The old camps, no camps or guild camps?

Lhorion · November 2014

Hey,

i am really happy that there is not longer this huge camp problem! Keep fights became more tactical, the way from keep to keep seems to be more dangerous.
But there Arme still some camps (and this is not bad at all!!). What will happen when these last camps are running out? Is this solution a little bit overdone? Or is it just one phase in the way to guild camps (Zenimax was talking about that months ago)?

I like the time without camps more than the time with them, bit I would prefer guild camps or group camps (or a cooldown on general camps, but i don't think they will come back)!

Regards,
Lorion

Keron · November 2014

Well, they are coming back, and changed quite some. Take a look at this post and this post from @ZOS_BrianWheeler.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · November 2014

The best is to not reintroduce camps.
Just being able to teleport at any location of your chosing is a sin against strategy and against what AvA should be to differentiate itself from its competition in other games.
ESO needs a unique selling proposition.
In PvE it has fairly good immersion and loads of content for such a young game, but in PvP it has nothing unique. Being the only true RvR with strategic movement and logistics lines can be that "plus" it has to retain a strong core following.

And no longer how long the cooldown is, or how small the radius is , or how limited to group/guild it is, it will always create unorganic frontlines at spots that shouldn't be held.

Not to mention that those limitation would still not please those that want the old camps back, and they won't please the population that want the camps out of the game.

In short, it's a silly compromsie taht pleases no one and just creates more problems than it solves.

Lhorion · November 2014

Great! This meins that the old camps wont come back! Cooldowns or/and other changes might be a solution.

But I wonder if this is the dead of guild camps or group camps or if the still are planned.

Lhorion · November 2014

A silly compromise?

At the there are no camps and the zerg is crying.
Before there were camps and small groups were crying because they brought the whole fraction to a location everytime they placed a camp for their own.

Group/Guild camps:

The zerg would have a chance to use a camp, but not everone in the fraction can use is - so the way from keep to keep is not empty.

Groups would have the chance to place a camp for their own behind the frontline.

These are just two different playstyles - sure! But it seems to be a good compromise for both.
But sure... There are few player that don't want any camps, but they cannot decide what for other player would be a good compromise.

Sanct16 · November 2014

I would be fine with the changed camps and it would be much better than no camps.

Keron · November 2014

Lhorion wrote: »

But I wonder of this is the dead of guild camps or group camps or if the still are planned.

That is a valid concern. On the other hand, will those still be required with the new camps? The main reason for guild camps was - if I understood the whole discussion correctly - on one hand the prevention of "use-up-and-don't-replace" by the "randooms" and on the other hand to limit the troll camping issue.

Both these points will be addressed by the envisioned change, at least to a certain degree. Blood porting will not be possible, and together with the respawn cooldown the camps should see a lot less use. With the smaller radius, it will be nigh on impossible to troll camp a keep in a way that will significantly extend defenders and/or attackers travel times.

So maybe the changed camps would be enough that we don't need the group/guild camps.

Lhorion · November 2014

It was better than before, but an additional chance to place a camp without bringing many other people to that location would be fine for many player. And this aspect was surely annother reason for thoughts about guild camps.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · November 2014

This is an RvR game, if you incorporate a feature, it should always be for the betterment of the faction and increase the "esprit de corps".

With guild/group only camp, you introduce a mechanic that encourages elitism and gregarious behavior. It also leaves behind solo player, forcing them to join a group or not have access to a feature. They should only receive organic pressure, like the knowledge of better organisation and healing, but not be locked out of anything mechanic.

Guild/group only camps always were a bad idea, and should never see the light of day

I initially was of the opinion that camps should just be nerfed to a radius only respawn, but then we saw the game without camps and it was apparent it is a much better solution.

It makes ESO a better product, it has a defining feature: strategic PvP.
Something no other similar game I have knowledge of has.

