Keron wrote: »

I'm still kind of convinced that this is due to being used to this kind of warfare.

*snip*

My only concern is that there will be a huge problem if they wait too long with bringing them back and a major part has adjusted already.

I agree.
A renaissance hasn't occured yet because a renaissance takes time.
There may be a few groups out there that have already adapted, but the majority of players are probably still not aware of the change, or just avoid Cyrodill alltogether due to the lag.

However, I think the huge problem you fear has already occured. Seeing a lot of very positive feedback in only a couple weeks despite the game being unplayable for some. Imagine if there were no technical problems and more people would be enjoying the changes.

It was a great move to remove them, and while usually angry people come on the forums and outnumber happy people playing the game, every single poll I've seen about the issue has been in favor of the removal. I don't think popularity should have any influence on game changes, but if one was to pay attention to that, FCs should remain out of the game.

Reimplementing the Fcs is already a bad move PR wise. It shows mixed signals, that zos is just testing out stuff without knowing what they are doing and ignoring feedback.

The bright side is than Brian's answer isn't that "We're going to reimplement them." but is "we're testing out stuff internally, just in case.".
Hopefully, it will never make it out of the testing phase.

Keron wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The bright side is than Brian's answer isn't that "We're going to reimplement them." but is "we're testing out stuff internally, just in case.".
Hopefully, it will never make it out of the testing phase.

Hold your horses. That sentence was posted in the context of a thread in which the overwhelming majority of posters complained about tent removal.

While he hasn't explicitly confirmed that they come back, the implications of his post in that context must have been taken by the majority of readers to infer "yes we bring them back".

Not taking that route and later saying "Well, I didn't promise anything and testing revealed that it was not possible" or some such will result in the mother of crapslinging and the only reason for them to let that happen is if they abso-effin-lutely don't see any possibility at all to technically implement a version of the tents that even slightly improves the situation we had before.

He said they were "looking" at things and running the changes through their "design and testing rings".

It's pretty clear that it isn't a confirmation, but just letting the community know they are considering all alternatives. it's just a dev being genuine and interacting with us.
Understanding any thing else is just jumping at conclusions.

I agree though that it is very likely that emotionally invested people would understand this as "it's coming back", but that doesn't make it right. The community shouldn't punish his honesty.
If it turns out that camps don't come back, any kind of backlash would be unjustified.

Also, the issue isn't just technical but design too. He said it again in his second comment "tech and gameplay testing".
There are valid reasons why they removed the camps. If they still apply during their testing, then the camps should still be out.

I do think that what they are testing would be an improvement compared to what we had before, but a step backwards compared to what we have now.
Bloodporting would be fixed, but not the constant mindless streaming and lack of logistics management.

Keron wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I do think that what they are testing would be an improvement compared to what we had before, but a step backwards compared to what we have now.
Bloodporting would be fixed, but not the constant mindless streaming and lack of logistics management.

I actually do think that they will also fix this. If they do implement a timer, letting you respawn at a camp every 2-5 minutes, you would get one additional chance to make a difference on the battle field. If you mess up twice, it's either go back to start (ride back from next keep) or wait in prison (wait until timer has run out).

Of course with a 2 minute timer this would not be very efficient as most players are capable of surviving for two minutes anyhow, but if they go towards 5 minutes, it may work out.

Or if they have the timer start after you died (e.g.: you die, first rez at camp is immediately possible, you die again (let's say within 30 minutes), you have to wait 1 minutes as a ghost untill you can respawn at the camp, next time 2 minutes as a ghost, third time 5 minutes as a ghost, etc.) - there are options to make it work in a good way that would resolve many, if not most, issues we had with the old camps.

I doubt the notion of cooldown can work.
2 minutes is meaningless, as you say, most players can survive 2 minutes easily, so it doesn't cut back on the stream.

If the cooldown is a bit longer, but started at the time of respawn, then it creates a barrier of entry.
Most organized groups rarely outright die while solo and newer players tend to die often.
Any form of cooldown is punitive against them ,and advantageous against already better forces.
I doubt the good groups need any mechanical advantages, they already win without it.

