Please remove forward camps.

Kevinmon · October 2014

Completely agree with this! PLEASE remove camps from the game. Whatever dev made them and won't delete them needs to get rid of the giant stick up their ass.

jkirchner71ub17_ESO2 · October 2014

pmn100b16_ESO wrote: »

Why don't we just delete them for a month and see how we get on. Personally I think it'll work out well, it'll no doubt help reduce the horrendous lag around keeps.

Honestly not a bad idea. There was a time when FCs were not in Cyrodiil and most agree things worked out but that is before they became entrenched in the battlefield like they are now.

I have seen so many great ideas on how to change and/or fix FCs and yet all we have seen so far from ZoS is "we are aware of the issue and are monitoring it" and soon you will need to be Rank 6 to use FCs. What a joke

ZoS.

Bind on Acquire / Pick-Up, increase cost, increase rank requirement to 10+, remove the 10 FC Cap / campaign, remove the white radius lock to allow for placement of camps anywhere or simply remove FCs altogether. Honestly removing them altogether is going to take some time for players and their behaviors and tactics to adjust to. Moreover keeps can be captured in less than 3 minutes so obviously most would say ZoS needs to beef up the keeps to allow for a reasonable response by the opposing faction if FCs are to be removed. I just don't get it, why are they kid gloving this issue when most of the community have been begging for them to address this for months now. So many good ideas out there and all we are seeing so far is a meager Rank 6 requirement from ZoS

. Not like we are dealing with class skills that when tinkered with can totally destabilize the entire game - FCs are "siege equipment" restricted to Cyrodiil. Put the foot down ZoS and make some serious changes to FCs.

ghengis_dhan · October 2014

rophez_ESO wrote: »

On the surface, you would think so, but defenders have limited real estate on which to place a camp - once the outer wall is breached by a large force, it's easy for them to spot/burn camps the defenders try to put up.

If the attackers are well organized, then yes. I've been on keep defense a number of times where I'll wonder why they haven't taken down our camp. I guess they made one loop around the inner keep and assumed that was that.

I've also been on defense where it was a battle putting up camps and keeping them up. We'd put one up, defend it, then it would go down. Sometimes we'd have to resort to putting the defensive camp just outside the outer wall or even at a resource.

ghengis_dhan · October 2014

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Fine with me, because unless it is some late hour or largely empty campaign with few players and still fewer APs, it's in fact completely different story: there is no point whatsoever in burning tents down, because they go down often within seconds anyway by sheer numbers spawning there, and likewise within seconds up again. They do not add anything on tactical level, just make combat utterly dull.

You should try keeping a camp up when a really good sneak keeps setting it on fire. (You can't spawn at a camp on fire.) It's happened a number of times where 4-6 of us would be searching for this guy. He'd pop up behind us, set the camp on fire, and disappear. We'd put the fire out or put up another camp, and continue our search for him.

Some of you sneaky types are REALLY frustrating. Especially when most everyone on our team is waiting for a respawn and complaining over TeamSpeak about not having a camp...because it just burned down, and I'm all out.

Nikse · October 2014

CoolsHisHands wrote: »

If they just made it so you could only bloodport to them if you died within the radius as it appears on the map, that would solve most of the problems. No need to change the price.

I strongly believe this is how they were meant to function in the first place, but for some reason they changed it.

agree

Joy_Division · October 2014

rophez_ESO wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I like FCs and not afraid to admit it.

I like epic sieges and battles. I don't like looking at horses' asses. Just need to eliminate blood-porting: if you get killed by an NPC outside of a keep, then you can't use a FC.

I get what you are saying, but, as currently implemented, 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.

I get what your are saying but

How happy would you be if you were insta-killed by a batswarming-streaking-impulsing enemy and then were stuck riding your horse for 5 minutes? The ratio of actual play time to horse-riding simulator would be highly unfavorable.
I would say half the time I play in Cyrodiil, there are maybe 35 blues, 25 yellows, and 20 reds. How exactly can those dynamic alliance vs alliance things happen that you mention, with such a low population? They can't. There is only enough population for the map for the yellows to support a single siege. The map needs to be shrunk in such scenarios and FCs are the only thing that make playing in these empty campaigns tolerable.
FCs do bring legitimate tactical and strategic options that are also part of the grand Cyrodiil design. Without FCs, attackers do not have to worry about and eliminate defender FCs when assaulting a keep. Also, an FC deep into enemy territory opens up the possibility of a surprise attack or a scroll run. Without FCs, AD would always have to go Roe-Nikel-Ash-Glademist in order to realistically sustain an assault on blue. Predictable and boring.
The 2 most enjoyable experiences I have had in Cyrodiil was a successful yellow scroll capture from Fort Warden and a successful yellow defense of a determined blue attempted to capture Castle Bloodmayne. Both of these was the type of epic grand battles of the sort seen in the trailers, made possible only with the use of FCs.

