Please do NOT bring back forward camps!

NordJitsu · December 2014

I think if would be cool if there were mark/recall spells like Morrowind (but balanced for an mmo like gw2 portals.)

belugian · December 2014

As long as the camps don't give trains a complete hegemony over map, i am ok with it. that's my only real reproach to it.
Also, they should be either harder to get ( like they could be campaign rewards, which would make guesting more useful ) or more expensive, etc

JamilaRaj · December 2014

belugian wrote: »

Also, they should be either harder to get ( like they could be campaign rewards, which would make guesting more useful ) or more expensive, etc

The problem here is that precisely people spamming camps and indulging in idiotical yet AP rich battles would find them relatively affordable.

NerZhulen89 · December 2014

My opinion is that the game is completely fine without camps.
People should simply ress manualy. Camps were (and still are) used ONLY for abuse. Like spawning inside keep which is under siege.

heng14rwb17_ESO · December 2014

We need FC.
In the past, there is no low pop bonus issue when there is FC.

Galalin · December 2014

Just my opinion but i have to say the removal of FC's has added to the dynamics of PvP tremendously. Making gank builds viable, an actual use for horses, countless new strats in cutting off reinforcements as well as siege and defense strategies. Requiring more coordination as a faction.

I think the drawback with thier removal is that ppl were used to them and then bam they were gone. I'm seeing more and more ppl starting to agree with the removal as they learn to adapt to new strats. Given more time i think we will see most ppl rather not have them.

No matter what they do they will not please everyone so i doubt we will ever see and end to this debate

RinaldoGandolphi · December 2014

I would be ok with FC coming back as long as their limited to like 7-10 folks using it and they are random mail rewards so they can't be spammed.

Getting one would be up to a roll of the RNG I think that's a fair balance.

Draxys · December 2014

Really hoping they come back, with some changes to balance them out so they aren't instant rez devices. Gameplay is extremely linear without them and it makes PvP boring many times.

RedTalon · December 2014

They will be back just fixed and only useable in a certian range, so we will have to learn to deal with that. Means ganks just move a bit more off from keeps and so on and everything adjusts properly. No big deal and suck it up ladies and other genders

Galalin · December 2014

Draxys wrote: »

Really hoping they come back, with some changes to balance them out so they aren't instant rez devices. Gameplay is extremely linear without them and it makes PvP boring many times.

I see it as making it more dynamic and explained my reasons in a previous post... not trolling just curious to see how for you it feels extremely linear. Maybe I'm missing something your seeing

Draxys · December 2014

Galalin wrote: »

Draxys wrote: »

Really hoping they come back, with some changes to balance them out so they aren't instant rez devices. Gameplay is extremely linear without them and it makes PvP boring many times.

I see it as making it more dynamic and explained my reasons in a previous post... not trolling just curious to see how for you it feels extremely linear. Maybe I'm missing something your seeing

I mean that the action on the map is fairly limited to where it occurs. Typically, at any given time, big amounts of action (that the game was designed for and marketed around) can only be found in a couple places. And these only occur in certain places on the map based on who owns what. It's basically just a big perpetual game of tug-of-war. The reasons for that are partially the current zergy state of the game as well not having a decent option to create action on another area of the map.

Gankimus · December 2014

Winnamine wrote: »

Goldie wrote: »

How will limiting the radius do anything about "troll camping"? This aspect will still be a HUGE problem.

Will it not?

So.. because sometimes a troll camp would keep us from getting a camp where we need it, you'd rather have NO camps, so we'll NEVER have a camp where we need it?
I'm not following your logic here...

Yes. This one thinks it is better for PvP in general to develop tactics that are not dependent on camps. Troll camps are annoying enough (to this one and many others) that NO camps are preferable. This one NEVER wants a camp where the enemy needs it and this one feels the sacrifice of his own camps is a price worth paying.

Of course it is true that this one does get tired and saddle sore more often than before...

JamilaRaj · December 2014

Draxys wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

Draxys wrote: »

Really hoping they come back, with some changes to balance them out so they aren't instant rez devices. Gameplay is extremely linear without them and it makes PvP boring many times.