Some people saw that and suggested reverse cooldown timers, for instance getting longer as you progress in alliance or VR ranks.
The goal was to make it easy on newer players, but it doesn't solve the issue of solo/unorganised high levels getting punished and would increase the death frequency of newer players even more.
Way to create a farming situation to frustrate players on the receiving end.

If the cooldown is started after death, 2 to 5 minutes is longer than the travel time would be so it makes the camps outright useless.
You can't have a ghost mode as it could be used to "spy", so if you didn't want to walk for any reason, you'd be stuck looking at your dead body for 2 to 5 minutes.

Also, 2 to 5 minutes is an eternity in battle. If you have everyone waiting on their cooldown to respawn, then no one is defending the camp which would get destroyed anyway. So you'd lose the front as if the camps weren't there, and only the first ones to die would get the opportunity to use the camp, again, making the worst die more frequently.

Finally, the cooldown increasing with the amount of times you died means that the very people that need camps would not be able to use them efficiently and would have to hit the roads and hoof it.
Again advantaging experienced players over newer ones and making them the only available targets for ganking.
We could consider it "teaching", but in my opinion, it is more like "punishing".

It is the most sensible option to just not reintroduce camps and let people adapt to a new meta game where everyone is on equal footings.
It is up to the playerbase to learn and organize itself to move over the fields, set up ambushes and just exploit the tools given to them.


EDIT for your edit:
"Some will always be lost if there are changes but the majority will come to accept the changes. What is unacceptable and will drive away more players is a turncoat behaviour. "

And on that, we totally agree.
We need vision and decisiveness on the part of ZOS. Not just a long succession of back and forth. You put it greatly.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I do think that what they are testing would be an improvement compared to what we had before, but a step backwards compared to what we have now.
Bloodporting would be fixed, but not the constant mindless streaming and lack of logistics management.

Again "mindless".

Sorry but why was this "mindless"? As opposed to what intellectual? highly organised ? Napoleonic ?

I just find this sort of generalisation to be over the top. Why is rezzing at a keep any more intellectual than rezzing at an FC? The differences are distance & flexibility only. FC and rezzing machanics have nothing to do with intelligence.

Surely this debate has moved on from the "I'm cleverer than you" cliche's.

What matters for me is the level and intensity of the action and the possibility to move around the map. Not every player is in a highly organised group, in fact at the end of the day it is probably the minority of players who play in this way. Such groups are ofc essential to any pvp arena, but lets not fool ourselves here.

I'm just not buying this faction wide strategy thing that is supposed to be occurring.

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I do think that what they are testing would be an improvement compared to what we had before, but a step backwards compared to what we have now.
Bloodporting would be fixed, but not the constant mindless streaming and lack of logistics management.

Again "mindless".

Sorry but why was this "mindless"? As opposed to what intellectual? highly organised ? Napoleonic ?

edit: sorry for the wall of text, I got caried away by all the answers and wanted to address every point. Thank you in advance for reading.

Mindless not compared to anything, just in the absolute sense of the word, "that does not require thinking".
I'm not saying the players doing it are mindless, I'm saying that they don't have a choice. It's not derogatory or an "I'm cleverer" argument.
In our context, having forward camps doesn't allow you to think. There is no better move than to respawn as close as possible to the action and maintain the front.

While it is technicaly possible to respawn elsewhere and then take an alternate route, or switch front alltogether, frontlines being where the FCs are means that whatever attempt you make at taking a decision, it will always be delayed by at least 2 to 3 minutes compared to the reality of the fight.
Which is a non viable choice compared to being straight back into action and have no delay in knowledge or impact.
It is a far better move to respawn at the camp, and flank from there. Which in essence remains at the tactical level.

If FCs aren't in the game, you'd respawn at a keep.
In that case your action are in the form of a "double blind". You don't know what the enemy will do just as they don't know. it sort of resets the fight and puts everyone at a clean slate tacticaly, but at a different strategical step.
You have more options and routes to pick as the distance is greater, there are more ways to intercept enemies or set up a stand. You also have more time to think and regroup as the enemy won't be knocking down your door in mass until a couple minutes later.