I think it is theoretically possible that Cyrodiil would be a dynamic and interesting place without FCs, but this could be true only if there actually was 500 players from each alliance in the game. That was the number I saw back at launch, and maybe that was the case at the time. But right now I find it hard to believe there are 500 different blues in a locked campaign since I see the same names over and over again. And on the NA server, there is only 1 locked campaign...the only way to have a reasonably enjoyable experience where you are actually playing in unlocked campaigns is to artificially shrink the map to bring the fights to players and FCs allow this to happen.

I do agree FCs can be abused and there should be limits/restrictions imposed on their use. Death can have penalties besides imposed boredom.

rophez_ESO · October 2014

Joy_Division wrote: »

rophez_ESO wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I like FCs and not afraid to admit it.

I like epic sieges and battles. I don't like looking at horses' asses. Just need to eliminate blood-porting: if you get killed by an NPC outside of a keep, then you can't use a FC.

I get what you are saying, but, as currently implemented, 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.

I get what your are saying but
How happy would you be if you were insta-killed by a batswarming-streaking-impulsing enemy and then were stuck riding your horse for 5 minutes? The ratio of actual play time to horse-riding simulator would be highly unfavorable.

I would say half the time I play in Cyrodiil, there are maybe 35 blues, 25 yellows, and 20 reds. How exactly can those dynamic alliance vs alliance things happen that you mention, with such a low population? They can't. There is only enough population for the map for the yellows to support a single siege. The map needs to be shrunk in such scenarios and FCs are the only thing that make playing in these empty campaigns tolerable.

FCs do bring legitimate tactical and strategic options that are also part of the grand Cyrodiil design. Without FCs, attackers do not have to worry about and eliminate defender FCs when assaulting a keep. Also, an FC deep into enemy territory opens up the possibility of a surprise attack or a scroll run. Without FCs, AD would always have to go Roe-Nikel-Ash-Glademist in order to realistically sustain an assault on blue. Predictable and boring.

The 2 most enjoyable experiences I have had in Cyrodiil was a successful yellow scroll capture from Fort Warden and a successful yellow defense of a determined blue attempted to capture Castle Bloodmayne. Both of these was the type of epic grand battles of the sort seen in the trailers, made possible only with the use of FCs.

I think it is theoretically possible that Cyrodiil would be a dynamic and interesting place without FCs, but this could be true only if there actually was 500 players from each alliance in the game. That was the number I saw back at launch, and maybe that was the case at the time. But right now I find it hard to believe there are 500 different blues in a locked campaign since I see the same names over and over again. And on the NA server, there is only 1 locked campaign...the only way to have a reasonably enjoyable experience where you are actually playing in unlocked campaigns is to artificially shrink the map to bring the fights to players and FCs allow this to happen.

I do agree FCs can be abused and there should be limits/restrictions imposed on their use. Death can have penalties besides imposed boredom.

Good points! I understand your arguments and agree that population is a big issue on some servers. I really hope the removal of buffs from all but the Home Campaign will shake population up a lot. ZOS might have to reduce the number of campaigns too. We'll see what happens when Imperial City is released - I think pop in Cyrodiil is going to rise.

That said, maybe a compromise is in order? Don't remove FC's right away, but maybe limit them more. Increase cost and/or charge an AP fee for people to spawn at them.

Iyas · October 2014

Please remove the fc's

smee_z · October 2014

Cyrodiil is a wasteland because nobody travels except for scouts who put down the camp for everyone to blood port to.

Agree. Remove forward camps.

Xsorus · October 2014

There are two lines of thought on forward camps

One line is people who see them for how bad they are for gameplay and want them removed

The other is people who think this game is WoW lite, and wants Scenarios...so they have zero problem with instant respawn camps with no death penalty...These are usually the people who whine about having to ride their horse to a keep because ya know...They don't wanna actually play Cyrodiil.