I see it as making it more dynamic and explained my reasons in a previous post... not trolling just curious to see how for you it feels extremely linear. Maybe I'm missing something your seeing

I mean that the action on the map is fairly limited to where it occurs. Typically, at any given time, big amounts of action (that the game was designed for and marketed around) can only be found in a couple places. And these only occur in certain places on the map based on who owns what. It's basically just a big perpetual game of tug-of-war. The reasons for that are partially the current zergy state of the game as well not having a decent option to create action on another area of the map.

You know, big amounts of action can not be on more than couple of places because amount of players is finite, therefore if there were amounts of action on more places, they would have to be small amounts.
Besides I do not see what would make zergy mess somehow more fun if it shifted from one spot on map to another. As it actually did shift with the tents and I can't say there was any difference. One clicked on a tent, kept killing same people over and over, then finally died, clicked on another tent at another spot and...kept killing same people over and over in same fashinon as at previous spot.
At the very least, now if I kill someone, the sucker is gone and I do not have to suffer another sight of him sometimes even couple of minutes.

dermottib14_ESO · December 2014

Quite simply, i will quit the game if they come back. Ill give it a shot when they are reworked, but i don't see how they can do it.

I don't enjoy zergfests and thats all they promoted.

Columba · December 2014

The game is so much better without FCs. Once you kill an enemy they stay dead. It also makes rezzing players meaningful.

dermottib14_ESO · December 2014

Columba wrote: »

The game is so much better without FCs. Once you kill an enemy they stay dead. It also makes rezzing players meaningful.

I cannot agree more. This game is much better without them.

Emencie · December 2014

JamilaRaj wrote: »

Draxys wrote: »

Galalin wrote: »

Draxys wrote: »

Really hoping they come back, with some changes to balance them out so they aren't instant rez devices. Gameplay is extremely linear without them and it makes PvP boring many times.

I see it as making it more dynamic and explained my reasons in a previous post... not trolling just curious to see how for you it feels extremely linear. Maybe I'm missing something your seeing

I mean that the action on the map is fairly limited to where it occurs. Typically, at any given time, big amounts of action (that the game was designed for and marketed around) can only be found in a couple places. And these only occur in certain places on the map based on who owns what. It's basically just a big perpetual game of tug-of-war. The reasons for that are partially the current zergy state of the game as well not having a decent option to create action on another area of the map.

You know, big amounts of action can not be on more than couple of places because amount of players is finite, therefore if there were amounts of action on more places, they would have to be small amounts.
Besides I do not see what would make zergy mess somehow more fun if it shifted from one spot on map to another. As it actually did shift with the tents and I can't say there was any difference. One clicked on a tent, kept killing same people over and over, then finally died, clicked on another tent at another spot and...kept killing same people over and over in same fashinon as at previous spot.
At the very least, now if I kill someone, the sucker is gone and I do not have to suffer another sight of him sometimes even couple of minutes.

I ran into this last night so I understand a little. I was introducing a new player to PvP and in the process was explaining the fighting. I found myself saying,

"Now EP Will push X we will stop them at Y and then we will push X. We will most likely take X back, they have a hard time keeping it but when we push to Z they will push us back. If enough of us die they will take X"

And the fights unfolding exactly as I said, not because I'm some brilliant tactician, but because the fights have been unfolding like that for awhile now.

FCs allowed action in more places in the war because a stealth team could put one anywhere, so every location was a potential battlefield instantly.

Now you see far less diversionary tactics (and even fewer that actually work) not to mention hours upon hours of endless tug of war over very few keeps or outposts. For me the big loss is that sieging a castle or defending actually felt like it. I felt like there was an army of hundreds at the gates and we must weather the storm and push them back. Now it's an army of 20 at the gates and we must call our zerg to wipe them.

Of course we all know what FC did wrong, and no one is arguing that I think, But without them the battlefield does feel less dynamic and a lot more linear to me.

pvpaddict42 · December 2014

Forward camps ruin world pvp, and let's face it, that is exactly what Cyrodil is attempting to fabricate, the world pvp experience. FCs minimalize the impact of dying in pvp, and that is BAD. Death should have meaning, and it should punish those that act foolishly. Forward camps reward and support bad player performance. People that play smart and work together can do quite well without a camp as a crutch.

Let's look at what FCs actually bring with them.

