Forward Camps as Fast Travel

Soliss · August 2014

Since Zenimax fixed Forward Camps from bugging out a couple of patches back, we now run across the new dynamic of using Forward Camps as a method for moving around Cyrodiil quickly.

Someone would setup a Forward Camp and everyone else suicides on NPC guards or enemy players for the fastest way of moving across the map.

Is this the intended mechanic of Forward Camps? It seems cross-purpose with the Keep/Output travel shrine mechanic.

How do you fix this? You can fix this by making it that only those within the Radius of the Forward Camp can use it. This will allow you to keep the intent of the Forward Camp without it being overpowering.

Also some method of preventing endless respawns at camps also be added. For example, a 30 second/1minute debuff that prevents you from using a Forward Camp after you've just rezzed at one. Continued dying/respawning would increase the debuff's duration.

kijima · August 2014

This is not new, it's been happening for ages.

Enodoc · August 2014

There's a thread on Forward Camps (it's a few pages in now) where this was brought up, but I agree.

I was trying to get @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ to confirm whether this was intended usage (or indeed whether this is even being looked at in any way), but he didn't answer yet (persistence may win out in the end :P)
To me, using them in this way provides a benefit to being killed, and death should have no benefits.

Turelus · August 2014

It would greatly change the way the game was played in Cyrodiil.
Right now as the OP said tactics are often that when a Keep goes under siege or you want to help on the other side of the map you just die to PVP-NPC's or players and the just transport across the map to help.

dbishop · August 2014

And you don't cap resources to help with the suicide.

May as well share with everyone so at least everyone knows whats going on. No point leaving some of the PB in the dark.

Zubba · August 2014

I doubt it was intended. Whats the circle ment for around the camps anyway?

Zooce · August 2014

It's a sad mechanic, I die enough already without suicides!

Skafsgaard · August 2014

Making a 'fake attack' (like capping Alessia resoures) and dying only to spawn at Chalman to ninja it adds IMO layers to the otherwise zergy nature of AvA. Remeber someone must go there undetected and coordinate with a grp, its not HARD, but still has to be done and really nice for a mobile tactic (sometimes only method when fighting overwhelming numbers or 2-3 bomb trains.

I like it

smeeprocketnub19_ESO · August 2014

I use this to quest in cyrodiil tbh, especially near enemy keeps, even if someone doesn't gank me, it's a fast way to get back to the town that is the quest hub.

Really though imo you should only be able to rez at the camp if you are in its radius.

murtugo · August 2014

I think that is the very a reason why it is called "FORWARD" camps.

Anyway if you want it to have a limited radius... I it think it would be best to change its name also to "radius" camp.

Kilandros · August 2014

Forward Camps should only offer resurrection to people who die within its radius. Forward Camps shouldn't be a shortcut to teleport large groups across the map.

If you want to get a large group deep in enemy territory you should be required to either 1) Cap keeps to open Transitus network, or 2) Man up and hoof it to your destination.

I'm not a fan of factions re-capping their scrolls by running 1 guy out to Bloodmayne or Farragut or whatever, having him pop a couple consecutive FCs, then mass suiciding so the entire server can join him and blitzkrieg an undefended keep. That wasn't the design. It would be bad design. And it absolutely destroys the tactical aspect of taking keeps to advance your front line.

Skafsgaard · August 2014

Kilandros wrote: »

Forward Camps should only offer resurrection to people who die within its radius. Forward Camps shouldn't be a shortcut to teleport large groups across the map.

If you want to get a large group deep in enemy territory you should be required to either 1) Cap keeps to open Transitus network, or 2) Man up and hoof it to your destination.

I'm not a fan of factions re-capping their scrolls by running 1 guy out to Bloodmayne or Farragut or whatever, having him pop a couple consecutive FCs, then mass suiciding so the entire server can join him and blitzkrieg an undefended keep. That wasn't the design. It would be bad design. And it absolutely destroys the tactical aspect of taking keeps to advance your front line.

First of all, why? it was designed that way, but a random dude on a forum gets to decide that "Forward Camps shouldn't be a shortcut to teleport large groups across the map." ?!?

Second, AvA is not only about scrolls - some of us wants to win - which require points and keep gives points. So yes, this is in fact a good thing and makes it possible for ppl to avoid some zergy aspect and be smart - im sorry that you cannot cope and they still haev to open the gate which would make a scroll ninja move very obvious.

Enodoc · August 2014

Skafsgaard wrote: »

[...] it was designed that way, [...]

You don't know that; unless you have a statement, in which case please post it and we can move on. Otherwise, until @ZOS_BrianWheeler or another dev answers the requests for clarification of this, we only have our opinions.

Many of us believe that the way it currently functions is due to a bug with the camp radius, and that it is not working as intended (you should only be able to spawn at a camp you die within the radius of, otherwise their radius is essentially pointless). It certainly isn't working as it was advertised before release. Forward camps were advertised as a way to get back into battle when you die, inferred as when you die in that battle, not to join a battle from the other side of the map. That's what capturing keeps to expand the Transitus Network is for.

Skafsgaard · August 2014

Their radius is to prevent another camp close by and in that way prevent mass porting essentially. This is obvious to me, but yes my opinion - but adds another layer of strategy on top the skillful manipulation of 5+1 buttons.

Edit:
To clarify, when you try to point down a camp within a camps radius it will tell you "too close to a friendly graveyard" or something very similar. This makes the radius have a function and lead me to believe it is WAD. Give me your theory as to why it shoulnd't be this way? I mean even the name imply it as in 'Forward' !

Krinaman · August 2014

Zubba wrote: »

I doubt it was intended. Whats the circle ment for around the camps anyway?

The radius is the area where another camp cannot be placed to prevent multiple camps near each other.