A second advantage of removing camps is to have an opportunity costs for actions at a strategic level.
If you want to attack behind enemy lines, you do it without fallback and you will be out of the main fights on other fronts for a while. Your faction could end up missing you and your efforts could be for naught.
Mistakes matter but they call you back to reality.
With camps, you can attack any keep on the map and maintain a front there regardless of how well you fight or how smart your move was.
You could end up entranched and never get back to your factions fights.

At the same time, disrupting transitus line, if succesful, has a real impact, a payoff that is felt at the faction level. With camps, people can stay in stalemates despite being surounded and being, in theory,without support lines.

FCs just disrupt the entire map design, either through invalidating the transitus mechanic or simply cutting the openfields between keeps down to a teleport.
It also limits the game to the tactical level and strategy takes a back seat.
We might as well have loading screens between each keep because the only time the openfields should be used is when sneaking around to setup a new offensive forward camp. Any fight in between keps is a mistake and just a delay to setup shop close to the next target.

And it isn't the realm of guild leaders or organized groups to have a sense for strategy. Solo players, casuals or just publicly organized groups can also open a map and learn how to read it.
There aren't enough types of objectives for AvA to be complex and just as most people are able to play an RTS, most people should end up understanding how to play AvA without forward camps.
Those who don't care about strategy will still have action and won't see a difference. There will always be predictable spots with constant fighting.
But those that care about it would enjoy the game more. It doesn't have to be a binary situation, both type of players can enjoy the game at the same time.

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.
Many other games offer intense and non stop tactical action, but very few can offer an additional layer of gameplay like true RvR can.

Sure, perhaps it will take months before the playerbase learns how to play, and if we never do, then it is our own fault, but the game should be set up to give the community a chance of showing brillance.
With FCs removed, there is still the possibility for that level of play to exist. To reintroduce them would snuff that candle out.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.

Your linkage of ESO's potential to an increase in alleged strategy resulting from the removal of camps is a completely baseless supposition. Strategy is always trumped by numbers in this game and the removal of camps has greatly reduced the number of concurrent battles on the map. Thus. larger numbers of players coalesce around fewer battles.

Also, strategy has no long term impact on this game. Your bold strategic move in taking that keep means nothing when enemy forces recapture it a few minutes later. Your own self-satisfaction is the only beneficiary of your strategy.

Then there is the undeniable fact that many players do not care one bit about strategy. They log in and want immediate action - preferably action that leads to some sense of victory during their play session. Camps allowed them to join the action at any number of places on the map. Strategy seldom allows players to join the action of their choice whenever they want. Without camps, there is a lot less action for many players and by extension, a lot less greatness of this game.

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Quick update! We currently are running the resurrection only in the FC radius we mentioned a while back through the design and testing rings. We're also looking at adding global cooldowns to the respawning at an FC (meaning if you respawn at an FC you can't personally respawn at another for "X" period of time) and reducing the size of the radius.

Again, this is all getting it's testing done internally and running through various alterations and will continue to do so before it's posted live/PTS.

I don't know what you guys who are glad FCs are gone are reading from this but I seriously doubt the Dev team is being asked to do all this work and testing on something that "may not even go live'. LOL at that!

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I do think that what they are testing would be an improvement compared to what we had before, but a step backwards compared to what we have now.
Bloodporting would be fixed, but not the constant mindless streaming and lack of logistics management.

Again "mindless".

Sorry but why was this "mindless"? As opposed to what intellectual? highly organised ? Napoleonic ?

edit: sorry for the wall of text, I got caried away by all the answers and wanted to address every point. Thank you in advance for reading.

Mindless not compared to anything, just in the absolute sense of the word, "that does not require thinking".
I'm not saying the players doing it are mindless, I'm saying that they don't have a choice. It's not derogatory or an "I'm cleverer" argument.
In our context, having forward camps doesn't allow you to think. There is no better move than to respawn as close as possible to the action and maintain the front.