Xsorus · October 2014

Joy_Division wrote: »

rophez_ESO wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

I like FCs and not afraid to admit it.

I like epic sieges and battles. I don't like looking at horses' asses. Just need to eliminate blood-porting: if you get killed by an NPC outside of a keep, then you can't use a FC.

I get what you are saying, but, as currently implemented, 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.

I get what your are saying but
How happy would you be if you were insta-killed by a batswarming-streaking-impulsing enemy and then were stuck riding your horse for 5 minutes? The ratio of actual play time to horse-riding simulator would be highly unfavorable.

I would say half the time I play in Cyrodiil, there are maybe 35 blues, 25 yellows, and 20 reds. How exactly can those dynamic alliance vs alliance things happen that you mention, with such a low population? They can't. There is only enough population for the map for the yellows to support a single siege. The map needs to be shrunk in such scenarios and FCs are the only thing that make playing in these empty campaigns tolerable.

FCs do bring legitimate tactical and strategic options that are also part of the grand Cyrodiil design. Without FCs, attackers do not have to worry about and eliminate defender FCs when assaulting a keep. Also, an FC deep into enemy territory opens up the possibility of a surprise attack or a scroll run. Without FCs, AD would always have to go Roe-Nikel-Ash-Glademist in order to realistically sustain an assault on blue. Predictable and boring.

The 2 most enjoyable experiences I have had in Cyrodiil was a successful yellow scroll capture from Fort Warden and a successful yellow defense of a determined blue attempted to capture Castle Bloodmayne. Both of these was the type of epic grand battles of the sort seen in the trailers, made possible only with the use of FCs.

I think it is theoretically possible that Cyrodiil would be a dynamic and interesting place without FCs, but this could be true only if there actually was 500 players from each alliance in the game. That was the number I saw back at launch, and maybe that was the case at the time. But right now I find it hard to believe there are 500 different blues in a locked campaign since I see the same names over and over again. And on the NA server, there is only 1 locked campaign...the only way to have a reasonably enjoyable experience where you are actually playing in unlocked campaigns is to artificially shrink the map to bring the fights to players and FCs allow this to happen.

I do agree FCs can be abused and there should be limits/restrictions imposed on their use. Death can have penalties besides imposed boredom.

1. Then again..when that batswarming streaking impulsing enemy died...he wouldn't be back 15 seconds later doing the same thing..There is a reason he's doing that in the first place..Because there is no fear of death.
2. Incorrect...You'd still end up fighting at keeps just the same as you do now..Only you'd be far more likely to find something besides the zerging you see now because people would be traveling between points.
3. Incorrect again..You don't need a Forward camp to sneak into the enemy Territory and attack the scroll, You just do that because blood porting is easy..And if anything..Stealing a keep would be even easier without Forward Camps..as the enemy wouldn't be able to blood port back to the keep to defend it
4. And the most enjoyable experiences I had, and a lot of other people had were when Forward Camps weren't that common because they broke..and you actually had something besides giant zerg balls, and people actually ya know..pvped and played cyrodiil how it was meant to be played.

Keron · October 2014

The complete removal of FCs does have a significant impact on attacking. I get that a keep defense without FCs is possible and maybe even a welcome thing - you can respawn at keep for a while.

The issue I have is with attacking a keep together with the size of the terrain and travel distances. If you do not have a possibility for some kind of "resupply of forces", a successful siege will be some kind of rare occurrence, again limited to certain highly coordinated groups with sufficient numbers to be able to compensate the 10% loss.

30 seconds is enough to get a wall back to 100% if you have maybe 10 to 15 people repairing. That is way less than the time required to travel back to the keep you are attacking even considering the nearest possible spawn/TP location.

Strategies for caps would inevitably be "distract defenders at one keep with small force that poses as bigger and attack at target with big force that poses as smaller". Whoever has the population to support this kind of tactics will be offensive, the others limited to defensive.

Pop imbalance will have a much larger influence. And the removal of FCs will propagate more than anything else the "stay seated on yer arse and farm APs from attackers wait to be attacked" thing.

No, I am convinced that some kind of FC is required. Either that or allow (limited) respawns at keep resources. After flipping a resource, and only if it has a different color than associated keep, give it 25 (1 field camp) souls. After they have been used up, no more spawns until the resource has been flipped again.

