Should you be able to pack up a forward camp?

gariondavey

Often the cost of buying one of these is more than the AP earned at a keep take/defense.

OBJnoob

Yes (why?)

Making it cost less is another option... But I like the idea of being able to pack it up. Specially since it just looks like a pop up tent.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

I was confused the first time I put one down and couldn’t pick it back up like every other siege device, so I wouldn’t object. On the flip side being unpackable seems to be the only reason it stacks when almost nothing else does.

I guess what I’m saying is, ‘find a workable way to make all siege stack first.’

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

I was confused the first time I put one down and couldn’t pick it back up like every other siege device, so I wouldn’t object. On the flip side being unpackable seems to be the only reason it stacks when almost nothing else does.

I guess what I’m saying is, ‘find a workable way to make all siege stack first.’

The issue is the health of the object. I'm all for stackable siege but I don't think that would work unless they are at 100 percent health.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

gariondavey wrote: »

The issue is the health of the object. I'm all for stackable siege but I don't think that would work unless they are at 100 percent health.

I’m aware, and personally I’d be fine with only the full health siege stacking. But right now I’ve got a couple dozen siege weapons left over from the last Mayhem taking up inventory space, and I’d like to be able to store other things in those slots.

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

WhiteCoatSyndrome wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

The issue is the health of the object. I'm all for stackable siege but I don't think that would work unless they are at 100 percent health.

I’m aware, and personally I’d be fine with only the full health siege stacking. But right now I’ve got a couple dozen siege weapons left over from the last Mayhem taking up inventory space, and I’d like to be able to store other things in those slots.

Yes I feel the same way. As per this poll, are you not in agreement then?

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

No, because they offer a big benefit, so they need a drawback besides the piddly 20k AP cost. They also would no longer stack if you could pick them up.

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

TheEndBringer wrote: »

No, because they offer a big benefit, so they need a drawback besides the piddly 20k AP cost. They also would no longer stack if you could pick them up.

My point is if you use one at each major offensive or defensive battle, it is unsustainable.
This is not true for repairs, rams, ballistas, meatbags, oils, etc.

Amottica

No (why?)

gariondavey wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

No, because they offer a big benefit, so they need a drawback besides the piddly 20k AP cost. They also would no longer stack if you could pick them up.

My point is if you use one at each major offensive or defensive battle, it is unsustainable.
This is not true for repairs, rams, ballistas, meatbags, oils, etc.

And that seems to be the idea in the design. Though with many players involved it can be sustained pretty well as I have seen multiple camps put up, one after another, at the same keep battle.

Minno

No (why?)

I voted no, because id rather see the camp be present in the world as an objective you must take.
The game also doesnt punish dying enough as well and respawns locations/timers are too static.

Tommy_The_Gun

No (why?)

This may be very controversial opinion, but camps in general are very harmful for the PvP experience and imho should be disabled.

Think of how it would look like if there was no camps at all. Fights would be shorter, there would be significant risk/reward involved (failed push inside the keep or push out to break the siege). Also you would not have this much issues with ball groups as even them would have be more careful - usually when they are wiped one or two breaks from the group to put a camp and you have to deal with them over & over again. There is simply no reward for beating such a hard & dangerous foe.

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

gariondavey wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

No, because they offer a big benefit, so they need a drawback besides the piddly 20k AP cost. They also would no longer stack if you could pick them up.

My point is if you use one at each major offensive or defensive battle, it is unsustainable.
This is not true for repairs, rams, ballistas, meatbags, oils, etc.

But that's exactly the point. You shouldn't have the potential for unlimited camps. There are other players. The burden should be spread out. If no one wants to slot them, then that's a weakness of the faction/group, a weakness that the opposition will take advantage of.

M0R_Gaming

Yes (why?)

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

M0R_Gaming

Yes (why?)

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies, whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies[\b], whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

That's kind of the point of camps. Put down as many as you want. It's then up to the enemy team to find them.

Meanwhile the defending team can infinitely respawn until flagged, and then can use a camp that can't be destroyed until the door comes down. So then that person just picks their camp up, having it never be in danger.

