Please do NOT bring back forward camps!

Cathexis · January 2015

I agree with the sentiment about complaints, although I am on the fence about it at the same time. Cyrodiil itself is what makes the game awesome. The huge map is amazing. But in truth, running is boring. Dying is inconvenient. My problem is not so much that players have to do those things, as that that 5 minutes spent in boring running could have been spent in glorious battle where you actually want to be playing. Those types of mechanics, while true to the realism of the game, feel like a waste of my time. 15 minutes of walking for 3 minutes of combat? If I only have 45 minutes to play, that means I only get to do 6 minutes of fighting. That's not fun, that's crap.

Edit; Again not saying do a way with tactical combat, but why is the only option outside of grouping to cap keeps to zerg at the next keep in line fruitlessly or resource cap or keep harassment? Why is cyrodiil not littered with claimable objects between keeps for players to fight over? Make those 5 minutes of running meaningful.

Sidebar; would love to be using soul gems except that my inventory constraints constantly leave me in a position where I have to dump them over and over to narrow what im carrying which is annoying. Seige equipment and soul gems should have dedicated slots independent of inventory.

frozywozy · January 2015

They should make it so capturing an enemy keep would give 10x more AP, and then increase the cost of siege weapons. People would focus alot more on capturing them because it would not be straight killing to farm ap. Capturing a keep would be much more interesting. I know this is a bit going out of context (forward camps). I just wanted to point this out.

miahq · January 2015

The inventory thing, I didn't think of, but the bigger problem I've seen is that few people are willing to stop and help an ally, especially after they waste soul gems just to have no one do the same for them. But, if you're in a group especially, even a small group, one person carrying soul gems is probably best.

The problems with running and having to waste time... honestly although I can understand not liking that, this just isn't a fps. You don't start right in the action, nor do you respawn right back in the thick of it when you die. Nor should it be like that.

I don't exactly love the running either, but when It happens my response is usually, damn it. I screwed up. I got killed. I don't think it's particularly that bad of an outcome actually. In fact, it's a giant improvement over what games used to be. God... You want to talk about brutal. Having to hop on the horse for a bit is actually absurdly tame. They could make your corpse lootable. Or knock off a ton of xp.

Cathexis · January 2015

They could do those things, but they don't because thats *** for players. Im not saying always right back into the action fps style, but there should be a way to attain viable respawn points in large scale combat situations where death at some point is unavoidable and where epic battles need troops to be sustained (the true function of camps).

The idea that players will have to compensate for death penalties with tactics is flawed logic. Players will use the best tactics available to them irrespective of death penalties and survival is always the best strategy. No camps just sucks more when you die.

Looking at it differently, I think I've become a worse player since camps are gone, not because I play poorly, but because I am less willing to fight if there is an increased chance of death. Rewarding that mentality is just rewarding weakness and dulling combat by discouraging it.

miahq · January 2015

Cathexis wrote: »

They could do those things, but they don't because thats *** for players. Im not saying always right back into the action fps style, but there should be a way to attain viable respawn points in large scale combat situations where death at some point is unavoidable and where epic battles need troops to be sustained (the true function of camps).

The idea that players will have to compensate for death penalties with tactics is flawed logic. Players will use the best tactics available to them irrespective of death penalties and survival is always the best strategy. No camps just sucks more when you die.

Looking at it differently, I think I've become a worse player since camps are gone, not because I play poorly, but because I am less willing to fight if there is an increased chance of death. Rewarding that mentality is just rewarding weakness and dulling combat by discouraging it.

But there is a system for that, the soul gems. People just aren't using them, usually because they think it's too much of an effort to get them and/or fill them. That and because people develop this, if no ones going to do it for me I'm not going to do it for them, attitude.

Frankly most of the people I see dying at sieges are the ones running around solo at the wall like they don't know what's going on (not counting resources). What happens when an archer snipes them from the wall? They come on here to complain.

