Forward Camp Respawn Timer Too Short

olsborg

Should be 4 minutes, if not 5...2 minutes is too short.

Burning_Talons

Get rid of em or make it impossible to put on a rss tower like seriously wtf

Xsorus

vamp_emily wrote: »

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.

Really? That sounds interesting...will make group fights a little weird but still probably really fun

s7732425ub17_ESO

I disagree completely. FCs are in a good place right now. If anything, their range needs to be slightly increased. The death timer is fine.

Burning_Talons

s7732425ub17_ESO wrote: »

I disagree completely. FCs are in a good place right now. If anything, their range needs to be slightly increased. The death timer is fine.

You must zerg alot

Sandman929

WebBull wrote: »

I am OK with camps but I do think that they should be set up significantly outside radius of keeps (like a third of the way to the next closest keep). I also think enemy camps should show on the map. This would spread keep battles out more.

Oh, I kind of like that idea about enemy camps being visible on the map. It's probably not practical to implement, but it'd be even better if they had to be scouted by an alliance member to become visible on the map.

SwaminoNowlino

Sandman929 wrote: »

WebBull wrote: »

I am OK with camps but I do think that they should be set up significantly outside radius of keeps (like a third of the way to the next closest keep). I also think enemy camps should show on the map. This would spread keep battles out more.

Oh, I kind of like that idea about enemy camps being visible on the map. It's probably not practical to implement, but it'd be even better if they had to be scouted by an alliance member to become visible on the map.

This would force people to hang back and defend them. Maybe could help break up the zergs. It'd be really cool if it had a trigger. Like once 5 people respawned, it would be visible to other alliances on the map. That way its still some utility for smaller groups and big groups who want to utilize it must also defend it.

Sandman929

SwaminoNowlino wrote: »

Sandman929 wrote: »

WebBull wrote: »

I am OK with camps but I do think that they should be set up significantly outside radius of keeps (like a third of the way to the next closest keep). I also think enemy camps should show on the map. This would spread keep battles out more.

Oh, I kind of like that idea about enemy camps being visible on the map. It's probably not practical to implement, but it'd be even better if they had to be scouted by an alliance member to become visible on the map.

This would force people to hang back and defend them. Maybe could help break up the zergs. It'd be really cool if it had a trigger. Like once 5 people respawned, it would be visible to other alliances on the map. That way its still some utility for smaller groups and big groups who want to utilize it must also defend it.

Yeah, the respawn counter would work. Or a radius where "Report Enemy Forward Camp" would pop up just like a PvP scouting mission for a resource. Then you could report it for your faction and attempt to take it out yourself. It could even be a scouting achievement.

WebBull

Just make a few changes.....

1) Show enemy camps on the map. This will make them more of an objective.
2) Do not allow camps inside keeps.
3) All camps should only be able to be set up a certain distance outside the radius of the resources (including defending camps).

SwaminoNowlino

Yeah but all those changes do nothing to address the fact that they give a strong advantage to Zergs. If a Zerg can see my small groups camp they have an easier time dispatching it than I do theirs. If I can't put the camp in a keep but the Zerg can put theirs outside then they will capture keeps more easily than I can defend.

Sandman929

Having some way to know where camps are is needed, either by default or some other mechanism. Attackers know where defenders camps are, because having them inside the keep is the only sensible place for them if you want defenders to quickly respawn and get back to defending. If defenders know where the attacking camp is, a smallish group can break out to attempt destroying it.
Another issue is that they shouldn't be able to be placed on resource towers.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

Brian, Please for the love of decent PVP do not remove camps. I don't mind an increase by 1m or so on the timer but more than this isnt needed.

What IS needed is for camps to take longer to place. It shouldnt be the case that a camp can be placed just instantly and a couple of seconds later can be res'd at. Camps should take 10s at least to be placed (where the person placing can be interrupted by DAMAGE - same as burning a siege).

It actually allows for better gameplay by doing this. increased respawn timers achieve nothing but a frustrated playerbase who either 1) want camps removed or 2) want to res at the camp.

This way would actually make a difference to the mechanic whilst still keeping the base functionality. Camps should be placeable but it should take effort to place them not the instacamps we have now.

Cody

increase the spawn timer and one should spawn with 50% of their overall stats.

