Circumventing the camp purchase restriction.

driosketch · October 2014

The Cyrodiil tutorial still gives you a free limited forward camp. I was able to place it and a second one I pulled out of the guild bank at troll camp positions. This is on a new template character with PVP rank 1.

I appreciate you guys trying to combat troll camps, and your decision to go with a modest PvP rank restriction for purchasing camps over a max level restriction, but this is just too easy to get around. Please consider reverting the change while coming up with a different solution. As it stands now, this will only slightly hamper the contribution of players during their early PvP experience.

zbtiqua · October 2014

I am shocked that they didn't deal with such obvious workarounds. I hope that @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ has an opportunity to read this post.

ElemancerZzei · October 2014

That sounds exactly like what they wanted and isn't circumventing anything..

driosketch · October 2014

@ElemancerZzei‌ They added in the patch notes a restriction that you had to be rank 6 in PvP to purchase camps. I'm just pointingg out that getting around that is not only possible, the game itself gives you a free camp to do so with.

Lord_Draevan · October 2014

There's a simple way to fight these troll-campers: if a camp is not used for X period of time, say a minute or whatever, it begins to degrade very quickly, except for those placed inside keeps. This would mean the trollcamps in the middle of nowhere would be gone very quickly.
We could also add an option to burn friendly camps, but I'd imagine griefers would go around doing it for giggles.

ZOS_BrianWheeler · October 2014

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

rophez_ESO · October 2014

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

Hi, Brian - please consider removing FCs completely or adding an AP charge for each person that USES them. Kind of like porting without a wayshrine. Res at a camp for 500ap the first time, 2500 the second time, 10k the third+ times. Reset the fee after 20 minutes or so. At any time, you should be able to res at a friendly keep (not in flames) for free.

FCs completely negate the following design principles of Cyrodiil:

-The idea that you need to maintain keeps near your current battle for staging.

-The idea that defenders who are outnumbered can use structure, and guards to fight off larger forces - not possible when the larger force is made infinite by FCs.

-The idea that the world is built with terrain and structures forming choke points for pitched battles in which reinforcements can be delayed.

-The idea that a player should should feel some sense of danger or a bit of loss from death (travel time) - instead, we have mindlessly running from FC to breach, over and over,until the outnumbered defenders are overwhelmed.

What I'm getting at, is that Cyrodiil would be a lot more dynamic and interesting a place without FCs. There would still be large castle fights, but a lot less mindless rushing into breaches, etc. People would be faced with a short run, if you own the nearby keeps, and if you don't, why are you trying to hit a target deep in enemy territory? Shouldn't there be a consequence?

Personally, I like strategy a FC could bring to a campaign, but it needs to be a lot more rare, and a lot more costly. And charge people who USE it - this might stop lowbies from burning through them, anyway.

driosketch · October 2014

Thanks for the insight @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ , though that was only half the issue. The other was the stock pile of camps already out there that could be pulled out of a bank.

I'm less concerned about someone buying the camps for another player, because if the intention is to the troll camp, the person buying them could do that themselves.

TehMagnus · October 2014

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌, how about not allowing players who aren't VR6 to PLACE camps down in Cyro? Or show the name of player that places the camp when hovering mouse on the camp so that we can report and get the grieffers baned

.

Hypertionb14_ESO · October 2014

magnusnet wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌, how about not allowing players who aren't VR6 to PLACE camps down in Cyro? Or show the name of player that places the camp when hovering mouse on the camp so that we can report and get the grieffers baned .

this would work. tho i doubt based on experience that even if you could report a troll camp that ZOS will respond to it.

zbtiqua · October 2014

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

Thank you, @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ !

StihlReign · October 2014

The upcoming restriction on FC's is useless.

Any senior (above level 6) Alliance rank person can dump the FC in a bank.

It's also fairly simple to get to Alliance rank 6, especially with Zos' new focus on "easy experience".

Get rid of them or make FC's have rez proximity zones.

We need a real solution.

Mountain_Dewed · October 2014

So what/how have these been used to troll? I have been absent from PvP for a while until recently.

No need to explain if you think the wrong kids may read and use whatever troll material it is?

TehMagnus · October 2014

Mountain_Dewed wrote: »

So what/how have these been used to troll? I have been absent from PvP for a while until recently.

No need to explain if you think the wrong kids may read and use whatever troll material it is?

All camps have a ringlike area around them where you can't place other camps.

Create char in other alliance, take a camp from your guild bank, go to PVP where your guild is fighting, place a camp as war away as possible from the next keep the alliance can attack or far away from the keep that is under attack while keeping the keep inside the ringlike area.

This impedes defenders from placing a camp inside their keep or near the keep they are attacking, forcing people who die to respawn far away and have a long way to go before reaching their destination, thus trolling/grieffing the Alliance.

ZOS is looking for ways to impede this. Sadly limiting the ability to buy camps based on level is not enough. On the other hand we already have enough problems as is with people slacking and not putting down camps after they consume them which is why it's kinda tricky to implement limitations while still allowing for the camps to serve their purpose.

A base level limitation is not enough, I'm in EP and plan to get an alt in AD to VR14 so technically, if the limit is VR6, I could go to the campaign and troll them.

A PVP level limitation does make sense but which level to choose to keep things balanced?

After thinking about this, maybe only people above a certain PVP level should be able to PUT down the camps but also USE them. @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

It would make people have something to aim for and it would limit the trolls to a certain extent. This would also cater to the needs of some PVP guilds who wish randoms didn't consume their camps. Add to this the ability to look at the player's name who is putting down the camps and the harm should really go down exponentially.