Instead if you get to a keep and there are already plenty of trebs up, don't go to the wall, but set up a catapult. Start targeting the wall to kill their defenders. And once the wall goes down... I know I said this more sarcastically before but, don't be the first one in if you're that concerned about dying. That's what tank builds are for, aren't they? Follow them in and then shoot through them. Or ever off from the group and start clearing the walls. Recognize places people usually lay traps and don't be that first idiot through the door... Because that's the canary. His job is to die. You ever see pinguins push someone off the ice to see if it's safe? Basically the same thing.

Honestly though, is it that you're a worse player now or just that you notice more how often you die where before you didn't think about it?

thelordoffelines · January 2015

miahq wrote: »

Cathexis wrote: »

They could do those things, but they don't because thats *** for players. Im not saying always right back into the action fps style, but there should be a way to attain viable respawn points in large scale combat situations where death at some point is unavoidable and where epic battles need troops to be sustained (the true function of camps).

The idea that players will have to compensate for death penalties with tactics is flawed logic. Players will use the best tactics available to them irrespective of death penalties and survival is always the best strategy. No camps just sucks more when you die.

Looking at it differently, I think I've become a worse player since camps are gone, not because I play poorly, but because I am less willing to fight if there is an increased chance of death. Rewarding that mentality is just rewarding weakness and dulling combat by discouraging it.

But there is a system for that, the soul gems. People just aren't using them, usually because they think it's too much of an effort to get them and/or fill them. That and because people develop this, if no ones going to do it for me I'm not going to do it for them, attitude.

?

we also aren't rezzinf cuz a lot of times they died to snipe spam from several players and there's very little chance of getting of a rez before u too fall to snipe spam.

ferzalrwb17_ESO · January 2015

I can't recall reading any of this thread but this post, and my opinion, is very important.

miahq · January 2015

thelordoffelines wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

Cathexis wrote: »

They could do those things, but they don't because thats *** for players. Im not saying always right back into the action fps style, but there should be a way to attain viable respawn points in large scale combat situations where death at some point is unavoidable and where epic battles need troops to be sustained (the true function of camps).

The idea that players will have to compensate for death penalties with tactics is flawed logic. Players will use the best tactics available to them irrespective of death penalties and survival is always the best strategy. No camps just sucks more when you die.

Looking at it differently, I think I've become a worse player since camps are gone, not because I play poorly, but because I am less willing to fight if there is an increased chance of death. Rewarding that mentality is just rewarding weakness and dulling combat by discouraging it.

But there is a system for that, the soul gems. People just aren't using them, usually because they think it's too much of an effort to get them and/or fill them. That and because people develop this, if no ones going to do it for me I'm not going to do it for them, attitude.

?

we also aren't rezzinf cuz a lot of times they died to snipe spam from several players and there's very little chance of getting of a rez before u too fall to snipe spam.

Snipe has been somewhat nerfed on it's range, though honestly when it comes to those getting snipped from the keep walls I can't say I'm very sympathetic to them in the first place. I'd expect archers to be on keep walls, that's where archers excel.

On the ground, I'm hoping the magic flares that will reveal stealthed characters will help. If people start getting sniped, you just have to start marching, shields up towards the area and everyone throwing flares... At any rate, I realize it's tougher around resources. Though that's likely to be expected. Waiting until things are a bit calmer/secured and then rezzing folks might be an option, but most aren't going to wait for that.

I never said it was a perfect system, just that it's an option people don't use very often. Even discounting archers, there are a ton of times people just ignore allies and don't try to rez anyone. And even with the archers, my criticism is still that the reason people prefer the fc is because it's easy. You could just instantly respawn right back into things, usually because people were throwing up camps as quickly as they were destroyed. That just turns this into a fps though, and that's not what it's supposed to be.

AbraXuSeXile · January 2015

This game has been so much more boring for players especially non-gank melee players. Always so much downtime till you find some actual PvP, Sieges are over within minutes, Everyone's afraid to die so everyone nuttcup's into massive raids then others hook onto these raids and it turns into a complete crap fest.