Zheg

If we absolutely must put up with forward camps in the game, I truly hope the respawn timer brings us back to a point where there was a bit of mystery as to when and how you'd be pushed. Go put siege on a keep and you will absolutely have people flinging their bodies at you on the outside and then again on the inside because they can just immediately camp up and still have enough time to set up on the inner when that breach opens. People used to put caltrops on the sides and watch for stealth bombs, people used to have to guess as to whether or not their opponent would try and push them before the breach opened and risk losing the keep because they pushed and died, or maybe they kill enough on siege that the tide turns in their favor. There used to be strategy and thought when it came to keep fights, now you just have people pushing over and over because there are no consequences. It used to actually mean something when a keep wall went below 50% and you had to start playing smart. All of that has been replaced with zombie zerg, and the more I think back on that nostalgia of not knowing what would happen during a fight, the more I loathe camps.

Isbilen

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

Zheg

Isbilen wrote: »

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

A gross exaggeration at best. If you can't put up with the 2-3 minutes it takes to ride on a horse to a keep you should just go to IC districts with endless respawn. If you're being ganked every time, you're in a bad build, not a very good pvper, need to make a few friends/ride out with other solo players, spend 20 extra seconds riding off to the side of the main transit line.

Negatives of Forward Camps:

• Greatly increased numbers at every fight, increasing lag and zerg style play. Because of this, players will sit idle in their keeps waiting for large D ticks
• It makes fights longer, and when coupled with the increased numbers, it not only makes the lag worse it makes it worse for longer durations
• Players can afford to play stupidly because they know if they die they can instantly rez up with no repercussions
• Consequences of poor pushes and bad strategy are eliminated
• Players will fling themselves at attackers regardless of whether or not a keep is burst because they can safely rez inside. All mystery of "will I be stealth bombed? will I be attacked while on siege? will they choose to fight on the inner?" is removed.
• You get full stats if you rez at a camp, it's actually better to take a camp than be rezzed by a templar because #reasons
• The current respawn timer more or less ensures that you can literally run into the fight, die again within seconds, and immediately rez again.
• On a net basis it provides significant advantages to larger groups over smaller groups
• It reduces the incentive to manually rez a player, and reduces the purpose of interrupts and people to stop rezzes/watch bodies.
• It's far too easy to put one up and instantly have 20 people alive and kicking again
• Some of the best small-scale pvp used to be on the transit lines. FCs have taken away from that style of fighting and shifted it all to the large keep fight.

Positives of Forward Camps:

• It reduces the need to run back from an outpost or keep if you died in the vicinity of a camp
• It allows you to rez someone that died in a poor location
• It helps groups fight deep within enemy lines without having to always ride back

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination). Also, while I think bringing FCs back was moronic, the thread is only really asking for the timer to be increased so you can't zombie horde every fight. I very much doubt Brian Wheeler would take them out of the game a second time (even if it's the right course of action) because players will just stockpile camps and it won't mean diddly.

Hempyre

The player respawn timer could be extended by 10/20 seconds per individual, per rez.

Or...

Run a second, larger and possibly increasing in size per placement area layer on camps that creates a future "no camp" zone for a period of time. This would force camps to be placed further and further out until the area timer runs out or a new camp is placed elsewhere thus resetting the original areas dead zone.

The solution should have an escalating cost of some sort, but still keeping in mind, you don't punish your player base with game mechanics regardless of player skill. Its a game, it has to be fun for all involved, when it ceases to be fun people cease to pay.

visionality

Alternative idea: instead of increasing time, set up a counter: You can only rezz once or twice at a camp, then you have to rezz at a keep or get a manual rezz to reset the counter.

2 advantages:
- Some fights are so extended that even a 5 minutes respawn timer will still guarantee a constant reflux of players, making it almost endless.If you limit the number of possible camp rezzes, you remove a lot of dead players from the fight

- Gank groups and farming squads can't apply the "one hides and sets up a camp for everyone to rezz"-strategy anymore. After the first or second group wipe deep in enemy territory, they have to run a loooong way to come back.

Cinnamon_Spider

The camp timer almost feels too long to me in all of the recent situations I've been effected by it.
Last night, there were four of us defending the final emp keeps on Haderus vs a two bar pop of AD. If just one of us was waiting on a respawn, it hurt us even more. The AD were able to just battle res, so the timer didn't matter to them.