It also makes it a better game. It incorporate linear skill tests and raises the skill ceiling of group play. Rather than just having to be able to place a camp to replace the previous one, you have to know how to stick together, survive and when to push and fall back.
It also introduce a notion of troup commitment and opportunity costs. If you over extend your faction on one objective, you can't defend the rest instantly. (arguably, it is fixed by the radius solution too)

Finally, it encourages fighting in the open field and use terrain features rather than always staying around keeps. It creates a world to fight in rather than a succession of sieges.

Lhorion · November 2014

Two things...

"Guild/group only camps always were a bad idea, and should never see the light of day"
This is your opinion and you are welcome to have it. I try to think about a solution that does not listen to one single opinion. Hoc de primo.

Furthermore some of your thoughts have to be rethought in my opinion.
You are talking about soloplayer and what they are interested in. Well... I am a soloplayer and I disagree. I would welcome camps that cannot be used by everyone. It would open some nice strategies.
ESO is not made for camps and smallscale? That is not true. The imperial city, Zenimax' statement about guild camps months (!) ago, many balance patches and even the justice system are things that are interesting for player like me (that hates zerg). So it is not really smart talking about what ESO is or has to be like you.

AlnilamE · November 2014

What I would like to be able to do (if the camps come back) is to be able to pack them up after use just like you can do with a siege weapon.

A couple of times I went out questing in my home campaign (which is entirely taken by a different faction), and when we were fishing near enemy gates, we decided to put a FC in a hidden location (far enough from any keeps to not disturb any PvP action, as unlikely as it was to occur at that end of the map), just in case we got ganked by enemy players and had to take almost half an hour to ride back to the other end of the map.

When we were done, there was no way of taking our camp down and we had to wait for it to deteriorate, which was a bummer.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · November 2014

@Lhorion‌
You missunderstand my position. I'm not saying what I'd like best but what would be best for the game on a design standpoint.

I'm personally a casual solo player, what would suit me best would be the old school FCs to get the most action for my limited time and skill.
However, I was leading multiple platoons in similar games and understand how player population behave.

You shoudl not try to listen to opinions nor polls or popularity, but see what is rationally the most suited solution. There is a lot of literature on game design, behavioralism and decision theory online to study a proposed change.

Having guild/group only FCs is encouraging negative interactions between players supposed to be on the same side. And as I said, it is placing a barrier of entry for a advantageous feature of the game. (respawns)
It means that solo players are second class citizen.
If there were FCs, they have to be universal so that every selfish action a group does helps out the less organized player to get in the fight.

And ESO has a niche it needs to fill, but up until now, it didn't even appeal to the players of that subgroup of players. RvR is a very specific genre, which got popular thanks to DAOC, the admited inspiration for AvA.
Some of the core goals to reach are getting "realm pride", which doesn't exist yet, and strategy/logistics. (which don't exist with camps)

If ESO tries to appeal to fast action paced, it has to compete with nearly every other game out there. But by being halfway an RvR, it has annoyance that others don't and it is a sub-par experience.
If it tries to go fully towards RvR action, where faction organize themselves with leader councils and shared operations, then it has only a handful of competitor, and none as polished.

ESO has always been pushing immersion. It needs to be a memorable experience in all things. having more meaningful PvP is also part of that.

Lhorion · November 2014

Well... you forget the part that ESO not seems to be like you wish/think.
All the things i called (imperial city, guild camps Zenimax was talking long before they removed the old camps for example) are in the game now or will come soon. ESO is not just a RvR system, there are some parts from different pvp systems planned, too. And I think Zenimax will combine different systems what makes ESO unique again. With the Imperial City and maybe some kind of Arend or BG later there will be annother kind of pvp beside RvR. So you cannot ague with "ESO is just RvR"-arguments

elausche_ESO · November 2014

I would love to be able to buy a 5 res guild only camp for 1/4 the price. It would be awesome for those times I am running with 1-2 other players and someone gets killed and then corpse camped.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · November 2014

Except that the Imperial City is part of RvR.
It's more or less the same concept than Darkness falls.
It is the carrot at the end of the line. It's here to motivate all kind of players to join in the RvR, just like the PvE buffs for owning keeps.