The most hilarious part of the logic of this 'action packed pvp' is;

Without camps your stood outside keeps constantly avoiding red circles >
It's reliant of the organised raids to actually get inside a keep >
1.6 the organised raids are about to get ripped apart >
More standing outside of keeps with no pushing because no one wants to die >
No fun.

JamilaRaj · January 2015

People are not afraid of dying, it's still way too cheap. If they were, they would try not to die stupidly, yet stupidity is leading cause of death in Cyrodiil. Most simply advance until they clash with similar band of lemmings coming from other direction, and then just vaporize, respawn and continue. No sieging, nor defending, because they would have to wait a couple of seconds for enemies to come into range and it's so much faster and filled with action to charge forward. Plenty of these "sieges over within minutes" are sieges where entire garrison vaporizes before first enemy sets foot into a cap zone. Sieges where keeps are stuffed with snipe spamming monkeys are almost...almost pleasant experience.

Knootewoot · January 2015

i like PvP better without camps. but maybe they can limit it that only group members can spawn on it (or raid members).

miahq · January 2015

AbraXuSeXile wrote: »

This game has been so much more boring for players especially non-gank melee players. Always so much downtime till you find some actual PvP, Sieges are over within minutes, Everyone's afraid to die so everyone nuttcup's into massive raids then others hook onto these raids and it turns into a complete crap fest.

The most hilarious part of the logic of this 'action packed pvp' is;

Without camps your stood outside keeps constantly avoiding red circles >
It's reliant of the organised raids to actually get inside a keep >
1.6 the organised raids are about to get ripped apart >
More standing outside of keeps with no pushing because no one wants to die >
No fun.

Well that's AvA, it's not instant and constantly action packed combat the minute you step out of the gate. The whole point is to work towards taking and holding the keeps for your alliance, to use strategy and organization to topple them. You can go out and solo, but yes. If you die it's not instant action right from the moment you drop. Either bring soul gems or get over it. Dying is what happens in games, and it will happen far more often if you aren't any good at it.

What you want is a fps, which this is not. You spawn ready to go, and even if you die you're reborn right in the thick of the action. That's a fps. If that's what you want, you're playing the wrong game. But luckily there's a solution, it's called playing a different game. And I think you'll find that far more rewarding than just complaining how everything is an inconvenience.

Artis · January 2015

miahq wrote: »

]

What you want is a fps, which this is not. You spawn ready to go, and even if you die you're reborn right in the thick of the action. That's a fps. If that's what you want, you're playing the wrong game. But luckily there's a solution, it's called playing a different game. And I think you'll find that far more rewarding than just complaining how everything is an inconvenience.

Is WOW - a fps?

miahq · January 2015

Artemis wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

]

What you want is a fps, which this is not. You spawn ready to go, and even if you die you're reborn right in the thick of the action. That's a fps. If that's what you want, you're playing the wrong game. But luckily there's a solution, it's called playing a different game. And I think you'll find that far more rewarding than just complaining how everything is an inconvenience.

Is WOW - a fps?

WOW at this point... has no point. You can even level up instantly from the very beginning. It's hardly an rpg of any kind at this point anymore. and yes, I'd say it's a lot closer to the fps model than anything.

Of course you've overlooked probably the more important point, which is that this isn't WOW. If you want that, go play WOW. This isn't WOW. And thank god for that...

reagen_lionel · January 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

reagen_lionel wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

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 .

I understand that everyone has his opinion. But your opinion here is that you prefer to not give any true signification or importance to your death because you can respawn right back 40feets behind the battle. That is your opinion.

The fact remains that allowing people to respawn 40feets away from the battle rally everyone in the same hot zone after a 20-30mins fight instead of letting them ride from the closest keep, thereby, reducing latency in the hot zone and forcing people to be more careful and tactician before blindly charging in. It also strongly encourages people to find a group and not play by themselves because riding alone is exactly what gankers are looking for, thus, making you rage even more about horse simulator.

But what i had seen is just more ad/ep/dc blobbing up even more because they mostly are scared to die (no forward camp) and this cause more zergballing . Correct me if i'm wrong .