Zheg

Cinnamon_Spider wrote: »

The camp timer almost feels too long to me in all of the recent situations I've been effected by it.
Last night, there were four of us defending the final emp keeps on Haderus vs a two bar pop of AD. If just one of us was waiting on a respawn, it hurt us even more. The AD were able to just battle res, so the timer didn't matter to them.

2 minutes is too long of a respawn timer? How? I mean, think about that, that means you're dying less than every 2 minutes over and over. I know you're a good player so I won't go down that route, but I would suggest that if you're so outnumbered that you're dying that often it's not a winnable fight and FCs were not supposed to make you win that particular battle.

Cinnamon_Spider

Zheg wrote: »

Cinnamon_Spider wrote: »

The camp timer almost feels too long to me in all of the recent situations I've been effected by it.
Last night, there were four of us defending the final emp keeps on Haderus vs a two bar pop of AD. If just one of us was waiting on a respawn, it hurt us even more. The AD were able to just battle res, so the timer didn't matter to them.

2 minutes is too long of a respawn timer? How? I mean, think about that, that means you're dying less than every 2 minutes over and over. I know you're a good player so I won't go down that route, but I would suggest that if you're so outnumbered that you're dying that often it's not a winnable fight and FCs were not supposed to make you win that particular battle.

In the end we did win, but it would have been quicker if the timer were shorter.

frozywozy

Zheg wrote: »

If we absolutely must put up with forward camps in the game, I truly hope the respawn timer brings us back to a point where there was a bit of mystery as to when and how you'd be pushed. Go put siege on a keep and you will absolutely have people flinging their bodies at you on the outside and then again on the inside because they can just immediately camp up and still have enough time to set up on the inner when that breach opens. People used to put caltrops on the sides and watch for stealth bombs, people used to have to guess as to whether or not their opponent would try and push them before the breach opened and risk losing the keep because they pushed and died, or maybe they kill enough on siege that the tide turns in their favor. There used to be strategy and thought when it came to keep fights, now you just have people pushing over and over because there are no consequences. It used to actually mean something when a keep wall went below 50% and you had to start playing smart. All of that has been replaced with zombie zerg, and the more I think back on that nostalgia of not knowing what would happen during a fight, the more I loathe camps.

Again, make it so camps cannot be deployed near objectives (keeps, outposts, ressources) by both attackers and defenders. No more eternal keep fights, no more ressource tower farming.

Zheg wrote: »

Positives of Forward Camps:

• It reduces the need to run back from an outpost or keep if you died in the vicinity of a camp
• It allows you to rez someone that died in a poor location
• It helps groups fight deep within enemy lines without having to always ride back

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination). Also, while I think bringing FCs back was moronic, the thread is only really asking for the timer to be increased so you can't zombie horde every fight. I very much doubt Brian Wheeler would take them out of the game a second time (even if it's the right course of action) because players will just stockpile camps and it won't mean diddly.

The most important positive side about forward camps is it spreads people out in some situations. I know that keep fights get worse, but without forward camps, people travel on the transit lines and almost never hit the enemy home trikeeps. It makes it alot harder to get some small scale PVP going unless you are part of an elite group who rarely die or with a nightblade running eternal hunt who can always run away and come back to res.

Zheg

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

If we absolutely must put up with forward camps in the game, I truly hope the respawn timer brings us back to a point where there was a bit of mystery as to when and how you'd be pushed. Go put siege on a keep and you will absolutely have people flinging their bodies at you on the outside and then again on the inside because they can just immediately camp up and still have enough time to set up on the inner when that breach opens. People used to put caltrops on the sides and watch for stealth bombs, people used to have to guess as to whether or not their opponent would try and push them before the breach opened and risk losing the keep because they pushed and died, or maybe they kill enough on siege that the tide turns in their favor. There used to be strategy and thought when it came to keep fights, now you just have people pushing over and over because there are no consequences. It used to actually mean something when a keep wall went below 50% and you had to start playing smart. All of that has been replaced with zombie zerg, and the more I think back on that nostalgia of not knowing what would happen during a fight, the more I loathe camps.