While it is technicaly possible to respawn elsewhere and then take an alternate route, or switch front alltogether, frontlines being where the FCs are means that whatever attempt you make at taking a decision, it will always be delayed by at least 2 to 3 minutes compared to the reality of the fight.
Which is a non viable choice compared to being straight back into action and have no delay in knowledge or impact.
It is a far better move to respawn at the camp, and flank from there. Which in essence remains at the tactical level.

If FCs aren't in the game, you'd respawn at a keep.
In that case your action are in the form of a "double blind". You don't know what the enemy will do just as they don't know. it sort of resets the fight and puts everyone at a clean slate tacticaly, but at a different strategical step.
You have more options and routes to pick as the distance is greater, there are more ways to intercept enemies or set up a stand. You also have more time to think and regroup as the enemy won't be knocking down your door in mass until a couple minutes later.

A second advantage of removing camps is to have an opportunity costs for actions at a strategic level.
If you want to attack behind enemy lines, you do it without fallback and you will be out of the main fights on other fronts for a while. Your faction could end up missing you and your efforts could be for naught.
Mistakes matter but they call you back to reality.
With camps, you can attack any keep on the map and maintain a front there regardless of how well you fight or how smart your move was.
You could end up entranched and never get back to your factions fights.

At the same time, disrupting transitus line, if succesful, has a real impact, a payoff that is felt at the faction level. With camps, people can stay in stalemates despite being surounded and being, in theory,without support lines.

FCs just disrupt the entire map design, either through invalidating the transitus mechanic or simply cutting the openfields between keeps down to a teleport.
It also limits the game to the tactical level and strategy takes a back seat.
We might as well have loading screens between each keep because the only time the openfields should be used is when sneaking around to setup a new offensive forward camp. Any fight in between keps is a mistake and just a delay to setup shop close to the next target.

And it isn't the realm of guild leaders or organized groups to have a sense for strategy. Solo players, casuals or just publicly organized groups can also open a map and learn how to read it.
There aren't enough types of objectives for AvA to be complex and just as most people are able to play an RTS, most people should end up understanding how to play AvA without forward camps.
Those who don't care about strategy will still have action and won't see a difference. There will always be predictable spots with constant fighting.
But those that care about it would enjoy the game more. It doesn't have to be a binary situation, both type of players can enjoy the game at the same time.

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.
Many other games offer intense and non stop tactical action, but very few can offer an additional layer of gameplay like true RvR can.

Sure, perhaps it will take months before the playerbase learns how to play, and if we never do, then it is our own fault, but the game should be set up to give the community a chance of showing brillance.
With FCs removed, there is still the possibility for that level of play to exist. To reintroduce them would snuff that candle out.

Thanks for replying, and I enjoyed the read. To be honest though I think there is a lot of your own personal wishful thinking in what you write and I'm not sure that people are necessarily going to behave or think like this. People don't stop and rethink when they respawn they just go back to where they died and therefore we have the tidal fights we have now. I saw this in LOTRO for years. Only organised raids can change the dynamic, and there has to be raid participation on both sides.

If it pans out great, but as it stand, in the most general of terms, what you describe is not happening.

Cathexis wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

FCs just disrupt the entire map design, either through invalidating the transitus mechanic or simply cutting the openfields between keeps down to a teleport.
It also limits the game to the tactical level and strategy takes a back seat.
We might as well have loading screens between each keep because the only time the openfields should be used is when sneaking around to setup a new offensive forward camp. Any fight in between keps is a mistake and just a delay to setup shop close to the next target.

...

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.
Many other games offer intense and non stop tactical action, but very few can offer an additional layer of gameplay like true RvR can.

Sure, perhaps it will take months before the playerbase learns how to play, and if we never do, then it is our own fault, but the game should be set up to give the community a chance of showing brillance.
With FCs removed, there is still the possibility for that level of play to exist. To reintroduce them would snuff that candle out.

I agree with the perspective that forward camps limit the tactical strategy with regard to keeps. But I do not agree that fighting between keeps is a delay or a waste of time;

My point is that it does with forward camps. If you play for the winning condition set by the game, then fighting in between is fun, but not the optimal move for victory.

