mike.gaziotisb16_ESO wrote: »

Keron wrote: »

<snip>

I don't think it's as dramatic as you make it. We are all only speculating at this stage, interesting patterns might emerge. Also remember players will be able to use our camps as much as we are, these are not "guild camps" strictly.

That said, big guilds with large stockpiles will be (to an extent) able to dictate what happens in cyrodiil a lot more. I don't expect altruistic individuals to be dropping camps past the first 2 weeks or even have any left at all. So if a keep is under heavy siege, either a large guild decides to defend it by dropping 1-2 camps and turning up in large numbers or it decides it's not important and leaves it to its fate.

So I predict that non-grouped players or PUGs will have far less influence in Cyro than large guilds. Hardly the ego boost the large guilds and their GMs needed if I'm honest, but hey.

Ironically, like you, I wouldn't mind if they removed these camps from my inventory, though that 2m AP lost might sting a little

Thanks for replying in a constructive way. In principle, I agree with your point of view - it may or may not be as bad as I think it will be. The main thing is that while I reserve judgment until I tried it, I do think this change is a good one. And together with a lot of small things, like fixes or at least improvements to unbreakable CC, better stamina management, werewolf being an attractive feat for stamina builds, mostly well conceived changes to stamina skills, I am really happy with this patch.

The only thing I did not like was the different treatment between EU and NA. Why spring such a major change on one side completely out of the blue (that HAD to have a purpose, most probably to prevent this kind of stockpiling) and then give EU a days worth of warning. The right thing to do (if technically possible) would have been a hotfix on EU to remove tents from the vendors.

You also mentioned the fact that "unguilded" players can use the forward camps dropped from those stockpiles. I kind of disagree with that, because due to the value of the camps, they are going to be used much more efficiently in the sense that a tent is dropped when and if the group/guild itself benefits. It's going to be announced on voice and people are ready to press immediately, using the majority of spawns or even all at once.

Those that did not expect the camp are probably not quick enough to benefit from them before it gets used up. Camps went from a convenience to an utmost important tactical tool, especially for scroll runs or emperor keep takes/defence.

It may cost some more "overhead" in the trains, what with scout(s) at probable targets for attacks and tent dropper(s) staying back out of the fight, all in all forcing the trains to play much more tactical (which is a major improvement over mindless bombing, in my opinion), but they still will have the selfsame advantage they had before, in my opinion even stronger.

I also agree with another poster's opinion that they are going to be used in critical stages of campaign duration. Alas, I don't necessarily believe that will always be the end of a campaign, more like the right time to build a lead on the board. I can see them being used at the very beginning of a campaign, possibly to establish a large footprint and then reduce the faction tactics to defence more than offence.

Imagine one of the campaigns with a significant population imbalance and a very strong faction. What happens if this faction uses their stockpile at the very beginning of the campaign, securing emperor and a scroll or two or even four. They are then in a position where they have the high ground (defence IS going to be easier than offence), they have the buffs and they have the population advantage.

It may become quite boring for the other two factions and even if they ally against the big one, it will be a damn difficult fight to remove the big one from it's position before it has established a lead that more or less secures victory. And with these considerations in mind, I can see the doomsayers (which I am not, no matter how some posters see me) for once having a point: Interest in those campaigns will reduce.

Maybe this whole change was made because they needed to remove the code for the forward camps as they were implemented in order to put in a new, improved version. Or they are planning other solutions that will bring a source mechanism into the game that will not be this "infinite". Who knows?

Time will tell whether this ad hoc change was good. I think it was. I am just... "astonished" (to use a mellowed expression) that they did it in a way that hit EU this hard.