Again, make it so camps cannot be deployed near objectives (keeps, outposts, ressources) by both attackers and defenders. No more eternal keep fights, no more ressource tower farming.

Zheg wrote: »

Positives of Forward Camps:

• It reduces the need to run back from an outpost or keep if you died in the vicinity of a camp
• It allows you to rez someone that died in a poor location
• It helps groups fight deep within enemy lines without having to always ride back

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination). Also, while I think bringing FCs back was moronic, the thread is only really asking for the timer to be increased so you can't zombie horde every fight. I very much doubt Brian Wheeler would take them out of the game a second time (even if it's the right course of action) because players will just stockpile camps and it won't mean diddly.

The most important positive side about forward camps is it spreads people out in some situations. I know that keep fights get worse, but without forward camps, people travel on the transit lines and almost never hit the enemy home trikeeps. It makes it alot harder to get some small scale PVP going unless you are part of an elite group who rarely die or with a nightblade running eternal hunt who can always run away and come back to res.

As I said in that negatives list though, most of the really good small scale pvp happened on the transit lines because people had to ride to their objective. Gankers and small groups could get fantastic pvp at a place like the ash gate, far more than we get in the current patch. Camps may give incentives to hit the back keeps more often, but those keeps were still being hit behind the lines even when we didn't have camps. People were careful about their engagements back then though, and maybe didn't go as glass cannon. Losing out on that transit line fighting for a few more pushes behind enemy lines that usually are just lame tower farms anyway? Sounds pretty lob-sided to me.

Minalan

I'm game for a four minute timer. Small groups need this just as much as mega-Zergs, removing them entirely would suck.

Arguments for keeping them:
Burning them is awesome.
Having a Nightblade sneak in and do it is really funny.
The horse game sucks no matter how you slice it.
The result is less PVP, if you killed them a first time, you'll probably do it again.
Less AP from farming baddies who res again and again.
Fewer AP ticks.
Smaller AP ticks

Isbilen

Zheg wrote: »

Isbilen wrote: »

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

Greatly increased numbers at every fight, increasing lag and zerg style play. Because of this, players will sit idle in their keeps waiting for large D ticks

With the radius on forward camps, the net sum of players won't be any larger than it would be if players had to ride to the area. From what I've observed, this point should actually be used oppositely: without forward camps, everyone spawns at the same keep, and everyone walks in the same direction, forming massive groups at the destination naturally.

Zheg wrote: »

It makes fights longer, and when coupled with the increased numbers, it not only makes the lag worse it makes it worse for longer durations

The fix for lag shouldn't require converting players play-time to ride and idle time.

Zheg wrote: »

Players can afford to play stupidly because they know if they die they can instantly rez up with no repercussions

Being given more than one opportunity to fight each other is not a bad thing in my opinion.

Zheg wrote: »

Consequences of poor pushes and bad strategy are eliminated

It changes strategy, but it certainly doesn't eliminate consequences for poor play.

Zheg wrote: »

Players will fling themselves at attackers regardless of whether or not a keep is burst because they can safely rez inside. All mystery of "will I be stealth bombed? will I be attacked while on siege? will they choose to fight on the inner?" is removed.

Yay! More actual fighting, less player versus wall and player versus siege play!

Zheg wrote: »

You get full stats if you rez at a camp, it's actually better to take a camp than be rezzed by a templar because #reasons

So change it so the player doesn't respawn with full resources? Also, the cost of 200 Soul Gems is what, 3K gold? I don't care how much of your resources you respawn with at a forward camp, but one reason for this could be that a "Hold F" resurrection is done "on the spot", meaning you will more often than with a forward camp, spawn right in the fight, instead of a safe area where forward camps are most frequently placed.

Zheg wrote: »

The current respawn timer more or less ensures that you can literally run into the fight, die again within seconds, and immediately rez again.

Do you play with that walk toggle enabled, an old slow Xbox controller or something? If you do this, have fun laying on the ground for a minute and a half. Also, if the ride back is as short as you say, it should be equal to the time you'll be laying on the ground if you resurrect and jump straight back out in to the fight only to die again.

Zheg wrote: »

On a net basis it provides significant advantages to larger groups over smaller groups

I don't see how this is true, and if it to some extent is, it certainly is not significant as you're stating.

