I have to admit...I am interested in this. I like that it places a greater importance on resource control.

Maybe if ZOS will stop being so stubborn about FCs and realize they are terrible in comparison to a system you have set up here there will be some progress.

I like it - you get my vote. It is a sound idea and it beats the hell out of the FC situation, blood porting and pathetic AP farming at suicide resources.

I like placing more importance on resources. I feel like right now they are just a staging area for FCs.

I'm not too keen on the unlimited respawn though. Maybe so many respawns in a given time or something? I just feel that there needs to be more impact on both attacking and defending. A quick fix might be to just make FC more expensive. That would take down the number of troll camps, another problem with the current method of camps.

People keep arguing for smaller-scale pvp, but few are willing to actually DO it, instead preferring the follow the zerg mentality.

You know how if you do a pve quest, and you're helping the faction troops that they set up emergency medical camps in anything from stables to inns to barns to ruined towers? Why not have a option that if you capture a resource you can spend points to purchase the services of a healer and set up a rez camp either in a nearby shed or the tower itself. It can have infinite spawns as long as the faction controls it and the healer OR until the tower is sieged down.

And it is entirely possible to level a resource tower. All it takes is 3-4 sieges. This would force either/both the assaulting faction to assign defense to alert to any treat to the forward base and the defending faction to send a squad out to weaken the tower or gank reinforcements. THis would have to have a set range too. Say you can only respawn at the nearest controlled camp, not all the way in timbuktu. Cyro is supposed to punish travel, you're supposed to have a progression path. If youlose your camp and thus the keep, tough cookies. Ride back from your nearest keep.

Bloating the price of camps or making restrictions will make minimal difference. ZOS can't keep slapping trolls and xploiters on the wrist, nor can they keep straddling the fence when it comes to skirting already existing restrictions.

WarrioroftheWind_ESO wrote: »

People keep arguing for smaller-scale pvp, but few are willing to actually DO it, instead preferring the follow the zerg mentality.

You know how if you do a pve quest, and you're helping the faction troops that they set up emergency medical camps in anything from stables to inns to barns to ruined towers? Why not have a option that if you capture a resource you can spend points to purchase the services of a healer and set up a rez camp either in a nearby shed or the tower itself. It can have infinite spawns as long as the faction controls it and the healer OR until the tower is sieged down.

And it is entirely possible to level a resource tower. All it takes is 3-4 sieges. This would force either/both the assaulting faction to assign defense to alert to any treat to the forward base and the defending faction to send a squad out to weaken the tower or gank reinforcements. THis would have to have a set range too. Say you can only respawn at the nearest controlled camp, not all the way in timbuktu. Cyro is supposed to punish travel, you're supposed to have a progression path. If youlose your camp and thus the keep, tough cookies. Ride back from your nearest keep.

Bloating the price of camps or making restrictions will make minimal difference. ZOS can't keep slapping trolls and xploiters on the wrist, nor can they keep straddling the fence when it comes to skirting already existing restrictions.

Add this suggestion to the OP.

I like this too. Allowing players to upgrade resources to be spawn-able. Not a bad way to force an AP dump since that is clearly what FCs are for currently. Then you wouldn't have every resource be a respawn unless people purchase the ability to spawn there. That could definitely work.

Dudis wrote: »

WarrioroftheWind_ESO wrote: »

People keep arguing for smaller-scale pvp, but few are willing to actually DO it, instead preferring the follow the zerg mentality.

To be fair, there's often no other action to be found because of tents.

People go where the fighting happens and since there's no reason or need to be anywhere else, it turns into the downward spiral we're seeing today with more and more people teleporting in until the server crashes and the keeps acting more like isolated BGs than part of a larger world.

Well, I know that people do want small scale. I was hoping with my suggestion that small groups would be more likely to take Outposts to give them secondary spawn points in other areas of the map... outside of Keeps because in my original suggestion the Outposts would be the one thing you could attack/defend independent of progression lanes.

Then small forces can also be pivotal in defending or attacking resources at a Keep while the larger forces can focus on inner Keep defense or sieging the Keep.

My goal is to both focus large scale and small scale combat around objectives.

Joy_Division wrote: »

I think your overall idea has merit, but...

1) This does nothing to stop blood-porting. In fact, it encourages it since all attackers need is a resource and defenders need nothing.

2) Your proposal will make it all but impossible for a small team of 12-15 to take a keep. Currently, they can "blitz" a keep by sneaking behind enemy lines and getting the wall down to 50% and prevent reinforcements from porting to a keep.

