ZOS_TristanK wrote: »

For instance in Update 5, you'll need to be at least Alliance Rank 6 to purchase Forward Camps.

I dunno man, I don't think I need Alliance Rank 6 to reply to that sell offer.

Hey, guys. We wanted to post in this thread to let you know that it was mistakenly sunken earlier. We do apologize for the inconvenience and would like to assure you that we in no way intended for your critiques and concerns about Forward Camps to go unheard. If you feel a thread was sunken in error again, please do not hesitate to alert the moderation team so that we may investigate. Again, apologies for any confusion or frustration this may have caused.

ZOS_TristanK wrote: »

Hi, all. We wanted to pop in and let you know that we've removed several off-topic and disruptive comments from this thread. Please be sure to keep comments focused on the topic at hand.

We also want to let you know that we've been keeping an eye on forward camps and are developing ways of addressing some of these concerns. For instance in Update 5, you'll need to be at least Alliance Rank 6 to purchase Forward Camps. We are continuing to read your feedback here and on the PTS forums about this change and about Forward Camps in general, and welcome your other suggestions and input.

Placing a purchase requirement won't fix the issue, it'll just provide those who are higher than Rank 6 an option to sell them.

FC need to have a rank requirement to place them, not purchase them. You need to prove yourself on the battle field before you have the privilege of placing an FC.

It seems FCs are here to stay. So. Why not make the placement of FCs require three or four players to channel the item? One person owns the item as normal, but upon placement three additional players are required to channel the item sort of like a skyshard. This would at the very least require four trolls working in unison.

Maybe put a six hour cool down on FCs. Or just make FCs a permanent defendable/attackable node that require A cost to activate, with a decay timer.

Sablemane wrote: »

It seems FCs are here to stay. So. Why not make the placement of FCs require three or four players to channel the item? One person owns the item as normal, but upon placement three additional players are required to channel the item sort of like a skyshard. This would at the very least require four trolls working in unison.

Don't know if I agree, but it is an interesting idea. How about this? You have to be a member of a team of at least 4 players to place a forward camp.

Yes, the troll could type "LFG" in zone chat, but at some point that player will be recognized as a troll and be ignored by most if not all group leaders.

Thechemicals wrote: »

Unsubbing because of troll camps sounds like a weaksauce player. If it wasnt the troll camps that made him or others unsub then it will be something else just as petty.

To be honest when one or two players can compromise the gaming experiences and enjoyment of the many through an "exploit of the game mechanics, albeit a pathetic poor game mechanic ZoS really effed up from the start with the implementation of FCs" then it an issue. Whether you find it "weaksauce" or not it affects the gaming experiences of many and thus is a major issue just like the intolerable lag we experience in Cyrodiil that has surely cost this game subs from PvPers. If troll camping is jeopardizing the thin ice this game is on as it is then it is an issue and I, like many, want FCs addressed and not just by a meager Rank 6 requirement. My guess is you haven't had troll camps impact a siege you were on to the point where it actually cost your alliance? Maybe a troll camp at one of your gate keeps blocking FC placement at a scroll temple when you've invested an hour in the defense of the scroll against overwhelming odds would show you the light :P. I think most, if not all, are fine winning and losing to opposing factions so-to-speak, but when a troll camp affects that winning or losing it cheapens that winning or losing and I think this is why so many are fed up with it and seriously considering unsubbing.

Many of us want this game to carry on successfully for many years but if this is making players consider unsubbing then it is an issue. Even if small it represents another *** in the armor .

uwamerlynn_ESO wrote: »

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

A solution to this would be to allow us to burn friendly camps. Obviously not a one button press like for enemy camps to prevent accidents, maybe a "Are you sure you want to burn this Forward Camp?" text prompt.

I think this is a good idea. Although it would still take someone away from the fighting to go burn the poorly placed camps.

Plus I'm sure griefers would go around burning friendly camps just to screw around.

rophez_ESO wrote: »

FCs are dumb and ruin the purpose of even having a large map with choke points. Just take them out.

Let me play devil's advocate and suggest a smaller map with no choke points as the solution to the FC problem.

Can any guild leaders chime in on the idea of making camps Bind on Pickup? I have heard that some guilds designate one or two people as dedicated camp placers during siege battles and then multiple players buy camps and give them to these specific people for siege battles. The BOP solution would make that impossible even if it eventually forces the camp trolls to burn all of their AP over time (and it may be a long time if they have millions of AP).