Zheg wrote: »

It reduces the incentive to manually rez a player, and reduces the purpose of interrupts and people to stop rezzes/watch bodies.

It reduces the need to resurrect a large amount of players with Soul Gems at the same time, but "small scale" resurrection is still done and very useful. I'm not going to take a break from a 3~ vs. 4~ fight to set camp, but I'm sure as hell going to try to resurrect my allies the "hold F" way when the opportunity presents.

Zheg wrote: »

Some of the best small-scale pvp used to be on the transit lines. FCs have taken away from that style of fighting and shifted it all to the large keep fight.

1/100 runs, at late night maybe. From my experience, the transit lines were just a line of 10 different Nightblades trying to gank you, then run away, serving no other purpose than to make me dismount, heal up, and walk the next 20 seconds holding block while waiting to get out of the combat state.

Zheg wrote: »

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination).

Fact is, many of us spent more time idling in keeps, surfing the web and tabbing in to the window every now and then to see if the keep we were in was under attack yet than horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride. The only people who I can imagine found the no respawn way of play entertaining is the gankers on the transit lines and organized large group players with top PCs (THIS is what some of us experience when we hold Shift while riding).

Zheg

Isbilen wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Isbilen wrote: »

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

Greatly increased numbers at every fight, increasing lag and zerg style play. Because of this, players will sit idle in their keeps waiting for large D ticks

With the radius on forward camps, the net sum of players won't be any larger than it would be if players had to ride to the area. From what I've observed, this point should actually be used oppositely: without forward camps, everyone spawns at the same keep, and everyone walks in the same direction, forming massive groups at the destination naturally.

Zheg wrote: »

It makes fights longer, and when coupled with the increased numbers, it not only makes the lag worse it makes it worse for longer durations

The fix for lag shouldn't require converting players play-time to ride and idle time.

Zheg wrote: »

Players can afford to play stupidly because they know if they die they can instantly rez up with no repercussions

Being given more than one opportunity to fight each other is not a bad thing in my opinion.

Zheg wrote: »

Consequences of poor pushes and bad strategy are eliminated

It changes strategy, but it certainly doesn't eliminate consequences for poor play.

Zheg wrote: »

Players will fling themselves at attackers regardless of whether or not a keep is burst because they can safely rez inside. All mystery of "will I be stealth bombed? will I be attacked while on siege? will they choose to fight on the inner?" is removed.

Yay! More actual fighting, less player versus wall and player versus siege play!

Zheg wrote: »

You get full stats if you rez at a camp, it's actually better to take a camp than be rezzed by a templar because #reasons

So change it so the player doesn't respawn with full resources? Also, the cost of 200 Soul Gems is what, 3K gold? I don't care how much of your resources you respawn with at a forward camp, but one reason for this could be that a "Hold F" resurrection is done "on the spot", meaning you will more often than with a forward camp, spawn right in the fight, instead of a safe area where forward camps are most frequently placed.

Zheg wrote: »

The current respawn timer more or less ensures that you can literally run into the fight, die again within seconds, and immediately rez again.

Do you play with that walk toggle enabled, an old slow Xbox controller or something? If you do this, have fun laying on the ground for a minute and a half. Also, if the ride back is as short as you say, it should be equal to the time you'll be laying on the ground if you resurrect and jump straight back out in to the fight only to die again.

Zheg wrote: »

On a net basis it provides significant advantages to larger groups over smaller groups

I don't see how this is true, and if it to some extent is, it certainly is not significant as you're stating.

Zheg wrote: »

It reduces the incentive to manually rez a player, and reduces the purpose of interrupts and people to stop rezzes/watch bodies.

It reduces the need to resurrect a large amount of players with Soul Gems at the same time, but "small scale" resurrection is still done and very useful. I'm not going to take a break from a 3~ vs. 4~ fight to set camp, but I'm sure as hell going to try to resurrect my allies the "hold F" way when the opportunity presents.

Zheg wrote: »

Some of the best small-scale pvp used to be on the transit lines. FCs have taken away from that style of fighting and shifted it all to the large keep fight.