A significant reason I just stay out of cyrodil altogether for pvp now. When the few times I do go, its no longer anything to do with pvp anymore. Its just unenjoyable than it was before (even with the exploits that were going on before). And small scale pvp is just not a reliable thing that happens realistically and no real incentive.

Its mostly always been zerg or get out. Just much more so now, I chose to get out. I usually play pvp quite considerably in every mmo I play. This is the first one I just moved away from altogether.

Most likely in every mmo you played before, they didn't have pvp released in the first 6months of the game. I remember how amazed I was when I first jumped in Cyrodiil. I could not believe they could come with such a beauty at release.

If large scale pvp is not your thing (zerging as you all call it), then you probably should have waited until they release new pvp content such as battlegrounds or arena.

Most the mmos I playedwell had pvp at release.

Im not looking for arenas or battle grounds. Im looking for something like smaller skirmishes or actually coming across people more often actually out in the world.

That just doesnt happen here as the devs made it seem like it would, cause there isnt really incentive to do so. Daily quest areas arent visited very often (besides the ones you get from the main base) because the experience they give is not worth jack. And skyshard gathering isnt really something done on a frequent basis, and not many even bother with the delves there.

besides ambushing lag behinds in the large moving packs. theres no real reliable natural occuring skirmishes and small scale battles that occur in the overworld.

Right now it just feels like the only way to do any sort of garranteed pvp is in the big large scaled zerg battles, in a massive overworld. In an open world pvp area, I expect more variety of naturally occuring battles. But the keep warefare is the only thing that promotes any sort reliably.

miahq · January 2015

reagen_lionel wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

reagen_lionel wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Xiphyla wrote: »

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 .

I understand that everyone has his opinion. But your opinion here is that you prefer to not give any true signification or importance to your death because you can respawn right back 40feets behind the battle. That is your opinion.

The fact remains that allowing people to respawn 40feets away from the battle rally everyone in the same hot zone after a 20-30mins fight instead of letting them ride from the closest keep, thereby, reducing latency in the hot zone and forcing people to be more careful and tactician before blindly charging in. It also strongly encourages people to find a group and not play by themselves because riding alone is exactly what gankers are looking for, thus, making you rage even more about horse simulator.

But what i had seen is just more ad/ep/dc blobbing up even more because they mostly are scared to die (no forward camp) and this cause more zergballing . Correct me if i'm wrong .

A significant reason I just stay out of cyrodil altogether for pvp now. When the few times I do go, its no longer anything to do with pvp anymore. Its just unenjoyable than it was before (even with the exploits that were going on before). And small scale pvp is just not a reliable thing that happens realistically and no real incentive.

Its mostly always been zerg or get out. Just much more so now, I chose to get out. I usually play pvp quite considerably in every mmo I play. This is the first one I just moved away from altogether.

Most likely in every mmo you played before, they didn't have pvp released in the first 6months of the game. I remember how amazed I was when I first jumped in Cyrodiil. I could not believe they could come with such a beauty at release.

If large scale pvp is not your thing (zerging as you all call it), then you probably should have waited until they release new pvp content such as battlegrounds or arena.

Most the mmos I playedwell had pvp at release.

Im not looking for arenas or battle grounds. Im looking for something like smaller skirmishes or actually coming across people more often actually out in the world.

That just doesnt happen here as the devs made it seem like it would, cause there isnt really incentive to do so. Daily quest areas arent visited very often (besides the ones you get from the main base) because the experience they give is not worth jack. And skyshard gathering isnt really something done on a frequent basis, and not many even bother with the delves there.

besides ambushing lag behinds in the large moving packs. theres no real reliable natural occuring skirmishes and small scale battles that occur in the overworld.

Right now it just feels like the only way to do any sort of garranteed pvp is in the big large scaled zerg battles, in a massive overworld. In an open world pvp area, I expect more variety of naturally occuring battles. But the keep warefare is the only thing that promotes any sort reliably.