M0R_Gaming

Yes (why?)

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies[\b], whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

That's kind of the point of camps. Put down as many as you want. It's then up to the enemy team to find them.

Meanwhile the defending team can infinitely respawn until flagged, and then can use a camp that can't be destroyed until the door comes down. So then that person just picks their camp up, having it never be in danger.

Ya, I see your point there. In that case, ya, I agree that you shouldn't be able to pick up a camp after it goes down.

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies[\b], whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

That's kind of the point of camps. Put down as many as you want. It's then up to the enemy team to find them.

Meanwhile the defending team can infinitely respawn until flagged, and then can use a camp that can't be destroyed until the door comes down. So then that person just picks their camp up, having it never be in danger.

I think you are forgetting the 5 minute spawn timer at a camp.

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

gariondavey wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies[\b], whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

That's kind of the point of camps. Put down as many as you want. It's then up to the enemy team to find them.

Meanwhile the defending team can infinitely respawn until flagged, and then can use a camp that can't be destroyed until the door comes down. So then that person just picks their camp up, having it never be in danger.

I think you are forgetting the 5 minute spawn timer at a camp.

No I didn't.

Let's say I'm defending the a keep with my group.

Until it's flagged I have infinite respawns which is a massive advantage over the defenders. They can put camps all around the keep but, as you point out, there's a timer.

Now you've flagged the keep and people are spawning at my camp. We can make one big push and spawn at the camp.

I then pack the camp up before the door drops, run out back and put it down outside the wall, tucked under so you can't see it easily.

That's a huge advantage over what you have now.

That same camp I put down on inner is up until the enemies burn it. That means I can't put another one down the moment the wall drops because you can't overlap camps that close together. That means it's very likely that once it is burned I will be tied up in combat, unable to go put another one up.

It's all a balance.

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

Hmm I see what you are saying. But when groups break into a keep the first thing they do is search out the FC and burn it

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

gariondavey wrote: »

Hmm I see what you are saying. But when groups break into a keep the first thing they do is search out the FC and burn it

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes attackers run straight for the dance floor. Draw distance isn't always going to show a camp on the back towers from the outside door. Sometimes people are just lazy.

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

TheEndBringer wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Hmm I see what you are saying. But when groups break into a keep the first thing they do is search out the FC and burn it

Sometimes. Sometimes not. Sometimes attackers run straight for the dance floor. Draw distance isn't always going to show a camp on the back towers from the outside door. Sometimes people are just lazy.

That's not my observation. Almost every big fight, the organized groups we fight search out our FC and we do the same to them.

Cuddlypuff

No (why?)

There would just be 3 troll camps near each faction's gates preventing further deployment.

Metemsycosis

Yes (why?)

I would like to be able to but Idk if I should. i mean I can repair it like siege why not pick it up like siege? only speaking for when I play solo.

Metemsycosis

Yes (why?)

TheEndBringer wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies[\b], whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

That's kind of the point of camps. Put down as many as you want. It's then up to the enemy team to find them.

Meanwhile the defending team can infinitely respawn until flagged, and then can use a camp that can't be destroyed until the door comes down. So then that person just picks their camp up, having it never be in danger.

I think you are forgetting the 5 minute spawn timer at a camp.

No I didn't.

Let's say I'm defending the a keep with my group.

Until it's flagged I have infinite respawns which is a massive advantage over the defenders. They can put camps all around the keep but, as you point out, there's a timer.

Now you've flagged the keep and people are spawning at my camp. We can make one big push and spawn at the camp.

I then pack the camp up before the door drops, run out back and put it down outside the wall, tucked under so you can't see it easily.

That's a huge advantage over what you have now.

That same camp I put down on inner is up until the enemies burn it. That means I can't put another one down the moment the wall drops because you can't overlap camps that close together. That means it's very likely that once it is burned I will be tied up in combat, unable to go put another one up.

