down.

That doesn't work, if you watch fights, multiple camps are cycled through. If a raid dies, one camp is used up to rez them, so of course a new camp will be dropped.

SwaminoNowlino

@Zheg wouldn't it be a lot easier to just significantly decrease the number of people who can use a forward camp before it disappears? Im thinking like 4 or 5. I mean they are expensive, so I doubt someone is going to go stick up 4 of them to Rez a 20 man group. Keep or expand the radius of denial where you can't just stack them on a position. Make it to where the immediate vicinity of a keep could only have a max of 1 or 2 up. Seems like a much easier fix, and would keep the benefit to small groups over large groups. Anything in the realm of Rez sickness will also negatively impact small groups more than big groups. It's a lot easier for them to fight with reduced stats than small groups.

Instead of putting band aids on things that effect both groups, why not just disincentivize Zergs from using them by making them ineffecient.

I'd also like to find a way they could be used, or a different version could be used, that would let small groups move around the battlefield more quickly by transiting to them. But that's a different topic I reckon.

frozywozy

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

People attacked deep in enemy territory for over a year when camps weren't in the game. Your point doesn't hold water against that fact. And if you remove the capacity to only camp when on offense, you encourage the giant zergs we currently see throwing themselves at keeps. Bad ideas all around man.

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

I have not observed more deep incursion groups since FCs were reintroduced. I notice fewer as players are now more condensed than ever. A long battle at any keep attracts players from across the map as it is indicative of a potentially large tick.

Changing camps so they can't be used defensively is a terrible idea which inexplicably gives the respawn advantage to attackers.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler You must have data that describes the actual impact of FCs. Can you please share some of that with us?

I see a lot more fights deep in enemy territory since the reintroduction of camps. People are encouraged to go where the transit can't reach because they know that in case something goes wrong, they can drop a camp. Otherwise they wouldn't risk the horse simulator only to get one satisfying fight outnumbered against the enemy zerg.

manny254

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

People attacked deep in enemy territory for over a year when camps weren't in the game. Your point doesn't hold water against that fact. And if you remove the capacity to only camp when on offense, you encourage the giant zergs we currently see throwing themselves at keeps. Bad ideas all around man.

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

I have not observed more deep incursion groups since FCs were reintroduced. I notice fewer as players are now more condensed than ever. A long battle at any keep attracts players from across the map as it is indicative of a potentially large tick.

Changing camps so they can't be used defensively is a terrible idea which inexplicably gives the respawn advantage to attackers.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler You must have data that describes the actual impact of FCs. Can you please share some of that with us?

I see a lot more fights deep in enemy territory since the reintroduction of camps. People are encouraged to go where the transit can't reach because they know that in case something goes wrong, they can drop a camp. Otherwise they wouldn't risk the horse simulator only to get one satisfying fight outnumbered against the enemy zerg.

Because so many people are bottled in one place of the map there is no one to defend anywhere else. The stacking is significantly worse this patch. Camps favor the side with overwhelming numbers that function as a horde. I wonder why you would favor the option that helps a faction stack into a mega horde.

Hektik_V

You could also argue the game was in a better place when camps didn't have any re spawn timer or range restriction.

frozywozy

manny254 wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

People attacked deep in enemy territory for over a year when camps weren't in the game. Your point doesn't hold water against that fact. And if you remove the capacity to only camp when on offense, you encourage the giant zergs we currently see throwing themselves at keeps. Bad ideas all around man.

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

I have not observed more deep incursion groups since FCs were reintroduced. I notice fewer as players are now more condensed than ever. A long battle at any keep attracts players from across the map as it is indicative of a potentially large tick.

Changing camps so they can't be used defensively is a terrible idea which inexplicably gives the respawn advantage to attackers.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler You must have data that describes the actual impact of FCs. Can you please share some of that with us?

I see a lot more fights deep in enemy territory since the reintroduction of camps. People are encouraged to go where the transit can't reach because they know that in case something goes wrong, they can drop a camp. Otherwise they wouldn't risk the horse simulator only to get one satisfying fight outnumbered against the enemy zerg.

Because so many people are bottled in one place of the map there is no one to defend anywhere else. The stacking is significantly worse this patch. Camps favor the side with overwhelming numbers that function as a horde. I wonder why you would favor the option that helps a faction stack into a mega horde.

Because of what I just explained in the paragraph you quoted.

HoloYoitsu

Hektik_V wrote: »

You could also argue the game was in a better place when camps didn't have any re spawn timer or range restriction.

I miss the purge bug. The old one, not this new wannabe.