You and everyone will largely get what you're looking for with the imperial city, it's basically a much smaller board with 4-5 controllable zones where people fight it out. If you die, you can respawn in a zone controlled by your faction, which means little to know running.

It's the fps of everyone's dreams, basically. And bonus, maybe it will mean fewer people on here complaining about how they don't like the AvA concept, because they're basically splitting us up.

Jaxsun · January 2015

eliisra wrote: »

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.

THIS!!

Jaxsun · January 2015

frozywozy wrote: »

They should make it so capturing an enemy keep would give 10x more AP, and then increase the cost of siege weapons. People would focus alot more on capturing them because it would not be straight killing to farm ap. Capturing a keep would be much more interesting. I know this is a bit going out of context (forward camps). I just wanted to point this out.

I like this idea.

pvpaddict42 · January 2015

Sanct16 wrote: »

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.

If you get one shotted on your horse, it would have happened off your horse as well. If you refer to being knocked off your horse, then killed before you can get up, well I guess you should probably look into investing into stamina for your horse instead of all in speed, funny how that mechanic is in the game. That aside however, the importance is for the same reason as having a large map, time. Cutting off reinforcements has always had a long standing historic value. It's less about ganking, and more about creating the feel of actual map strategy game play.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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.

It's less about imbalance, and more about the mechanic is broken. It trivializes the other aspects of the game design. Why not simply create a box and throw all the people in it if that's the game play you want? It's not strategy or tactics, it's a giant never ending free for all. Essentially you're saying you don't want world pvp, you want a WoW style battleground, which is fine if that's your persuasion but I believe Cyrodil was aiming more for "world style" pvp.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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

You can still push enemies, there is simply the element of risk that you can't safely spawn with impunity. You have to rely on allies reviving you if you fall, or play smarter when you make your move instead of simply charging without looking back. As I mentioned in the previous point, you want a battleground, not world pvp.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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?

The guards were put there for a reason. The designers could have simply built all the structures and left them empty for players to man. They didn't however so that the npcs could help supplement a lack of defenders and give them the time to hopefully receive enough support to mount some sort of credible fight before the location changed hands. You might not like that aspect of the game, but it seems pretty obvious it was designed to be this way.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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.

As I mentioned here, I have no problem with people being able to create a hotspot anywhere on the map and the strategies/tactics that go with it. There is simply little to no risk involved. It takes more skill and planning to move fifty people through enemy territory without being spotted than it does for one or two. Also holding territory is supposed to mean something. Notice those transit lines that connect the keeps you hold? That is to represent that holding those territories allows friendly reinforcements to get to or near those locations faster. When you move into enemy territory, especially deep into it, you should not have the ability to reinforce equally quickly or faster than the side already holding it. Creating that dynamic simply trivializes the design of the map in the first place.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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.

There is a dynamic to keep fighting, and it's apparent you don't like it, some people do. If you simply want to brawl evenly with other players, there is way more open space to push each other around than there are keeps on the map, go fight there.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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.

This is indeed a personal opinion, probably why I didn't put a number in front of it. Good catch.

Sanct16 wrote: »

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

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.

I don't know your personal experiences in Cyrodil, but I have seen far more use of strategy and tactics since the removal of the FCs than when they were in. Perhaps all you see are single blob zergs running around but ask yourself truly, are you simply running with said zerg or actually trying to get some others to do something differently?

Having the FCs in the game "trained" players to a certain behavior (not necessarily a good behavior) and now that they are gone, they are still adjusting. It takes time to relearn a new system and realize the possibilities. A number of "pvp leaders" have no actual tactical ability or experience and are also used to the old system. It will take time for them to learn as well.

It's been my experience that FCs tend to congregate most if not all players to one spot quickly and for prolonged periods of time. Now you may still have zergs, but you also have people doing that riding you hate so much, and possibly having to fight along the way (those reinforcement ambushes you can't stand) which spreads out the players a bit. This is a good thing, it helps reduce the latency in an overcrowded area.