It's all a balance.

when I'm in a zerg i look both inside and outside a keep. i would assign this task to a NB with shade slotted so they don't lose too much time with the group

DrSlaughtr

No (why?)

Metemsycosis wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

M0R_Gaming wrote: »

While I am of the "No" camp, I voted yes as I'd love to see something like where you can pick it up, but it's a unique item so you can only have 1 in your inv at a time.

That would suck if your camp was torched and you couldn't put anymore down until end of combat.

I feel like it would probably help a bunch for making camps more valuable. As is rn, a whole bunch of groups will go and place a camp if even a single player in their team dies[\b], whereas this would make it so that you need to decide to be strategic with your camp placement.
Idk, it probably has some logistics issues in it, and may not be the best solution, but it would definitely change how camps are treated.

That's kind of the point of camps. Put down as many as you want. It's then up to the enemy team to find them.

Meanwhile the defending team can infinitely respawn until flagged, and then can use a camp that can't be destroyed until the door comes down. So then that person just picks their camp up, having it never be in danger.

I think you are forgetting the 5 minute spawn timer at a camp.

No I didn't.

Let's say I'm defending the a keep with my group.

Until it's flagged I have infinite respawns which is a massive advantage over the defenders. They can put camps all around the keep but, as you point out, there's a timer.

Now you've flagged the keep and people are spawning at my camp. We can make one big push and spawn at the camp.

I then pack the camp up before the door drops, run out back and put it down outside the wall, tucked under so you can't see it easily.

That's a huge advantage over what you have now.

That same camp I put down on inner is up until the enemies burn it. That means I can't put another one down the moment the wall drops because you can't overlap camps that close together. That means it's very likely that once it is burned I will be tied up in combat, unable to go put another one up.

It's all a balance.

when I'm in a zerg i look both inside and outside a keep. i would assign this task to a NB with shade slotted so they don't lose too much time with the group

That's good. But you are one sample out of many. I've seen friendly camps sit on back towers for an entire siege. Or at worst one NB comes to burn it and gets mowed down.

rbfrgsp

No (why?)

You really think they would be able to make it so you could pack the thing away while other players simultaneously spawn there without one (or all) of you getting stuck in some kind of animation loop limbo?

Forward camps should be significantly cheaper, but players should also be less stingy. I've seen people moan about the costs of them then you watch their streams and they're sitting on 67mn of unspent AP. What are you saving up for? Are you building a treefort out of nothing but decoy elder scrolls in your house?

TechMaybeHic

No (why?)

I'll actually go further and say forward camps should cost more.

They were disabled for a good chunk of time at one point because of how powerful they are. It is meant to be a decision to commit one for the area with the higher cost, the same way keep recall stones were as you would think twice about instantly getting to a keep under attack. Camps are almost opposite in that it allows attackers to continue the attack.

As it is now; there are groups that literally just have a character left hidden in the wild to drop camps deep in enemy territory and do nothing but wait until it's clear to drop a camp as 20k AP is not what it once was. If they could also just rez and pack up as to probably never be detected; it becomes completely pointless to have it cost much at all.

Nemeliom

No (why?)

The use of tents would increase 10x if this happened. Meaning that every fight would have 5 tents around it because hey, you can take it back if you didn't ended up needing it.
If this happens, there would be a way to win battle, because every one would keep coming back in an Instant.

gariondavey

Yes (why?)

@Nemeliom it seems you are forgetting the 5 min spawn timer on camps.

"20k AP isn't what it once was"

What? Lol. There are fewer people in cyro now due to the population cap decreasing over and over again. I remember fights with hundreds of people involved on each side. They resulted in more AP than ones now with 50 a side or whatever.

Nemeliom

No (why?)

gariondavey wrote: »

@Nemeliom it seems you are forgetting the 5 min spawn timer on camps.

"20k AP isn't what it once was"

What? Lol. There are fewer people in cyro now due to the population cap decreasing over and over again. I remember fights with hundreds of people involved on each side. They resulted in more AP than ones now with 50 a side or whatever.

You are right 🤔
I forgot about the spawn timer.