1) Removes necessity of keeping reinforcement transit lines open/protected. This is a classic real world strategy situation and is incredibly important but with FCs in play is effectively pointless. This also removes to a large extent bandit style ambush attacks against reinforcements. That's right, it REMOVES PVP GAME PLAY. I realize plenty of folks don't like getting ambushed, but it's an important part of world style pvp.

2) Allows one person to create an instant zerg. This is just a bad mechanic. It reminds me back in the days when I played D&D of the demons/devils that could gate in other demon/devils and the sometime abused scenario of one demon summoning in three demons that in turn each summoned three demons and so on, so that in a few rounds you went from fighting one to thirty. Players did not like it and felt it was a broken mechanic and this is pretty much what FCs are like.

3) Promotes mindless horde play since as long as a camp is up there is no downside to kamikaze attacking through sheer numbers. When you have to be revived by an ally or run back this makes people actually stop and play more cautiously...more like if you were actually putting your life on the line. There are old players and bold players, but very few old bold players.

4) Guards are only decoration. The NPC guards become more important when there is no easy revive from a FC. When there is a huge disparity in numbers NPCs matter less, but in fights were its perhaps only 2 or 3 to 1 players have be a little more cautious about dealing with these, thus slowing them down and giving overwhelmed defenders more of a chance. Even if the invading team doesn't wipe, losing a few people while dealing with defenders/guards can change the dynamic of a fight when reinforcements have to run back or wait for an ally revive.

5) Lines of battle become moot. Someone posted earlier in the thread that they liked any spot on the map being able to become a hotspot. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that one person can essentially create an army far behind enemy lines and they really don't risk anything. When you are so far removed from your supplies and reinforcements, surprise should be your only real advantage. If your surprise gambit doesn't work then honestly it should fail. However, FCs turn what should have been a blitzkrieg into simply another zerg battle.

6) Bursting a keep doesn't matter. This mechanic was intended to prevent defenders from simply spawning over and over again and force them to play more conservatively or pay the price. With FCs in play however, it doesn't really matter much if a keep is bursted or not other than to alert the entire map that someone is attacking.

Forward camps simply aren't necessary. There is a mechanic that can prevent a side from completely wiping, it's called reviving your fallen allies. It should have a cost and it should take time, and it should have some element of risk. Dying in pvp needs to matter, and when FCs were in the game, it honestly didn't. Leave the FCs out, it promote more tactics, more strategies, and reward players that actually think instead of simply charging mindlessly.

Jaxsun · December 2014

Goldie wrote: »

How will limiting the radius do anything about "troll camping"? This aspect will still be a HUGE problem.

Will it not?

I didn't have a problem with "troll camps"...subterfuge is a part of warfare

JamilaRaj · December 2014

Emencie wrote: »

FCs allowed action in more places in the war because a stealth team could put one anywhere, so every location was a potential battlefield instantly.
Now you see far less diversionary tactics (and even fewer that actually work)...

There is as much, or rather, as little of, diversionary tactics as there always been. FCs only gave impression of some cunning tactical maneuvering going on, while in fact such maneuvers were rendered pointless by the very same feature that enabled them and 90% people just clicked on a tent to jump where they thought action was.
And that latter part answers why we have current ping pong, pew pew, whatever you call it (and I agree it's dull and something should be done, but that is for another thread). These people used to clicking on tents to get their dose of instant action won't start doing something clever just because tents are gone, they'll instead ride in general direction of next enemy keep or crossed swords. Yet another people are bit too clever and save effort for nightcapping or ninjacapping otherwise dead campaigns.

heng14rwb17_ESO · December 2014

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

Forward camps ruin world pvp, and let's face it, that is exactly what Cyrodil is attempting to fabricate, the world pvp experience. FCs minimalize the impact of dying in pvp, and that is BAD. Death should have meaning, and it should punish those that act foolishly. Forward camps reward and support bad player performance. People that play smart and work together can do quite well without a camp as a crutch.

Let's look at what FCs actually bring with them.

1) Removes necessity of keeping reinforcement transit lines open/protected. This is a classic real world strategy situation and is incredibly important but with FCs in play is effectively pointless. This also removes to a large extent bandit style ambush attacks against reinforcements. That's right, it REMOVES PVP GAME PLAY. I realize plenty of folks don't like getting ambushed, but it's an important part of world style pvp.