Something so attackers have a similarly limited possibility to respawn like defenders. And of course, you can only spawn anywhere around an attack if you have died in vincinity of said attack. No more blood porting - not even to nearest keep.

Make the transitus be the most valuable resource you have in Cyrodiil. Make it hurt to lose an outpost. Make the border keeps important for an alternative port route in case arrius/glade/fare gets capped.

Morvul · October 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

There are two lines of thought on forward camps

One line is people who see them for how bad they are for gameplay and want them removed

The other is people who think this game is WoW lite, and wants Scenarios...so they have zero problem with instant respawn camps with no death penalty...These are usually the people who whine about having to ride their horse to a keep because ya know...They don't wanna actually play Cyrodiil.

This pretty much summs it up perfectly

edit: which is not meant to say that the folks wanting no death penalty have an in any way "invalid" opinion, it's just that they, IMHO, want cyrodiil to be something it was not designed to be

edit 2: and while completely removing them would be a huge improvement, severly limiting them: both in terms of respawn cost as well as preventing blood-porting(but keeping them in as a rare tactical option) would probably be even better

Enodoc · October 2014

rophez_ESO wrote: »

FC are ruining the game experience for anyone who doesn't like to endlessly smash two zergs against each other. Two examples:

1- On Chillrend we, EP, finally managed to take a keep on Sunday. We managed to fight off the much larger force of DC as they came to reclaim their keep. Maybe a dozen times? Unfortunately, they have an endless supply of FC. They just keep coming. It's silly. If they had to at least respawn at a nearby keep, we could get a breather to repair, set up ambushes on the road, etc.

2- Nobody travels. If you are fighting a war across the map, you send one scout to plant a FC, then everyone suicide and spawns at the camp. It's lame, and it makes the huge world kind of pointless. Why set up beautiful choke points like bridges when nobody uses them?

They don't need to be removed outright, they just need to address those issues.

If a FC gets used up, another one cannot be placed within the radius for 2 minutes. This would also put a sock in the people who complain at the last guy to use a FC not replacing it; under this system, he can't. It also gives the opposition a bit of time to recuperate.
If a FC gets burned down, another one cannot be placed within the radius for 5 minutes. This gives the opposition more time to recuperate than the above, due to their direct action at burning the camp down.
If a FC is unused for 1 minute, it should degrade. After 2 minutes degradation (from full health), it despawns. Another one cannot be placed for 2 minutes after this. The despawn timer will decrease depending on the FC's health pool; at quarter-full, it'll despawn after 30 seconds. Therefore, the more people it has already rezzed, the faster it will despawn (after the initial 60 seconds of non-use).
An increasing AP cost for repeatedly using a FC is a great idea, as is the 15-20 minute cooldown for this. It could perhaps tick downwards like the cooldown for using a wayshrine.
Suicide/blood-porting would not be possible if you could only rez at a FC if you die within its radius. This has been suggested for months (initially I thought it was a bug), and I think @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ has said he's looking into this now, but that it may be hard to implement.

Keep it up Brian, I know you'll get there eventually

(I'm hoping many of these things are in the pipeline already, as they've been suggested repeatedly, and they may appear with Imperial City /optimism)

Chufu · October 2014

"Please remove forward camps"

Mh....

A good point is: More guys will travel through cyrodiil and there can be more "guerilla" warriors, so there will be more small battles in cyrodiil.

On the other hand is: Time. If you lost some keeps or lumbermills/farms/mines you can't travel to some near places (near the big battle). So you have to travel and ride then to the position if there is no forward camp. Cyrodiil is veeeeery large and after 15 minutes on your horse, you will be tired... or agressive... or maybe your horse will be agressive after a while...

---> In comparison, the "bad point" has more weight. I don't want to travel 15-20 minutes every time, when I died. Do you want that? So I like the forward camps, because they bring more action. That's my point of view.

Cherryblossom · October 2014

Instead of making it so Rank 6+ can buy them, make it so only Rank 6+ can use them.
This would encourage people to rank up and reduce the number of people who can respawn.
Getting rid of them would destroy the fun of Sieges, they would end too quickly.
As mentioned continual horse ridding would get very boring......

JamilaRaj · October 2014

Keron wrote: »

The complete removal of FCs does have a significant impact on attacking. I get that a keep defense without FCs is possible and maybe even a welcome thing - you can respawn at keep for a while.