To be efficient, you need to make sure you're the first to set up a camp at the enemy keep and cut their respawns. Everything else is fluff.

Games should strive towards having the best move also be the most fun.
The removal of FCs means that the best move is to control the fields in between keeps, and that is, in many player's opinion, the most fun type of fights.
Keep fights still exist, as the yare the conclusion to the escalation of conflict, but they aren't all there is to do.

Cathexis wrote: »

As I had stated in my previous post, this is why things need to move away from keep warfare. When keeps are the only targets that yield tactical pvp reward, zerging becomes the optimum strategy, and anyone not in a zerg gets consistently steamrolled. From that point forward the combat just becomes lather rinse repeat. If open world tactical targets were created to provide the benefits of forward camps when captured, non-zerg combat would be more dynamic and accommodating to non-zergers, open world combat would be more diverse, and tactical raid strikes on keeps would be more diverse.

I'm all for more targets, but it will not necesarily split up zergs, just give them more stuff to do in between and more variety. But people will always zerg, even on the smallest objectives, unless there is a mechanic like "reward is a flat amount split up amongst attackers".

Also, there shouldn't be anything giving the same advantage than FCs, but other aspects, like improved mount speed, temporary buffs, access to PvE content and so on.

Check out the link in my signature for a more detailed suggestion regarding this point and dro pa comment to improve the discussion.

LonePirate wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.

Your linkage of ESO's potential to an increase in alleged strategy resulting from the removal of camps is a completely baseless supposition.

If you feel it is baseless, then disprove the arguments I gave in my post.
I gave what I feel was a pretty solid case of why forward camps were reducing the strategic prospects of the game, but perhaps I was being to wordy for it to be transparent.

In short:
- Makes over 90% of the world irelevant, only the suroundings of keeps matter.
- Removes or reduces the opportunity cost of attacking behind enemy lines.
- Bypasses the transitus network, makes it redundant and a nonvaluable target.
- Reduces the breadth of valid choices after a respawn.

LonePirate wrote: »

Strategy is always trumped by numbers in this game and the removal of camps has greatly reduced the number of concurrent battles on the map. Thus. larger numbers of players coalesce around fewer battles.

There wasn't more battles before than there is now. It just felt that way because we were bloodporting from one fight to the other as there was no price to pay for fighting on multiple fronts.

Now the game is in a transition phase where players bunch up just as much as they did before but just at one spot on each front. Once players learn that they can have a more efficient way of wining, they'll start hitting more than one target at a time, and larger groups will either have to split or accept that for each victory they secure, they are abandonning one or two other fights.

This is what I called "opportunity cost". Before, we could just all be at the same points and go wherever needed, now we'll be invested at one location and will have to make an effort to organize backup.

LonePirate wrote: »

Also, strategy has no long term impact on this game. Your bold strategic move in taking that keep means nothing when enemy forces recapture it a few minutes later. Your own self-satisfaction is the only beneficiary of your strategy.

This is partly another issue.
There is a lack of rewards for winning as a faction or playing the objective.
The entire reward system of AvA is screwed, so there is more to it than just removing/restoring camps. Campaigns should matter and have a pace, but with the whole "buff server" issue, they are just a name rather than a war.

Aside from that aspect, the game is more defensive without forward camps than it was before. While bloodporting did allow the entire population of a faction to appear to defend a keep, after that initial phase, forward camps work more in favor of attackers than defenders.

Without the camps, it is easier to backup a defense, through the transitus network, than it is to backup an attack. Some tweaking needs to be done on when the network gets cut off, but overall, keeps end up getting flipped less often.

Some people have even mentioned how people just go wipe on each others' walls and create stalemates of mutual wipes.This too is part of the transition period where people don't know how to siege yet and go all out.
As new tactics get created and spread throughout the population, more intense sieges and openfield battles will occur.

Either ways, the removal of camps have improved the permanence of the map.
Which itself rewards actively pursued victories.
But I do agree that it isn't enough, and mroe should be done regarding permanence. Especially if we are to see campaign victory rewards be improved.