I don't really know how much time it takes to level up in PVP since I'm not that active there anymore (mainly because AD and DC are allied vs EP and we have no chance of winning so why waste time?) but I suppose that something around level 8 would be nice.

onlinegamer1 · October 2014

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

Other exploit:

- Rank 6+ buys it, mails it to random lvl 10, who uses it

You should also add a Rank 6 restriction to use, as well as buy. i.e. BOTH a buy AND use restriction.

Antirob · October 2014

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ when are we going to get a meaningful change to forward camps. Even with the current "fix" it wont change anything since level 6 is very easy to get.

driosketch · October 2014

magnusnet wrote: »

A base level limitation is not enough, I'm in EP and plan to get an alt in AD to VR14 so technically, if the limit is VR6, I could go to the campaign and troll them.

A PVP level limitation does make sense but which level to choose to keep things balanced?

After thinking about this, maybe only people above a certain PVP level should be able to PUT down the camps but also USE them. @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

It would make people have something to aim for and it would limit the trolls to a certain extent. This would also cater to the needs of some PVP guilds who wish randoms didn't consume their camps. Add to this the ability to look at the player's name who is putting down the camps and the harm should really go down exponentially.

I don't really know how much time it takes to level up in PVP since I'm not that active there anymore (mainly because AD and DC are allied vs EP and we have no chance of winning so why waste time?) but I suppose that something around level 8 would be nice.

@magnusnet‌
The restriction is Alliance Rank 6, not Vet Rank 6.

If a player started pvp at level 10, they can hit AR6 before they earned weapon swap at level 15. It's a slight speed bump to new players. I have 6 characters, two in each alliance with AR7-8. Getting to AR6 would still mean some significant contribution in that alliance. Unfortunately, you could earn that of separate campaigns, and then use travel to player to troll the opposite campaign.

Travel to player needs to be looked at as well because of other shenanigans. Let us unset our guest and home campaigns instead.

StihlReign · October 2014

Get rid of them.

Allow us to use AP to buy soul gems and reduce the cost of them in gold. Why have horses if we have FC?

SoulScream · October 2014

We really really do need a solution to troll camps. I am flat out amazed how much griefing is being done with them and how little consequences there are.

c0rp · October 2014

Troll camps are not even the reason the FWCs are RUINING cyrodiil...I just dont understand how @zos_brianwheeler can see them as contributing ANYTHING positive to PVP? I wish he would enlighten us...

demonlkojipub19_ESO · October 2014

rophez_ESO wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Yupper! Well aware of it and we already have the changes for this ready but haven't hit PTS simply based on when various data changes have been made. As for the particular of why we didn't rip it out even though we knew about them.... it has a domino effect on the NPC's dialogue which would result in the NPC saying "hey here's a forward camp" but you don't actually get one. Editing their text would also result in a mismatch to what the NPC is saying to what's printed on screen, so we're working on getting that matched up.

Hi, Brian - please consider removing FCs completely or adding an AP charge for each person that USES them. Kind of like porting without a wayshrine. Res at a camp for 500ap the first time, 2500 the second time, 10k the third+ times. Reset the fee after 20 minutes or so. At any time, you should be able to res at a friendly keep (not in flames) for free.

FCs completely negate the following design principles of Cyrodiil:

-The idea that you need to maintain keeps near your current battle for staging.

-The idea that defenders who are outnumbered can use structure, and guards to fight off larger forces - not possible when the larger force is made infinite by FCs.

-The idea that the world is built with terrain and structures forming choke points for pitched battles in which reinforcements can be delayed.

-The idea that a player should should feel some sense of danger or a bit of loss from death (travel time) - instead, we have mindlessly running from FC to breach, over and over,until the outnumbered defenders are overwhelmed.

What I'm getting at, is that Cyrodiil would be a lot more dynamic and interesting a place without FCs. There would still be large castle fights, but a lot less mindless rushing into breaches, etc. People would be faced with a short run, if you own the nearby keeps, and if you don't, why are you trying to hit a target deep in enemy territory? Shouldn't there be a consequence?

Personally, I like strategy a FC could bring to a campaign, but it needs to be a lot more rare, and a lot more costly. And charge people who USE it - this might stop lowbies from burning through them, anyway.

Okay that all is about hating forward camps entirely, but that doesn't combat troll forward camp placers... that puts a price on legitimate players trying to use up the forward camp to place a better one.

And thats just a terrible Idea, charging to use it. FC's are fine as is with the exception of being able to res at one clear across the map or be unable to place one due to trolls. Zergballs will be the only ones at the advantage without forward camps, whether on offense or on defense.

synnerman · October 2014

Get rid of them and make it that people can be ressed if they have a soul gem rather than the person ressing them using their soul gem.

olsborg · October 2014

c0rp wrote: »

Troll camps are not even the reason the FWCs are RUINING cyrodiil...I just dont understand how @zos_brianwheeler can see them as contributing ANYTHING positive to PVP? I wish he would enlighten us...

I agree with this statement.

The removal of forward camps will bring life back to cyrodiil, all the quiet zones there will have traffic, and battles will start all over the map because everyone have to travel everywhere, not just suicide at some resource and "poof" magicly appear where they want to capure a random keep.

Horrum · October 2014

You should only be able to rez at a camp if you died within its radius.

Edit: May have to reduce the radius of influence a bit though.

MichaelShimmel · October 2014

my 2 cents...... Allow multiple camps in radius, only allow them to be placed in keep/ resource areas, only allow rez from inside camp radius.