1/100 runs, at late night maybe. From my experience, the transit lines were just a line of 10 different Nightblades trying to gank you, then run away, serving no other purpose than to make me dismount, heal up, and walk the next 20 seconds holding block while waiting to get out of the combat state.

Zheg wrote: »

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination).

Fact is, many of us spent more time idling in keeps, surfing the web and tabbing in to the window every now and then to see if the keep we were in was under attack yet than horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride. The only people who I can imagine found the no respawn way of play entertaining is the gankers on the transit lines and organized large group players with top PCs (THIS is what some of us experience when we hold Shift while riding).

Sure, not everyone will agree with me, but I feel like you're intentionally trying to avoid reality when it comes to forward camps. I've played in Cyrodiil for over 2 years; myself and everyone else I interact with in pvp noticed significant increase in total numbers during fights after FCs came back into the game. You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but FCs keep the total number of players in a fight far higher than they'd ever be otherwise. You also seem to like the fact that people fling themselves from walls? Again, that style of play is more suited to infinite respawn in the IC districts, it's not a "YAY" factor, it's a "why is this bowtard back, I just killed him 10 seconds ago".

You're right in that it changes the strategy, it changes it to give more incentive to bring larger numbers, which is a terrible thing. It most certainly does remove the consequences for poor gameplay. Myself and every other raid lead will make pushes and decisions that we likely would not make if we were back to the old style of pvp. Every solo player makes pushes and goes after targets they likely would not if they had to wait for a rez or run back. You like the fact that you can zombie horde everything and not have to think about smart gameplay or strategy, I get it. That doesn't mean it's healthy for the game, or that the rest of us like it.

Players did not idle in keeps because they were terrified of the horse run. You're being absolutely absurd. Players scouted their keeps more often because if a group arrived to defend but wasn't prepared/was missing people and lost, that would jeopardize the keep. That was a good thing, not a bad thing. Wiping a group meant something. Killing enough opponents to turn the tides MEANT something. I played as a rando pug for over a year and was able to hold my own against gankers on transit lines, or at least smart enough on how to avoid them, if you couldn't do the same that's on you. The entire core of our current guild used to be a small group that would harass reinforcements on transit lines, it was an entire subset of pvp that used to exist and now is almost irrelevant.

Darnathian

Isbilen wrote: »

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

Yes. but that allowed the small scale pvpers some content. it has led to large groups going from objective to objective with a few stragglers having fights in transit lines from time to time.

I hate being ganked more than anything. Trust me. But I dislike the small scalers complaining amd trying to change the game more.

frozywozy

Zheg wrote: »

Isbilen wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Isbilen wrote: »

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

Greatly increased numbers at every fight, increasing lag and zerg style play. Because of this, players will sit idle in their keeps waiting for large D ticks

With the radius on forward camps, the net sum of players won't be any larger than it would be if players had to ride to the area. From what I've observed, this point should actually be used oppositely: without forward camps, everyone spawns at the same keep, and everyone walks in the same direction, forming massive groups at the destination naturally.

Zheg wrote: »

It makes fights longer, and when coupled with the increased numbers, it not only makes the lag worse it makes it worse for longer durations

The fix for lag shouldn't require converting players play-time to ride and idle time.

Zheg wrote: »

Players can afford to play stupidly because they know if they die they can instantly rez up with no repercussions

Being given more than one opportunity to fight each other is not a bad thing in my opinion.

Zheg wrote: »

Consequences of poor pushes and bad strategy are eliminated

It changes strategy, but it certainly doesn't eliminate consequences for poor play.

Zheg wrote: »

Players will fling themselves at attackers regardless of whether or not a keep is burst because they can safely rez inside. All mystery of "will I be stealth bombed? will I be attacked while on siege? will they choose to fight on the inner?" is removed.

Yay! More actual fighting, less player versus wall and player versus siege play!

Zheg wrote: »

You get full stats if you rez at a camp, it's actually better to take a camp than be rezzed by a templar because #reasons

So change it so the player doesn't respawn with full resources? Also, the cost of 200 Soul Gems is what, 3K gold? I don't care how much of your resources you respawn with at a forward camp, but one reason for this could be that a "Hold F" resurrection is done "on the spot", meaning you will more often than with a forward camp, spawn right in the fight, instead of a safe area where forward camps are most frequently placed.