LonePirate wrote: »

Then there is the undeniable fact that many players do not care one bit about strategy. They log in and want immediate action - preferably action that leads to some sense of victory during their play session. Camps allowed them to join the action at any number of places on the map. Strategy seldom allows players to join the action of their choice whenever they want. Without camps, there is a lot less action for many players and by extension, a lot less greatness of this game.

If you didn't care about crafting ,would you ask for it to be removed?
or perhaps you dislike PvE, should all the PvE zones be removed too?

As I mentionned in my post, it doesn't have to be binary.
Everyone can be pleased by a well designed system. Even now, when the game is plagued by technical issues (lag) and ballance issues (bows and buff servers), there are locations with constant action.
They can find imediate action there, and of a more varied style.
So no, there isn't less action now than before. It's just different.

Strategy doesn't prevent action, it creates it.
While players that don't care about strategy are creating the main corridors, those that do care are organizing assaults on side positions and flanks, creating new fronts and dynamic situations for everyone to enjoy.

Variety in fighting locations and situations, player driven content and organic openworld PvP is unique to this kind of game.
If you allow a feature that prevents most of it to happen, you're wasting away a selling argument that has no current competitors.

This is what greatness is all about, standing out and being engaging, not being yet another game where death has no consequences and you fight just for the sake of fighting.

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

martinhpb16_ESO wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

I do think that what they are testing would be an improvement compared to what we had before, but a step backwards compared to what we have now.
Bloodporting would be fixed, but not the constant mindless streaming and lack of logistics management.

Again "mindless".

Sorry but why was this "mindless"? As opposed to what intellectual? highly organised ? Napoleonic ?

edit: sorry for the wall of text, I got caried away by all the answers and wanted to address every point. Thank you in advance for reading.

Mindless not compared to anything, just in the absolute sense of the word, "that does not require thinking".
I'm not saying the players doing it are mindless, I'm saying that they don't have a choice. It's not derogatory or an "I'm cleverer" argument.
In our context, having forward camps doesn't allow you to think. There is no better move than to respawn as close as possible to the action and maintain the front.

While it is technicaly possible to respawn elsewhere and then take an alternate route, or switch front alltogether, frontlines being where the FCs are means that whatever attempt you make at taking a decision, it will always be delayed by at least 2 to 3 minutes compared to the reality of the fight.
Which is a non viable choice compared to being straight back into action and have no delay in knowledge or impact.
It is a far better move to respawn at the camp, and flank from there. Which in essence remains at the tactical level.

If FCs aren't in the game, you'd respawn at a keep.
In that case your action are in the form of a "double blind". You don't know what the enemy will do just as they don't know. it sort of resets the fight and puts everyone at a clean slate tacticaly, but at a different strategical step.
You have more options and routes to pick as the distance is greater, there are more ways to intercept enemies or set up a stand. You also have more time to think and regroup as the enemy won't be knocking down your door in mass until a couple minutes later.

A second advantage of removing camps is to have an opportunity costs for actions at a strategic level.
If you want to attack behind enemy lines, you do it without fallback and you will be out of the main fights on other fronts for a while. Your faction could end up missing you and your efforts could be for naught.
Mistakes matter but they call you back to reality.
With camps, you can attack any keep on the map and maintain a front there regardless of how well you fight or how smart your move was.
You could end up entranched and never get back to your factions fights.

At the same time, disrupting transitus line, if succesful, has a real impact, a payoff that is felt at the faction level. With camps, people can stay in stalemates despite being surounded and being, in theory,without support lines.

FCs just disrupt the entire map design, either through invalidating the transitus mechanic or simply cutting the openfields between keeps down to a teleport.
It also limits the game to the tactical level and strategy takes a back seat.
We might as well have loading screens between each keep because the only time the openfields should be used is when sneaking around to setup a new offensive forward camp. Any fight in between keps is a mistake and just a delay to setup shop close to the next target.