As far as your example of strategy, why couldn't you have a small group manning 20 sieges at Glademist, while the large group sieged Aleswell if that was your actual target? Why the need to suicide (got to love how it takes what should be a penalty and instead turns it into a preferred means of transport) when you could simply move the people there? The only reason I can see is simply misdirection so you don't have to fight the larger/equal force of defenders at the desired target keep (kind of goes against that whole statement you made of wanting to fight the players). You don't need a forward camp to create a distraction and hit another target, you simply rely on it as a safety net.

miahq · January 2015

That's also a terrible strategy, as it still involves first attacking both keeps, letting people know where reinforcements should go. And that's what that entire strategy depends on, people not going to reinforce both keeps.

The only thing it shows is the absurdly stupid linear thinking people show in situations like this. If two keeps are under attack, they'll always go to the closest one.

Well, that and apparently dying doesn't come with enough negatives because people just don't care about it. You know it has usually been that in games, dying was bad. How that's turned around to being a good thing, I don't know.

Regardless, the capital city update will give people the mindless, WoW style pvp they've been complaining about. It seems entirely designed to placate them, actually. ESO: still not completely a WoW clone.

yodased · January 2015

I didn't pvp before the removal of forward camps so I can't speak to having them readily available, but I can tell you this:

When there is a camp put up my tactics are COMPLETELY different. I usually am foolhardy and charge into well defended areas like I'm superman, but holy moly if there is a camp there it's just all caution to the wind I'm going warewolf in the keep baby.

It's not a conscience choice neither, as soon as I see instant rez near where I am getting melted my mindset changes.

This can't just be me, so if there were ALWAYS camps available man I can imagine the chaos that caused.

I don't know if this actually added anything to the conversation, so I'm sorry if I wasted the short amount of time you used reading this, but at least there is an outside perception of the situation.

Plus, whoever is reading this is super attractive. Yes, you, you are pretty.

pvpaddict42 · January 2015

miahq wrote: »

That's also a terrible strategy, as it still involves first attacking both keeps, letting people know where reinforcements should go. And that's what that entire strategy depends on, people not going to reinforce both keeps.

The only thing it shows is the absurdly stupid linear thinking people show in situations like this. If two keeps are under attack, they'll always go to the closest one.

Well, that and apparently dying doesn't come with enough negatives because people just don't care about it. You know it has usually been that in games, dying was bad. How that's turned around to being a good thing, I don't know.

Regardless, the capital city update will give people the mindless, WoW style pvp they've been complaining about. It seems entirely designed to placate them, actually. ESO: still not completely a WoW clone.

Well I wasn't endorsing it as the best strategy, only illustrating that it didn't need a FC to make it happen. Definitely death is trivialized much more when FCs are running around and it's tied into most of the problems I outlined.

Yes, I imagine the imperial city will be more battleground style, which I hope makes some people happy. I am not against people being happy, I'm just pointing out that with the current Cyrodil map and design, FCs hinder, not help it.

miahq · January 2015

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

miahq wrote: »

That's also a terrible strategy, as it still involves first attacking both keeps, letting people know where reinforcements should go. And that's what that entire strategy depends on, people not going to reinforce both keeps.

The only thing it shows is the absurdly stupid linear thinking people show in situations like this. If two keeps are under attack, they'll always go to the closest one.

Well, that and apparently dying doesn't come with enough negatives because people just don't care about it. You know it has usually been that in games, dying was bad. How that's turned around to being a good thing, I don't know.

Regardless, the capital city update will give people the mindless, WoW style pvp they've been complaining about. It seems entirely designed to placate them, actually. ESO: still not completely a WoW clone.

Well I wasn't endorsing it as the best strategy, only illustrating that it didn't need a FC to make it happen. Definitely death is trivialized much more when FCs are running around and it's tied into most of the problems I outlined.

Yes, I imagine the imperial city will be more battleground style, which I hope makes some people happy. I am not against people being happy, I'm just pointing out that with the current Cyrodil map and design, FCs hinder, not help it.