The issue I have is with attacking a keep together with the size of the terrain and travel distances. If you do not have a possibility for some kind of "resupply of forces", a successful siege will be some kind of rare occurrence, again limited to certain highly coordinated groups with sufficient numbers to be able to compensate the 10% loss.

30 seconds is enough to get a wall back to 100% if you have maybe 10 to 15 people repairing. That is way less than the time required to travel back to the keep you are attacking even considering the nearest possible spawn/TP location.

Removal of FCs would have significant impact on Cyrodiil, both attacking and defending, no doubt. But...
Wall can not be repaired if it is being hit, therefore, for it to be repaired, attackers either have to forget to keep it under attack (which is unrelated to FCs, travel distances etc.) or be completely wiped out, which in turn means they either charged and failed or defenders carried out successful push, but in both cases defenders simlply won through combat and repaired wall is alright.

Jaxsun · October 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

There are two lines of thought on forward camps

One line is people who see them for how bad they are for gameplay and want them removed

The other is people who think this game is WoW lite, and wants Scenarios...so they have zero problem with instant respawn camps with no death penalty...These are usually the people who whine about having to ride their horse to a keep because ya know...They don't wanna actually play Cyrodiil.

There are people that have no problem with camps even troll camps. There will always be a component of subterfuge in the game. If they remove camps all together people will find another way to "ruin" the game for you.

As for the Wowlite comment, I have not played WoW. This is not real life. There is no "death penalty" as you call for. I think the next time you get killed in PVP or PVE you automatically lose your subscription for life. And when you die you have to give ZOS your SS# so that you cannot make another account ever. That's a death penalty.

I agree the camps may not be working as intended but there are other issues that make for bad gameplay: FPS, crashes to desktop, permastun, weapon swapping, class imbalance etc. If all the other bugs and things that are actually broken get fixed then by all means, adjust the respawn system.

Jaxsun · October 2014

Keron wrote: »

Just had a fun idea. Make FCs dirt cheap, remove the white circles completely, let them be put everywhere without any limitation.

Then have respawning at a camp cost 5% of your current balance of alliance points. You have 5million in your pocket? 1 spawn costs you 250k ap. You have 10k? 1 spawn = 500 ap.

You get killed again? Spawn at nearest keep, it's free! Or, pay another hefty tax to get back into the fray again.

I second this motion.

Keron · October 2014

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Removal of FCs would have significant impact on Cyrodiil, both attacking and defending, no doubt. [...] but in both cases defenders simlply won through combat and repaired wall is alright.

If you can't respawn at all as an attacker while defenders have at least a short respawn period until outer is below 50%, how large a quota of sieges do you see succeed?

Push attackers (meatbag/fire-balista spam, impulse train, even sniping from walls) as long as you can respawn and not have any penalty while attackers will fail with "dire" consequences - that will be a very high obstacle for many (if not most) groups to overcome.

Yeh, siege warfare still is possible and even has some justification (getting Emperor being the only I can think of), but will there be enough willing to fail and fail again until it is successful? With all the implied downsides like "riding simulator", little to no AP gains from attacks, even if they are successful, extreme advantage for defenders due to keep walls and NPC aid, etc.

I do not doubt at all that a version of Cyrodiil without FCs is possible. I do not doubt at all that it could be way more fun than what we have now.

I just don't see removal of FCs being feasible with the boundary conditions we have right now. That's all. It's not "simply remove FCs and all will be better".

Now, if you say:

remove FCs
change AP awards for defense and attack (defense gives no AP tick at all anymore but you gain twice the kill AP for killing an attacker and AP rewards for destroying attacking siege weapons, Attacking and capturing an enemy keep gives a huge AP tick but only half AP for killing defenders)
change the timing for sieges (wall HP compared to siege damage, especially in an Emperor group, NPC influence)
change the indicators (have some kind of on screen display and not force people to sit/stand there watching the map to find out what is attacked) for defending

then we could get somewhere.

Gedalya · October 2014

I'm not even sure what to say about this thread; seriously people? First, I've never once thought FC were a problem; and secondly, there are always going to be components or aspects of gameplay people take issue with: and are Forward Camps really that much of a problem? If anything on the campaigns I've played, the biggest complaint has been people refusing to spend their AP on FC when they were needed.

c0rp · October 2014

Remove FCs, increase keep wall HP by 200-300%, remove AoE caps. I just fixed cyrodiil. Can I have Wheelers salary now?