Ghost-Shot

Hektik_V wrote: »

You could also argue the game was in a better place when camps didn't have any re spawn timer or range restriction.

But could you honestly make an argument that it was because of the old camps?

Astanphaeus

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

vamp_emily wrote: »

Crispen_Longbow wrote: »

10 v 1 is actually possible when you are defending a keep. You can kill them and stop them rezing. This is so much easier then if they are to drop camps and Zombie in on you over and over. Eventually you will lose to the zombie horde. Without camps you can actually hold them off as the zombie army disappears.

Just an example:

Early morning 10 to 15 AD are attacking Ash. We have say 4 or 5 defenders. One of the defenders get hit with a coldfire and dies.. now we have 4 players. AD rushes in as I am trying to rez the dead guy and kills me.

Now I have to hop my happy A$$ on my horse and travel back to the keep. Ok I can except that but I have been in situations such as these were we took out larger groups just because we had FCs. FCs helped the smaller groups, they don't always help the larger groups.

Even if you did do away with FCs, larger groups have more rezzing capabilities then smaller groups. I've been in situations where we did not have a FC and we had dead bodies laying around that could not be rezzed because the enemy was of greater size.

However, taking rezzing out of the game completely would really hurt large groups. Sounds like this is what you guys want.

Another example, your group of 4 or 5 defenders manage to wipe the group of 10 or 15, they have one person get out and camp and you instantly have 10 or 15 people with full resources after you just blew through your own and your ults to wipe them in the first place and what should have been an impressive victory for you is now a loss. GG

Well, you probably should have repaired the wall faster then...

Mako1132

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Hektik_V wrote: »

You could also argue the game was in a better place when camps didn't have any re spawn timer or range restriction.

But could you honestly make an argument that it was because of the old camps?

Other things go into it, but yes. Transit lines didn't matter as much, you almost didn't even need a mount, and you could be fighting at any keep on the map at any time (also epic scroll chases). That specific change is what funneled every player into linear keep progression.

manny254 wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

People attacked deep in enemy territory for over a year when camps weren't in the game. Your point doesn't hold water against that fact. And if you remove the capacity to only camp when on offense, you encourage the giant zergs we currently see throwing themselves at keeps. Bad ideas all around man.

zyk wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Camps encourage people to attack deep in enemy territory. Without camps, people follow the transit lines and form a mega zerg against the enemy mega zerg. Change camps so they cannot be used defensively to reduce the duration of keep battles while still giving chances to create fights outside of the transit line.

I have not observed more deep incursion groups since FCs were reintroduced. I notice fewer as players are now more condensed than ever. A long battle at any keep attracts players from across the map as it is indicative of a potentially large tick.

Changing camps so they can't be used defensively is a terrible idea which inexplicably gives the respawn advantage to attackers.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler You must have data that describes the actual impact of FCs. Can you please share some of that with us?

I see a lot more fights deep in enemy territory since the reintroduction of camps. People are encouraged to go where the transit can't reach because they know that in case something goes wrong, they can drop a camp. Otherwise they wouldn't risk the horse simulator only to get one satisfying fight outnumbered against the enemy zerg.

Because so many people are bottled in one place of the map there is no one to defend anywhere else. The stacking is significantly worse this patch. Camps favor the side with overwhelming numbers that function as a horde. I wonder why you would favor the option that helps a faction stack into a mega horde.

I completely agree with everything except to add that even though they favor the zerg, it's still providing the group with smaller numbers to get a second chance, or to escape to another objective without having to run back. In all of the situations I've ran into giant EP/DC faction stacks I can't honestly say it was caused by camps, but by player mentality that was there before camps were reintroduced. The zerg faction stack would be there with or without camps. In that way I see it as an improvement over kag zergs.

Anazasi

camps were removed for a reason. that reason has not gone away. kags was introduced for reason, i know i was among the few who proved how good it was. in fact us few kag pioneers were so good at what we did they nerfed templar rezzing. the reality is camps are a crutch and should not be in game because ZOS never addressed the original reason for removal.

Sharee

Hmm, the more i think about it the better i like the idea of simply making camp building non-instant.

If you build a camp, it will instantly appear as a half-finished building. It will remain in this state for 5 minutes. During this time, noone can respawn at the camp, but it can be attacked and destroyed.

This will prevent the problem of the whole enemy force instantly respawning after a wipe that the other side has no way to prevent(1 survivor drops a camp = whole enemy force is instantly back). The camp being visible and vulnerable for 5 minutes before it starts acting as a respawn point will give the opposing force time to locate it and destroy it. It will also give a new purpose to players who like to solo - they can dedicate themselves to finding and destroying enemy camps.