Zheg wrote: »

The current respawn timer more or less ensures that you can literally run into the fight, die again within seconds, and immediately rez again.

Do you play with that walk toggle enabled, an old slow Xbox controller or something? If you do this, have fun laying on the ground for a minute and a half. Also, if the ride back is as short as you say, it should be equal to the time you'll be laying on the ground if you resurrect and jump straight back out in to the fight only to die again.

Zheg wrote: »

On a net basis it provides significant advantages to larger groups over smaller groups

I don't see how this is true, and if it to some extent is, it certainly is not significant as you're stating.

Zheg wrote: »

It reduces the incentive to manually rez a player, and reduces the purpose of interrupts and people to stop rezzes/watch bodies.

It reduces the need to resurrect a large amount of players with Soul Gems at the same time, but "small scale" resurrection is still done and very useful. I'm not going to take a break from a 3~ vs. 4~ fight to set camp, but I'm sure as hell going to try to resurrect my allies the "hold F" way when the opportunity presents.

Zheg wrote: »

Some of the best small-scale pvp used to be on the transit lines. FCs have taken away from that style of fighting and shifted it all to the large keep fight.

1/100 runs, at late night maybe. From my experience, the transit lines were just a line of 10 different Nightblades trying to gank you, then run away, serving no other purpose than to make me dismount, heal up, and walk the next 20 seconds holding block while waiting to get out of the combat state.

Zheg wrote: »

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination).

Fact is, many of us spent more time idling in keeps, surfing the web and tabbing in to the window every now and then to see if the keep we were in was under attack yet than horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride. The only people who I can imagine found the no respawn way of play entertaining is the gankers on the transit lines and organized large group players with top PCs (THIS is what some of us experience when we hold Shift while riding).

Players did not idle in keeps because they were terrified of the horse run. You're being absolutely absurd. Players scouted their keeps more often because if a group arrived to defend but wasn't prepared/was missing people and lost, that would jeopardize the keep. That was a good thing, not a bad thing. Wiping a group meant something. Killing enough opponents to turn the tides MEANT something. I played as a rando pug for over a year and was able to hold my own against gankers on transit lines, or at least smart enough on how to avoid them, if you couldn't do the same that's on you. The entire core of our current guild used to be a small group that would harass reinforcements on transit lines, it was an entire subset of pvp that used to exist and now is almost irrelevant.

I think what he meant to say is that what you describe as "Small Scale PvP" was in reality just pure annoyance when a nightblade would force you to dismount when riding on the transit line and then run away if he could not instagib you before you have the time to react.

That type of small scale PVP is not what most people look for. People look for small fights openfield, or around ressources deep in enemy territory and to make that possible and enjoyable, camps are a good incentive to offer you a second chance after you get zerged down and have to ride back for 10mins.

Sandman929

People seem hell-bent on making Call of Duty: ESO. Run, Kill, Die, Respawn, Repeat.

Zheg

frozywozy wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Isbilen wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Isbilen wrote: »

God no, please don't do this. The last time forward camps were absent from the game, it devolved in to a boring horse riding simulator gankfest where a third of the players online would rather idle for hours in their own keeps than horse ride -> instagibbed -> horse ride -> horse ride -> horse ride -> finally a short minute long fight -> horse ride -> horse ride -> instagibbed -> more horse riding.

Greatly increased numbers at every fight, increasing lag and zerg style play. Because of this, players will sit idle in their keeps waiting for large D ticks

With the radius on forward camps, the net sum of players won't be any larger than it would be if players had to ride to the area. From what I've observed, this point should actually be used oppositely: without forward camps, everyone spawns at the same keep, and everyone walks in the same direction, forming massive groups at the destination naturally.

Zheg wrote: »

It makes fights longer, and when coupled with the increased numbers, it not only makes the lag worse it makes it worse for longer durations

The fix for lag shouldn't require converting players play-time to ride and idle time.

Zheg wrote: »

Players can afford to play stupidly because they know if they die they can instantly rez up with no repercussions

Being given more than one opportunity to fight each other is not a bad thing in my opinion.

Zheg wrote: »

Consequences of poor pushes and bad strategy are eliminated

It changes strategy, but it certainly doesn't eliminate consequences for poor play.