2) Allows one person to create an instant zerg. This is just a bad mechanic. It reminds me back in the days when I played D&D of the demons/devils that could gate in other demon/devils and the sometime abused scenario of one demon summoning in three demons that in turn each summoned three demons and so on, so that in a few rounds you went from fighting one to thirty. Players did not like it and felt it was a broken mechanic and this is pretty much what FCs are like.

3) Promotes mindless horde play since as long as a camp is up there is no downside to kamikaze attacking through sheer numbers. When you have to be revived by an ally or run back this makes people actually stop and play more cautiously...more like if you were actually putting your life on the line. There are old players and bold players, but very few old bold players.

4) Guards are only decoration. The NPC guards become more important when there is no easy revive from a FC. When there is a huge disparity in numbers NPCs matter less, but in fights were its perhaps only 2 or 3 to 1 players have be a little more cautious about dealing with these, thus slowing them down and giving overwhelmed defenders more of a chance. Even if the invading team doesn't wipe, losing a few people while dealing with defenders/guards can change the dynamic of a fight when reinforcements have to run back or wait for an ally revive.

5) Lines of battle become moot. Someone posted earlier in the thread that they liked any spot on the map being able to become a hotspot. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that one person can essentially create an army far behind enemy lines and they really don't risk anything. When you are so far removed from your supplies and reinforcements, surprise should be your only real advantage. If your surprise gambit doesn't work then honestly it should fail. However, FCs turn what should have been a blitzkrieg into simply another zerg battle.

6) Bursting a keep doesn't matter. This mechanic was intended to prevent defenders from simply spawning over and over again and force them to play more conservatively or pay the price. With FCs in play however, it doesn't really matter much if a keep is bursted or not other than to alert the entire map that someone is attacking.

Forward camps simply aren't necessary. There is a mechanic that can prevent a side from completely wiping, it's called reviving your fallen allies. It should have a cost and it should take time, and it should have some element of risk. Dying in pvp needs to matter, and when FCs were in the game, it honestly didn't. Leave the FCs out, it promote more tactics, more strategies, and reward players that actually think instead of simply charging mindlessly.

Wow so much goodness.
U mean all this is happening in NA thornblade right now ?
U don't happen to be EP, do u?

Sanct16 · December 2014

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

1) Removes necessity of keeping reinforcement transit lines open/protected. This is a classic real world strategy situation and is incredibly important but with FCs in play is effectively pointless. This also removes to a large extent bandit style ambush attacks against reinforcements. That's right, it REMOVES PVP GAME PLAY. I realize plenty of folks don't like getting ambushed, but it's an important part of world style pvp.

How is it important to be onehitted on your horse? I understand that it is pleasuring for some players ego to kill someone who can't even fight back but I disagree on the need of having this in a game. Moreover it was possible to gank people before the FC removal aswell.

2) Allows one person to create an instant zerg. This is just a bad mechanic. It reminds me back in the days when I played D&D of the demons/devils that could gate in other demon/devils and the sometime abused scenario of one demon summoning in three demons that in turn each summoned three demons and so on, so that in a few rounds you went from fighting one to thirty. Players did not like it and felt it was a broken mechanic and this is pretty much what FCs are like.

As both sides have this option there is no inbalance in this. It just makes the game faster and saves you from the boredom of riding 10 minutes to a certain keep.

3) Promotes mindless horde play since as long as a camp is up there is no downside to kamikaze attacking through sheer numbers. When you have to be revived by an ally or run back this makes people actually stop and play more cautiously...more like if you were actually putting your life on the line. There are old players and bold players, but very few old bold players.

Ever since the removal most of the time, the game is just mindless zerging around Alessia bridge.

Actually it used to be the other way around, the outnumbered side could push the enemies even after the outer wall was at 50%. You could hold the breach and the courtyard, trying to hold them back. Now you just retreat to the inner and hope to instakill them with meatbags + oils in the breach as this is the only way to really defend an outnumbered keep. I enjoyed the old system more.
Fighting > Sieging

4) Guards are only decoration. The NPC guards become more important when there is no easy revive from a FC. When there is a huge disparity in numbers NPCs matter less, but in fights were its perhaps only 2 or 3 to 1 players have be a little more cautious about dealing with these, thus slowing them down and giving overwhelmed defenders more of a chance. Even if the invading team doesn't wipe, losing a few people while dealing with defenders/guards can change the dynamic of a fight when reinforcements have to run back or wait for an ally revive.