3) Your proposal of the "3rd" flag in keeps will crash the servers every castle siege. As it is, if there are defenders inside a keep, it is very difficult for attackers to storm it even when they do cut off reinforcements by destroying tents. I cringe and just accept the fact that my kill counter ratio will go to crap when I see numerous defenders inside a keep or forward outpost...and now they can reinforce when they die? Also 8-9 people on the top floor of a keep can hold off very large numbers on those stairways for a long time. Giving them the ability to spawn back up there when they die will create a huge aoe-fest on those stairways.

4) I don't see how this adds strategy. Consider the perspective of the defense. Right now, defenders must actually place and defend a FC once an attacker breeches a wall. People, resources, time, and space are all needed to do this. It splits the zerg up..a camp placed in a postern tower will see local action away from the action at the enemy siege line. In keep defense, I play cautiously because if I die I might never be able to come back to that fight, i.e., there is a fear of death, especially if attackers are in complete control of the courtyard. With keep-spawning, defenders do not have to worry about securing a position to reinforce. Defenders COULD detach teams to take enemy resources...but they can do that now. In fact, it is easier to do now since most attackers only take one resource and they must actually maintain a FC (which can be disrupted fairly easily with siege weapons).

Wow, that's a lot to cover and respond back to. I do appreciate the feedback. Let me respond to a few things. I wasn't going to break up your post, but I think I need to so I can respond to specific concerns.

1.) I don't see a way to prevent blood porting completely unless you remove the ability to respawn from anywhere other than the gate. The issue isn't so much preventing blood porting as much as it is directing combat to more specific areas. Transit would stop to resources if they are taken from the faction using them to port in and once the 3rd flag is taken then defenders would not be able to blood port to the keep to defend.

2.) This is correct and an unfortunate part of changing the system to rely more on progression lanes than the current system. I feel like my system would not work at all if progression was not limited to the lanes.

3.) Keeps are supposed to be hard to take. I feel like keeps change hands to fast as it is and this would help promote permanence to individual maps. I personally would like sieges to last much longer than they currently do. I disagree that it would cause more crashing or load on the server because forces will have to spread out to defend or retake resources to keep their spawns open.

4.) I think it would actually work pretty similar to having FCs. The 3rd flag at the top is just to stop the defense spawns. If the attackers can hold the defenders off the 2 bottom flags then the keep will still flip to the attackers.

Joy_Division wrote: »

From the attackers perspective, your proposal takes away many of their tools to actually succeed and take a keep. Right now they have a number of options:

1) Take all resources to prevent transit.
2) "Blitz" siege wall to 50% to prevent transit.
3) Devoting a firepot trebs to hit enemy FC.

Each of these methods will be rendered moot under your current system. Instead they must take all 3 resources and knock down the outer wall and knock down the inner wall and take this third flag - just to prevent enemy reinforcements.

1 and 2 you're right on, but 3? Fire trebs will still be critical in countering soft targets from areas or off siege. Remember people will have more AP they can allocate to siege weapons if they aren't worried about buying FCs in my system. There should be plenty of siege on the field to use other siege to counter with.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Attackers also have options once a breech is created in the outer wall. Right now attackers can devote troops and time to hunt down courtyard defenders and any FCs they set-up. It is often the key to winning protracted sieges. Under your proposed system, this is not an option since defenders can just mindlessly throw themselves into attackers knowing they can re-spawn at a safe location. The only option attackers have is to out-zerg the defenders, a difficult proposition since defenders have the advantage of choke points and strong NPCs.

I have to disagree because Keep taking would fundamentally change.

Right now you have attackers that make 1 hole in the outer wall, 1 hole in the inner wall and storm the flags. Sometimes you might make 2 holes if there is a huge defense... but its not that common and you rarely EVER see the front gates destroyed.

If you have constant attackers spawning from resources they control and defenders spawning at the Keep then you will be forced to make more holes. Both posterns will almost always have to be taken down...The way to take a keep would change from making a small hole and be quick and over... to attackers making as many holes as they can to spread out the defense. I personally don't think it would be that easy to defend 2 bottom flags and a 3rd top flag if you have attackers coming in from both posterns and the front gate.

That's just the defenders actually inside the keep. To prevent the attackers from continuing their assault the defenders have to push the attackers off the keep resources.

But, that does bring up another concern. Currently with how destructible the keeps are then it could potentially make defending a nightmare.