And it isn't the realm of guild leaders or organized groups to have a sense for strategy. Solo players, casuals or just publicly organized groups can also open a map and learn how to read it.
There aren't enough types of objectives for AvA to be complex and just as most people are able to play an RTS, most people should end up understanding how to play AvA without forward camps.
Those who don't care about strategy will still have action and won't see a difference. There will always be predictable spots with constant fighting.
But those that care about it would enjoy the game more. It doesn't have to be a binary situation, both type of players can enjoy the game at the same time.

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.
Many other games offer intense and non stop tactical action, but very few can offer an additional layer of gameplay like true RvR can.

Sure, perhaps it will take months before the playerbase learns how to play, and if we never do, then it is our own fault, but the game should be set up to give the community a chance of showing brillance.
With FCs removed, there is still the possibility for that level of play to exist. To reintroduce them would snuff that candle out.

Thanks for replying, and I enjoyed the read. To be honest though I think there is a lot of your own personal wishful thinking in what you write and I'm not sure that people are necessarily going to behave or think like this. People don't stop and rethink when they respawn they just go back to where they died and therefore we have the tidal fights we have now. I saw this in LOTRO for years. Only organised raids can change the dynamic, and there has to be raid participation on both sides.

If it pans out great, but as it stand, in the most general of terms, what you describe is not happening.

Thank you for reading. as you can see, I have a very bad tendency to go in wall of text to address every aspect of a question.
Sometimes to the detriment of my argument. I'm glad some people enjoyed the read.

Maybe I am an optimistic to think that players are mostly smart and that all players eventually end up improving. But I'd rather have a gam that allows it than a game that assumes we're stupid and prevents us from growing.

And I don't expect these changes to occur in a few weeks but over months.
Even games as "simplistic" as fighting games, combos and tactics get discovered years after the release with dozen of competitions having gone pass without noticing some character or move was OP.

We're barely at a couple weeks, the change hasn't even settled in and PvP is plagued by enough technical problems that it gets avoided by a portion of the playerbase. This neeeds time.

And there will always be people that don't know or don't care how to play.
New players,people that don't care for strategy or someone playing solo once in a while just for relaxing. it is good for those people that the repetitive corridors exists, and for everyone else, there is the rest of the world too.

So, a nice solution could be to permit the resurrection just in the Forward camp area range.

LonePirate wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

In the end, where I'm getting at is that with FCs, the strategic level is severely limited and so is ESO's potential for greatness.

Your linkage of ESO's potential to an increase in alleged strategy resulting from the removal of camps is a completely baseless supposition. Strategy is always trumped by numbers in this game and the removal of camps has greatly reduced the number of concurrent battles on the map. Thus. larger numbers of players coalesce around fewer battles.

The thing is that without tents, numbers are all good but once committed, can not be swiftly applied elsewhere, and once wiped out, can not be back in 10 seconds.

LonePirate wrote: »

Also, strategy has no long term impact on this game. Your bold strategic move in taking that keep means nothing when enemy forces recapture it a few minutes later. Your own self-satisfaction is the only beneficiary of your strategy.

Indeed, events such as conquest/fall of a keep could have....not exactly long term impact, but bit more lasting compared to now. Among other things, freshly conquered keeps (except of home keeps (EDIT: when overrun by enemies)) could start at max, not min defense level (of walls, NPCs etc.) and defense levels could be even added or their effects boosted. On the other hand, rate of defense level build up/decay could tick faster.

LonePirate wrote: »

Then there is the undeniable fact that many players do not care one bit about strategy. They log in and want immediate action - preferably action that leads to some sense of victory during their play session. Camps allowed them to join the action at any number of places on the map. Strategy seldom allows players to join the action of their choice whenever they want. Without camps, there is a lot less action for many players and by extension, a lot less greatness of this game.

More greatness in it for the rest of the audience though.

Is this thread still promoting how much more skilled pvp will be when forward camps are returned and people can res a million times?

See how that sentence is not compatible with itself?

Removal of FCs has produced the most entertaining PvP since launch.

As far as the OP is concerned, PvP isn't dying - the game just lost a chunk of players who: (1) ran out on their subscription (2) were already done, just needed a reason, (3) are better suited playing FPS.


The only thing in all these posts that I can agree with is that soul gems need to be changed.