JamilaRaj · October 2014

Keron wrote: »

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Removal of FCs would have significant impact on Cyrodiil, both attacking and defending, no doubt. [...] but in both cases defenders simlply won through combat and repaired wall is alright.

If you can't respawn at all as an attacker while defenders have at least a short respawn period until outer is below 50%, how large a quota of sieges do you see succeed?

38%.
Now seriously, keeps are largely unmanned unless they are attacked, and then it is too late to wipe out attackers with advantage of respawn.
If anything could prove to be an issue, it would be the opposite; keeps falling before defenders show up in any numbers to have impact on outcome.

Roselle · October 2014

No forward camps you say? Damn. I better feed Epona a carrot so I don't miss out on fights...

russb7b14_ESO · October 2014

How about we make forward camp an ability in the Alliance Support tree achieved at rank 6+ with a one hour (or whatever timer) cooldown.

You would make each one more valuable, while reducing troll camps.

MrGhosty · October 2014

@keron, with your thoughts on how FCs influence the battlefield, what if we were to remove FCs and instead make spawning possible in more locations (would need to captured or controlled in some way) this would encourage forces to maintain a strong front line from which to resupply. Then make any keep that has been captured able to be spawned at regardless of transitus connection but place the spawning pedestal in the courtyard of a keep or otherwise exposed position where spawning is possible until the defenders destroy the spawn wayshrine? This would add an additional step to taking of a keep, make reinforcing a keep under attack easier, and would encourage a more prolific control of the map in order to navigate easier rather than everyone fighting in just one place. I don't have the details worked out completely yet, but the goal would be to create more to do in Cyrodiil to spread pops out a bit more evenly, provide incentive to attack and defend supply lines rather than just keep to keep fighting, and remove the need for Forward camps without ruining the the rest of PvP in the process.

Keron · October 2014

@MrGhosty also an interesting idea. Let me think a bit more on it, will come back later.

Xsorus · October 2014

Or..here is an idea...

How about we remove Forward Camps, and make that area in between keeps generally used for something other then looking pretty.

Seriously..some of you need to go play WoW, or any number of MMO's with Scenarios in them with instant respawn in small maps..The fact that you want one of the few Massive Scale PvP MMOs that was specifically made to cater to that audience to reflect how Scenarios in general work is annoying.. If you don't wanna ride your damn horse between keeps, don't bloody PvP in this game..go play one of the many other MMO's that does exactly what you want.

MrGhosty · November 2014

xsorusb14_ESO wrote: »

Or..here is an idea...

How about we remove Forward Camps, and make that area in between keeps generally used for something other then looking pretty.

Seriously..some of you need to go play WoW, or any number of MMO's with Scenarios in them with instant respawn in small maps..The fact that you want one of the few Massive Scale PvP MMOs that was specifically made to cater to that audience to reflect how Scenarios in general work is annoying.. If you don't wanna ride your damn horse between keeps, don't bloody PvP in this game..go play one of the many other MMO's that does exactly what you want.

Are you familiar with Planetside 2 at all? While obvious comparisons cannot be made, one aspect that I have drawn much inspiration from is the massive scale and number of locations that can be captured. I personally love the massive scale of the map and I don't mind traveling long distances, but I would love to have more locations in-between the large fights where smaller skirmishes can kick off and have some impact on the larger war meta as a whole. They have their facilities broken down into several categories with several prime facilities (keeps) connecting mid range facilities (outposts) and then smaller facilities that are interconnected between the other places (what ESO PvP is missing, imo) Every facility or location provides a benefit to the war effort with some remaining more valuable than others. It seems like it would fit in nicely here.

ghengis_dhan · November 2014

Yesterday, we were dealing with a dominion infestation deep in our territory. We pushed them out of our keep, took back our resource, and destroyed their camp.

After patting ourselves on the back for a "job well done", some of us lingered at the keep while we waited for our fearless leader to decide on our next objective. Next thing we know, we hear the sound of siege weapons. We wiped them and started an hour-long search for their camps. Seems as soon as we found and destroyed one, another went up somewhere else.

It was fun, exciting, and some of the most intense fighting I've seen outside keeps. We didn't know where they had their camp or if we burned their last one.

Remove forward camps, and we lose this type of dynamic game play.