Joy_Division wrote: »

This response should be taken less as throwing water at your idea than to combat the increasingly popular narrative that somehow removing FCs is a panacea that will solve the game's FPS issues, zerg-balls, crashes, and somehow make PvP resemble the nostalgia people thought it was at one point. This game was advertised as a mass-combat MMO and if it can't deliver on that handle more than 10 vs. 10 combat, then the game's issues go far beyond FCs. If you get rid of FCs, I will still seek out and be in a zerg because concentration of force is just sound military strategy. And if you thought the level of anger demonstrated on these forums about getting insta-killed by bat-swarms, perma-stuns, and impulse spams was toxic, just wait at the amount of rage when you have to hop on your horse and spend 5 minutes riding back to the battle (while you miss out on defensive/offensive ticks).

You're right that removing FCs isn't the only fix that this game needs from a PvP perspective, but most of the suggestions I have seen on here don't really address anything. Any adjustment you make to FC will have negative impact... that's just the nature of change.

Also I don't see what you mean by having to take 5 minutes to ride back in battle. Under my system your faction would have a keep if they are moving through the progression lanes. You would fall back to that keep or that keeps resource to respawn if you were pushed out of the keep you were defending. If you are assaulting then taking the resources would put you at the front line of the battle immediately.

The worst possible scenario I can see where you might be riding a ton on my system is if your faction was pushed back to your gates and you were unable to take the 2 keeps at your front gates... but even then you could potentially take the Outpost from behind your enemy and have another spawn point to hit them from behind.

Also let me point out that while you faction might attacking a keep... what is to stop the defending keep from taking your keeps resources and starting an assault on your keep?

People... mostly small groups would likely have to defend/attack resources at both the attacking keep and the defending keep. I seriously doubt zergs will be as effective at steam rolling over keeps as they currently are because you're going to have to split up your forces much more in my system.

Also there would be defensive ticks in a lot more places. Attackers defending their resources would get defensive ticks. Defenders in keeps would get their defensive ticks. I don't think you will be hard pressed to get to an area for a defensive tick.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Consider the perspective of the defense. Right now, defenders must actually place and defend a FC once an attacker breeches a wall. People, resources, time, and space are all needed to do this. It splits the zerg up..a camp placed in a postern tower will see local action away from the action at the enemy siege line.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Attackers also have options once a breech is created in the outer wall. Right now attackers can devote troops and time to hunt down courtyard defenders and any FCs they set-up. It is often the key to winning protracted sieges.

Exactly! Forward camps are one of few tactical objectives. If you lose your FC, you can lose the fight. If you take out your enemy's FC, you can win the fight. It doesn't guarantee a win or loss, but it certainly makes it more likely.

Do forward camps need to be changed? Yes. Should they be removed from the game? No.

ghengis_dhan wrote: »

eventide03b14a_ESO wrote: »

At least it's more strategic than the current system.

Actually, forward camps are a tactical issue. Things like cutting transit lines and decoy sieges are at the strategic level.

Blood porting removes much of the need for strategic play. If blood porting can be solved, then strategic play becomes very important.

How do you solve blood porting without crippling FCs or keep defense?

To the OP, how do you address the need for a respawn point at a choke point? We've defended gates and bridges by putting a forward camp on our side. If we didn't have this option, defending them for long would be near to impossible. In fact, the few times we failed to defend the choke point was due to someone burning down our camp. <darn those sneaky types>

Because we put up a camp, we created a tactical objective for our enemy.

ghengis_dhan wrote: »

To the OP, how do you address the need for a respawn point at a choke point? We've defended gates and bridges by putting a forward camp on our side. If we didn't have this option, defending them for long would be near to impossible. In fact, the few times we failed to defend the choke point was due to someone burning down our camp. <darn those sneaky types>

Because we put up a camp, we created a tactical objective for our enemy.

So none of you guys bothered with soul gems? It's not like an FC is the only way to revive in the game. I understand wanting to control choke points, but you can still do that with soul gems.

I know a lot of people don't use soul gems and that is just because people are lazy and also because you can't even get empty ones with AP.... ZOS needs to at least allow you to buy empty soul gems with AP.

defilade__ESO wrote: »

To the OP. We could keep forward keeps, but the only work inside a castle under attack.

I don't like how people on Daggerfall will log on an AD toon from a different account and place a camp in a useless location just so AD cannot place a camp in a tactically useful location, and then the Daggerfall player logs back onto his main account to take a AD keep.

I kind of like the idea of taking over a building, whether a house, resource area etc.. and making that a spawn point for period of time. This way the griefer with two accounts cannot defeat the game mechanics like i explained above.

Well, that is another idea and it's not terrible either, but I think if you are going to make FCs only deploy-able at keeps then that will mostly help defenders without giving attackers a bone. If you make FCs only deploy-able at resources and keeps... that just a different take on my suggestion and that could work as well. At least then the FC can be destroyed from a distance by siege.. instead of forcing people to cap a flag.