Zheg wrote: »

Players will fling themselves at attackers regardless of whether or not a keep is burst because they can safely rez inside. All mystery of "will I be stealth bombed? will I be attacked while on siege? will they choose to fight on the inner?" is removed.

Yay! More actual fighting, less player versus wall and player versus siege play!

Zheg wrote: »

You get full stats if you rez at a camp, it's actually better to take a camp than be rezzed by a templar because #reasons

So change it so the player doesn't respawn with full resources? Also, the cost of 200 Soul Gems is what, 3K gold? I don't care how much of your resources you respawn with at a forward camp, but one reason for this could be that a "Hold F" resurrection is done "on the spot", meaning you will more often than with a forward camp, spawn right in the fight, instead of a safe area where forward camps are most frequently placed.

Zheg wrote: »

The current respawn timer more or less ensures that you can literally run into the fight, die again within seconds, and immediately rez again.

Do you play with that walk toggle enabled, an old slow Xbox controller or something? If you do this, have fun laying on the ground for a minute and a half. Also, if the ride back is as short as you say, it should be equal to the time you'll be laying on the ground if you resurrect and jump straight back out in to the fight only to die again.

Zheg wrote: »

On a net basis it provides significant advantages to larger groups over smaller groups

I don't see how this is true, and if it to some extent is, it certainly is not significant as you're stating.

Zheg wrote: »

It reduces the incentive to manually rez a player, and reduces the purpose of interrupts and people to stop rezzes/watch bodies.

It reduces the need to resurrect a large amount of players with Soul Gems at the same time, but "small scale" resurrection is still done and very useful. I'm not going to take a break from a 3~ vs. 4~ fight to set camp, but I'm sure as hell going to try to resurrect my allies the "hold F" way when the opportunity presents.

Zheg wrote: »

Some of the best small-scale pvp used to be on the transit lines. FCs have taken away from that style of fighting and shifted it all to the large keep fight.

1/100 runs, at late night maybe. From my experience, the transit lines were just a line of 10 different Nightblades trying to gank you, then run away, serving no other purpose than to make me dismount, heal up, and walk the next 20 seconds holding block while waiting to get out of the combat state.

Zheg wrote: »

People are welcome to add to the list/s, but "horse sim" is a lame excuse considering how little time it takes to ride to a keep with a 60 speed horse (particularly if you throw rapids on your bar and take it off before you get close to your destination).

Fact is, many of us spent more time idling in keeps, surfing the web and tabbing in to the window every now and then to see if the keep we were in was under attack yet than horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride horse ride. The only people who I can imagine found the no respawn way of play entertaining is the gankers on the transit lines and organized large group players with top PCs (THIS is what some of us experience when we hold Shift while riding).

Players did not idle in keeps because they were terrified of the horse run. You're being absolutely absurd. Players scouted their keeps more often because if a group arrived to defend but wasn't prepared/was missing people and lost, that would jeopardize the keep. That was a good thing, not a bad thing. Wiping a group meant something. Killing enough opponents to turn the tides MEANT something. I played as a rando pug for over a year and was able to hold my own against gankers on transit lines, or at least smart enough on how to avoid them, if you couldn't do the same that's on you. The entire core of our current guild used to be a small group that would harass reinforcements on transit lines, it was an entire subset of pvp that used to exist and now is almost irrelevant.

I think what he meant to say is that what you describe as "Small Scale PvP" was in reality just pure annoyance when a nightblade would force you to dismount when riding on the transit line and then run away if he could not instagib you before you have the time to react.

That type of small scale PVP is not what most people look for. People look for small fights openfield, or around ressources deep in enemy territory and to make that possible and enjoyable, camps are a good incentive to offer you a second chance after you get zerged down and have to ride back for 10mins.

Maybe we just had different experiences. As a small mostly harmless group we'd sometimes join the keep fights, but sometimes we'd try and hold chal/ash gate to slow or stop reinforcements. It was a ton of fun, and while there was some ganking usually you ended up getting enough there that people riding in saw what was going on and joined in or rode past. How often do you see that now? There was value to holding transit lines or taking a small group to clear off the gankers stopping your reinforcements, not any more.

I get what you're saying about resource fights, but the majority I've seen have been large groups trying to tower farm, not small scale pvp.