So yeah, what you mentionned is actually part of RvR, just various tools, both PvP and PvE.

Lhorion · November 2014

When a kind of arena (that will come) will be integrated in Cyrodil we have a mix of different types of pvp. And player in ESO are very different about their wishes.... Zenimax knew this when they were talking about guild camps. Thew knew this when they were talking about an arena. It seems to be no typical RvR game (not in all aspects).

TRIP233 · November 2014

I'm for Guild Camps, where the guild master and the officers can place a camp down. That will keep the population of camps down and controlled where a troll can't place them. That would also prevent everyone in the alliance from using the camp, only guild members can.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · November 2014

Doesn't matter what players in ESO think they want.
Eso was advertised as an RvR game, and that's what it is supposed to deliver. If some players came in the game with any other type of expectations, then it is their problem.
The core audience should not be alienated to please players that aren't involved enough to pay attention to what they are purchasing.

You're not addressing a single point of my answers. You're just repeating that some players wish differently, but that isn't a valid argument.
What matter is that the features are sound and inteligently put together.
A great majority of player desire what would ruin the game for them, and it is a consistent aspect of online games.
We just have to follow reason rather than popularity.

On arenas, I'm not against it.
Even though it was said many times that arenas wouldn't be implemented in the game, they could be a positive buff to AvA by being part of the imperial city.
A PvP reward to AvA, just like the PvE content introduced with the imperial city.
It would still be part of the same global experience and an extention of AvA, not an alternative.
Any implementation not linked to AvA in a concrete way would be destructive.

Lhorion · November 2014

I have to repeat me. I was not just talking about wishes. I was talking about the goal Zenimax has with ESO. And this goal is not just a RvR game. I think you did not the word "just". All in all it is RvR, but not typical. There were many things said, Zenimax changed their way to handle this game in some cases. So I am not sure about things that should not come (btw - noone said that arena wont come, it was not planned yet and if i remember right some day there were a statement that an arena will come, but i am not sure about that).
The Imperial City is not typical for RvR (well... not in my definition of RvR). It is related to other typef of pvp. And if they bring an arena in this city some day it is totally mixed.
The justice system is coming - annother "new" pvp system and all this is relevant when we are talking about balance, skills, combat system etc.
What is about the dark anchors and the solodungeons/skyshards? Here is PvE mixed with RvR. All in all ESO is (including things that will come) RvR with parts from other pvp systems.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · November 2014

I see your point, and in a way, you're right. This is an evolution of rvr, not just a copy paste.

However, the same principles apply.
For instance, mixing open world PvP and PvE is part of the recipe.
Read on about darkness falls in daoc and see how similar it is to the imperial city.

The justice system is serving the same goal than AvA and the PvE: Immersion.
It's all about meaningful choices.

That's why we have AvA rather than the mainstream battlegrounds, because it is a deeper experience than arena like PvP.

The FCs were distracting from the experience by hiding the world and its potential behind teleports and respawns.
Not only that, but it also reduced the depth of the game. It killed in the egg many of the roles players could fill and that we are now seeing return.

And finaly, and I can't stress this point enough, if ESO goes full on meaningful PvP, then it wil have no direct competitors.
Gw2 is too arcade and almost a complete fail immersion wise, planetside 2 is an fps and has an even worst problem of "redeploy.

RvR is a unique selling proposition, one that was put forward a LOT during development and has been on the backburner since launch.
With the removal of FCs and the addition of the Imperial City, the game will be one step closer to greatness.

Suru · November 2014

I could be really wrong but from what I remember they are testing radius and X amount of time to rez. Which could be interesting concepts. Reviving within a radius of a camp only. No more suiciding at rayles and teleporting to fargyl. Faster degredation of camps in empty keeps and maybe 10 to 15 minutes before you can revive at a camp. Which would make deaths still meaningful and allow players to be a bit more ballsy instead of the passive gamestlye there is now.