Enodoc · August 2014

Sure, my theory as to why it shouldn't be this way is based on the fact that it is acting as a benefit of death, and there should be no benefits to death, and the fact that it negates the purpose of the Transitus Network.

Death should have no benefits: Dying should be at least inconsequential, otherwise a definite hindrance. Since you do not lose gear health on a PvP death, your minimal inconvenience should be having to go back to the nearest friendly keep if you do not die in the radius of a forward camp. Being able to suicide to a player or NPC guard half way across the map, and then turning up right at the battle you want to be at, is a beneficial outcome of death.

Transitus: The intention of the Transitus Network is to expand your reach into enemy territory to get you as close to the next objective as you can be. You port to the nearest friendly keep, and run the last distance to the objective. This design, along with the fact that Transitus to a keep is knocked out when the keep reaches a certain amount of damage, is to prevent a steady stream of new backup flooding into a battle. They stated this much before launch as a tactical feature. Forward Camps are to maintain the defense/attack force that are currently there. Being able to port to any forward camp from anywhere negates this strategy of the Transitus Network, as you can just turn up anywhere there is a camp.

The Forward in Forward Camp: Forward Camps are named such as they are an extension of your front line in advance of your last friendly keep. If I'm injured in a battle at the front line, I go to the nearest front line medical tent (forward camp) for treatment, as it's the closest and most useful for getting me back into the battle. If I'm injured on the other side of the map, I can't go to a medical tent that's at the front line, because it's too far away and just wouldn't make it. However, any major medical centre (keep) would be able to treat me, or transfer me to any other medical centre (Transitus).

Skafsgaard · August 2014

Enodoc wrote: »

Sure, my theory as to why it shouldn't be this way is...

Nice arguments and I can see your points. However it is supposed to work will alter the way AvA currently fuctions - on that I think we can agree. I just really like the tactical elements of playing hide and seek the way it can do now and also you can be smart and have some scouting for camps, although you will not find all I know but still a minor defence against it at very important battles (I find red camps all the time in AB and BT [EU] and burn them to the ground with my NB, also I know where to look).

With your way of doing it, I think it would get very boring very quickly on most of the campaigns that I dont play, since it is low pop. Would be endless ninja'ing keeps and PvEing the npcs since you could not attempt a rescue with a FC placement. And the way we took some keeps with defenders inside the inner, us in courtyard and flow of reinforcments from the breach adds some fun and chaotic elemtments (if it wasnt laggy that is).

I hope you understand why I like it the current way.

Kilandros · August 2014

Skafsgaard wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

Forward Camps should only offer resurrection to people who die within its radius. Forward Camps shouldn't be a shortcut to teleport large groups across the map.

If you want to get a large group deep in enemy territory you should be required to either 1) Cap keeps to open Transitus network, or 2) Man up and hoof it to your destination.

I'm not a fan of factions re-capping their scrolls by running 1 guy out to Bloodmayne or Farragut or whatever, having him pop a couple consecutive FCs, then mass suiciding so the entire server can join him and blitzkrieg an undefended keep. That wasn't the design. It would be bad design. And it absolutely destroys the tactical aspect of taking keeps to advance your front line.

First of all, why? it was designed that way, but a random dude on a forum gets to decide that "Forward Camps shouldn't be a shortcut to teleport large groups across the map." ?!?

Second, AvA is not only about scrolls - some of us wants to win - which require points and keep gives points. So yes, this is in fact a good thing and makes it possible for ppl to avoid some zergy aspect and be smart - im sorry that you cannot cope and they still haev to open the gate which would make a scroll ninja move very obvious.

I don't decide anything; I am not a developer. This has been a constructive thread, please don't derail that by making it personal.

Kilandros · August 2014

Skafsgaard wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

Sure, my theory as to why it shouldn't be this way is...

Nice arguments and I can see your points. However it is supposed to work will alter the way AvA currently fuctions - on that I think we can agree. I just really like the tactical elements of playing hide and seek the way it can do now and also you can be smart and have some scouting for camps, although you will not find all I know but still a minor defence against it at very important battles (I find red camps all the time in AB and BT [EU] and burn them to the ground with my NB, also I know where to look).

With your way of doing it, I think it would get very boring very quickly on most of the campaigns that I dont play, since it is low pop. Would be endless ninja'ing keeps and PvEing the npcs since you could not attempt a rescue with a FC placement. And the way we took some keeps with defenders inside the inner, us in courtyard and flow of reinforcments from the breach adds some fun and chaotic elemtments (if it wasnt laggy that is).

I hope you understand why I like it the current way.

On the contrary, I believe FCs currently kill many of the tactical aspects of PvP. Currently, the Transitus network is really just a thing of convenience with FCs being the primary mode of moving large groups quickly and efficiency when in a pinch. Revert FCs to the way I believe they were originally intended to operate, and tactical gameplay will be vastly improved as players need to think about maintaining Transitus and resources.

Tadhg_Longhouse · August 2014

I just came back to PvP after months of doing other things and I honestly preferred when camps were bugged and used sparingly.

I was riding up to help defend a keep when I noticed an enemy forward camp nearby. I watched it spawn a constant stream of zerg out while a single player would instantly drop another camp as soon as the previous one ended. We snuck in and set the camp on fire but all that did was anger the zerg and they turned around and destroyed us. A futile effort really. Then I discover that my alliance is doing the same thing inside the walls of the keep with their own forward camp.

Perhaps forward camps should require that a friendly (and not-besieged) keep or outpost must be within its radius in order to be able to be used as a spawn point. Their radius may need to be adjusted to make this work properly and ensure camps are still useful. However, this would make the camps restricted in where they can be placed so they can't be used to simply spawn just outside (or inside) a besieged keep.