Why are we allowed to put forward camps in our own keeps?

Elyna · August 2014

It defeats the whole purpose of losing resources. Being under attack is supposed to prevent enemies from re spawning in the keep. Seeing how thats how the game treats attacks.

seanolan · August 2014

No, it makes it cost resources (for the camps), not "defeats the whole purpose". There's a difference.

dcincali · August 2014

Then what else are we going to spend our ap on? The gear that will change in 2 weeks?

Elyna · August 2014

seanolan wrote: »

No, it makes it cost resources (for the camps), not "defeats the whole purpose". There's a difference.

No. The point of being under attack is pressure. If you throw down a camp, that pressure is gone. And it turns into a war of attrition. I remember back in beta before people did this, being attacked in a keep was pretty intense. And killing an enemy while attacking a keep meant something.

FluffiestOne · August 2014

Elyna wrote: »

seanolan wrote: »

No, it makes it cost resources (for the camps), not "defeats the whole purpose". There's a difference.

No. The point of being under attack is pressure. If you throw down a camp, that pressure is gone. And it turns into a war of attrition. I remember back in beta before people did this, being attacked in a keep was pretty intense. And killing an enemy while attacking a keep meant something.

That was before ZoS "fixed" the camps. I liked them when they where broken.

seanolan · August 2014

Since the only reason this wasn't done in beta was the sheer bugginess of forward camps in general, your point is not a valid one. You have arbitrarily decided what "the point" of being under attack is...and obviously many disagree with you. Since nothing limits use of camps within a keep, obviously among those disagreeing with you are the developers. Making your argument moot.

Tintinabula · August 2014

In beta I plopped camps inside keeps all the time.

Ackwalan · August 2014

The same could be said for a siege that uses forward camps. An army depending heavily on a supply line in order to maintain a siege. If the people outside a keep can have their replacement troops spawn right outside a keep, those inside the keep should be able to do the same.

dbishop · August 2014

Patrol the inner courtyard and burn them.

Iradicus · August 2014

While i see problems with camps inside the walls of a castle, i also understand why its allowed, the attacking force can keep getting reinforced non stop (even when far behind enemy lines) while the defenders would not be able to properly defend their keep.

I have been in quite a few sieges that were a pickle, full groups defended and kept their camp up inside. We eventually won some of these when we breached their wall on 2 sides and cleared the outer walls.
Im usualy a nightblade ansd i always check the other side of the keep for camps.

I am more worried about being outnumbered or being ou the side that owns the whole map then placing camps inside keeps. Tactics work well if you think about how to handle it.

Ofcourse the problem with most groups ive seen is the randoms, they dont listen to groupleaders, run off on their own etc. Its usually impossible to take a well defended keep with a raid of randoms.

Lava_Croft · August 2014

dbishop wrote: »

Patrol the inner courtyard and burn them.

Or just use trebuchets and lob crap over their walls. Forward camps are incredibly susceptible to siege equipment.

Talcyndl · August 2014

Tintinabula wrote: »

In beta I plopped camps inside keeps all the time.

Everyone did. And defenders often waited until one bugged before they were able to take the keep.

Ah the fun times of screaming at people to NOT burn the bugged camps.

Talcyndl · August 2014

dbishop wrote: »

Patrol the inner courtyard and burn them.

This is absolutely necessary. The problem I see is that unless you have overwhelming numbers, it's like playing whack a mole.

You burn a camp on one side and another one pops up - and then INSTANTLY spawns 20 people.

IMO there should be a timer (20-30 seconds?) between when a camp is placed and when people can rez at it.

Nox_Aeterna · August 2014

That would be just silly lols.

If people atcking can keep comming forever because they get a camp , so must the deffense , otherwise it is quite obvious which side will win most of the time.

Doesnt matter if you had equal numbers , one side can just ress any amount of times they want , the other cant.

Either remove the option for both or let both have it.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · August 2014

One things for sure.. the game was 100x better when FCs were bugged. Therefore, delete them.

Durham · August 2014

Elyna wrote: »

It defeats the whole purpose of losing resources. Being under attack is supposed to prevent enemies from re spawning in the keep. Seeing how thats how the game treats attacks.

Not sure why they have not fixed this?... makes me think pvp is really the last thing in their minds....

dbishop · August 2014

Ackwalan wrote: »

The same could be said for a siege that uses forward camps. An army depending heavily on a supply line in order to maintain a siege. If the people outside a keep can have their replacement troops spawn right outside a keep, those inside the keep should be able to do the same.

Correct.

-1 for the horse riding sim.
+1 for keeping FC's as is.

dcincali · August 2014

Delete forward camps and give castles a first warning at like 90% so you know they are under siege and are still able to port in. Then at 50% all you get to def is who ever ported. Since camps are gone, neither force can rez in the area or blood port to generate false numbers. My guildies talk about this system in DAOC.