Oh, I know you weren't endorsing it. To me it just highlighted how much of a lack of strategy or thinking goes in to AvA for many right now. But, I think we're in agreement about the fc. Just give them other bonuses if they want-- and make them more expensive/not able to be placed in the stupidest of places-- but why do they have to be teleports? Have them cut down rez casting time within their radius if they want something like that.

Imperial city... If it bothers me it's because it seems zos is out to please everyone, not just in that but in everything you do. And that's going to get rediculous at some point. That and their solution to most problems has been to just hit it with the nerf bat. As a result, some of the more interesting or unique skills have been nerfed or even completely replaced with more bland versions, and weapon damage has suffered while armor and resistance are going up. We're going from a game where 1-3 hits could kill someone easy, to a game where it could take 10-20. Without potions, mind you.

2-3 hits to me = elder scrolls
10-20 hits = every other generic MMO

which, I was promised this wasn't. In fact that was the biggest selling point for a lot of elder scrolls fans. So why turn it in to one now just because people want it to be a replacement for WoW? Do they really think they're going to keep all the elder scrolls fans if they just slowly turn it into another MMO after launch?

Cody · January 2015

The_Bommel wrote: »

They should add FCs as an active skill (Alliance War Skill tree) which needs one person channeling it the whole time the FC is supposed to be working.
It should use a certain amount of magicka per Second so it cannot be kept up indefinately.
This way there is no need to set name tags to FCs or make them collapse after a while.
Give it the old restrictions and a huuge cooldown.

Now groups would need to dedicate a player to be able to have a FC.

€: The player using that FC skill should be awarded AP for every unique player spawning at his FC. And of course it would have to have a limited rez radius.

so how would us stamina builders use Fcs?

Cody · January 2015

camps are coming back soon, no need to pitch a fit.

pvpaddict42 · January 2015

If they really need to bring Forward Camps back, how about make it so that the next X many alliance members can be revived by an ally 30% faster, or makes it so it doesn't cost a soul gem. None of this self revive stuff or teleporting around the map.

miahq · January 2015

pvpaddict42 wrote: »

If they really need to bring Forward Camps back, how about make it so that the next X many alliance members can be revived by an ally 30% faster, or makes it so it doesn't cost a soul gem. None of this self revive stuff or teleporting around the map.

This. You could easily make it part of the existing mechanics, instead of an entirely new one. Besides, it seems most of the people who've complained about map size and running around are going to get what they wanted from the imperial city. So why ruin it for those who like the way it is to appease those who don't, when you're already giving the people who complain they don't like AvA their own space to begin with?

OrangeTheCat · January 2015

I do think AvAvA is far better off without camps but I also agree that death is too cheap - people still "blood port" or "suicide spawn". Just the other day I hop on my horse after exiting a keep and some blue player de-stealths to my one o'clock and starts jumping around wanting me to kill him. I dismount, wave at him (lol, he waved back), I got back on my horse and left. Last I saw he headed towards a NPC patrol to die (so had to pay a small repair bill for that). I don't think adding armor damage/repair is a good idea in AvAvA to counter this. But I do think a temporary debuff might be enough to discourage suicide spawning.

miahq · January 2015

They need to do something to discourage it. Death should be something you don't want to happen. Bizarrely, they're simultaneously making it harder to kill people with 2-3 hits while at the same time removing what few downsides there are to dying (mostly the fact you've to travel back to a keep). It comes down to a battle between people who like the AvAvA system and wanted to see it improved/better emphasized over mindless AP farming in an elder scrolls style play system, and people who just want a WoW clone. Unfortunately those who want the WoW clone are winning, as many of the changes or new content additions seems specifically tailored to placating their constant forum whining.

OrangeTheCat · January 2015

ZOS does seem to placate whiners. I think they do this to try and keep what little's left of the player base. I say "what little's left" because I know a lot of people leave. Recently, the very good NA AD AvA guild I was in disbanded because the leader and its officers all quit the game citing bugs never getting fixed and the lag as reasons (both in reference to AvA). Seems to me ZOS could hold on to players better by fixing their sh** in a timely manner rather than catering to the WoW crowd. But that's just my opinion.