True. Finally its less fighting against players respawning from camps but more fighting against NPCs. This is a good change, as we all came to Cyrodiil for its awesome PvE aspect, didn't we?

5) Lines of battle become moot. Someone posted earlier in the thread that they liked any spot on the map being able to become a hotspot. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that one person can essentially create an army far behind enemy lines and they really don't risk anything. When you are so far removed from your supplies and reinforcements, surprise should be your only real advantage. If your surprise gambit doesn't work then honestly it should fail. However, FCs turn what should have been a blitzkrieg into simply another zerg battle.

One could argue that this opened more strategic possibilities. Your next move was not as easy to predict as its now.

6) Bursting a keep doesn't matter. This mechanic was intended to prevent defenders from simply spawning over and over again and force them to play more conservatively or pay the price. With FCs in play however, it doesn't really matter much if a keep is bursted or not other than to alert the entire map that someone is attacking.

Less fighting other players, more playing things safe in the inner keep. Sounds fun.

Forward camps simply aren't necessary. There is a mechanic that can prevent a side from completely wiping, it's called reviving your fallen allies. It should have a cost and it should take time, and it should have some element of risk. Dying in pvp needs to matter, and when FCs were in the game, it honestly didn't.

This is your personal opinion which I disagree with but everyone his own.

Leave the FCs out, it promote more tactics, more strategies, and reward players that actually think instead of simply charging mindlessly.

Which tactics/strategies do you see being used more often now than it used to be? The only thing that really changed is that people take the outposts to cut the supply line. But this is just pretty much the standard protocoll to retake homekeeps in the inner ring. Before you go to Alessia, you take Sejanus. Hardly a tactic worth mentioning.

IMO the only real tactic happening in Cyrodiil right now is to zerg down the closest keep. Every now and then, we see homekeeps being taken without anyone able to get there in time and hold back the 50man train inside the keep but we had that too back in the times of FCs.
After all, I feel that there are FAR less strategies now than before.

For example, a well working strategy used to be sieging Glademist for example, bring up 20 sieges there while a small group sieged Aleswell inner/outer down. When they were ready, they dropped a camp and the group from Glademist suicided and moved to Aleswell.
We could discuss if this should be possible BUT it was a strategy.

Columba · December 2014

don't solo on your horse, lol. then you won't be easily ganked.

Jaxsun · December 2014

Columba wrote: »

The game is so much better without FCs. Once you kill an enemy they stay dead. It also makes rezzing players meaningful.

Uh, they don't stay dead, soul gems or riding back after respawn at closest keep....

frozywozy · December 2014

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

Forward camps ruin world pvp, and let's face it, that is exactly what Cyrodil is attempting to fabricate, the world pvp experience. FCs minimalize the impact of dying in pvp, and that is BAD. Death should have meaning, and it should punish those that act foolishly. Forward camps reward and support bad player performance. People that play smart and work together can do quite well without a camp as a crutch.

Let's look at what FCs actually bring with them.

1) Removes necessity of keeping reinforcement transit lines open/protected. This is a classic real world strategy situation and is incredibly important but with FCs in play is effectively pointless. This also removes to a large extent bandit style ambush attacks against reinforcements. That's right, it REMOVES PVP GAME PLAY. I realize plenty of folks don't like getting ambushed, but it's an important part of world style pvp.

2) Allows one person to create an instant zerg. This is just a bad mechanic. It reminds me back in the days when I played D&D of the demons/devils that could gate in other demon/devils and the sometime abused scenario of one demon summoning in three demons that in turn each summoned three demons and so on, so that in a few rounds you went from fighting one to thirty. Players did not like it and felt it was a broken mechanic and this is pretty much what FCs are like.

3) Promotes mindless horde play since as long as a camp is up there is no downside to kamikaze attacking through sheer numbers. When you have to be revived by an ally or run back this makes people actually stop and play more cautiously...more like if you were actually putting your life on the line. There are old players and bold players, but very few old bold players.

4) Guards are only decoration. The NPC guards become more important when there is no easy revive from a FC. When there is a huge disparity in numbers NPCs matter less, but in fights were its perhaps only 2 or 3 to 1 players have be a little more cautious about dealing with these, thus slowing them down and giving overwhelmed defenders more of a chance. Even if the invading team doesn't wipe, losing a few people while dealing with defenders/guards can change the dynamic of a fight when reinforcements have to run back or wait for an ally revive.

5) Lines of battle become moot. Someone posted earlier in the thread that they liked any spot on the map being able to become a hotspot. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that one person can essentially create an army far behind enemy lines and they really don't risk anything. When you are so far removed from your supplies and reinforcements, surprise should be your only real advantage. If your surprise gambit doesn't work then honestly it should fail. However, FCs turn what should have been a blitzkrieg into simply another zerg battle.

6) Bursting a keep doesn't matter. This mechanic was intended to prevent defenders from simply spawning over and over again and force them to play more conservatively or pay the price. With FCs in play however, it doesn't really matter much if a keep is bursted or not other than to alert the entire map that someone is attacking.

Forward camps simply aren't necessary. There is a mechanic that can prevent a side from completely wiping, it's called reviving your fallen allies. It should have a cost and it should take time, and it should have some element of risk. Dying in pvp needs to matter, and when FCs were in the game, it honestly didn't. Leave the FCs out, it promote more tactics, more strategies, and reward players that actually think instead of simply charging mindlessly.

Well said! It is exactly what I think.

And if devs really want to bring camps back, here is my suggestion :

- Design specific areas around every keep including their respective ressources (one instance per faction).
- Design a camp/wayshrine/portal you could buy from a siege vendor which can only be deployed using 10 players channeling it for a certain amount of time (one person cast it and the others use the synergy to build it).
- The duration of that camp should not exceed 20 minutes and should allow 20 players to spawn on it.
- Add a timer of 1 hour in each area to build a camp/wayshrine/portal.
- Add a tooltip including the name of the person who deployed the camp/wayshrine/portal.

Artis · December 2014

Columba wrote: »

don't solo on your horse, lol. then you won't be easily ganked.

But don't forget to play as you want and have fun. Just don't play as you want.
Also, enjoy that unrealism when keep are easier to attack than to defend. If you are outnumbered - you are screwed. You just sit there and wait till they finally break the walls and kill you one by one.

Xiphyla · December 2014

To be honest without the foward camp , there's more zergballing compared to last time since most of the people are more afraid of dying. With or without forward camp , you still going to get zergs. Only differences is that with forward camp , you spread the fights more on any other areas of cyrodil.

frozywozy · December 2014

Xiphyla wrote: »

To be honest without the foward camp , there's more zergballing compared to last time since most of the people are more afraid of dying. With or without forward camp , you still going to get zergs. Only differences is that with forward camp , you spread the fights more on any other areas of cyrodil.

I disagree. With forward camps, you allow people to regroup faster in one location, especially during a long keep assault. People drop 10-15-20camps and after a 30mins of battles, the whole population of 2 factions is concentrated in the same area lagging the server like crazy because they don't have to spawn back far inside another keep, thereby, reducing the latency in the hot zone.

eliisra · December 2014

Columba wrote: »

don't solo on your horse, lol. then you won't be easily ganked.

No worries, I cant mount up in the first place.

ZoS not fixing the stuck in-combat bug before removing camps...it's baffling.

Than people in my faction keeps raging and wondering about lack of healers. Well, it's not only due to the fact that it's incredibly boring and frustrating with smart heals, but we're also feed up running on foot between 2-3 keeps all day long.

Xiphyla · December 2014

frozywozy wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

To be honest without the foward camp , there's more zergballing compared to last time since most of the people are more afraid of dying. With or without forward camp , you still going to get zergs. Only differences is that with forward camp , you spread the fights more on any other areas of cyrodil.

I disagree. With forward camps, you allow people to regroup faster in one location, especially during a long keep assault. People drop 10-15-20camps and after a 30mins of battles, the whole population of 2 factions is concentrated in the same area lagging the server like crazy because they don't have to spawn back far inside another keep, thereby, reducing the latency in the hot zone.

Without the fc , people are already zerging more in 1 concentrated area most of the time anyway. It still going to lag out the server no matter what. What i mean is at least forward camp will bring more fights spread out (not in one concentrated area) in a good way. It benefit the opposition that is defending the keep as well. Maybe if zenimax setup the forwardcamp range = respawn within range only , then it might work out decent. Everyone got thier opinion , i'm just stating mine

.