Would you support the reintroduction of forward camps?

Teargrants · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Reintroduced, but you can only place them in slaughter fish. Only the worthy will survive spawning.

ThyIronFist · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Vizier wrote: »

Hell no.

FC's were the worst thing to ever happen to PvP other than the lighting upgrades introduced by ZoS about 1.3.

Zergs committing mass suicide only to respawn where teams had 50/50 keeps.

Troll camps

pretty much nobody traveling through Cryodiil. Just people WTF blood-porting to FC everywhere...IMO. Stupid mechanic and totally defeats the purpose of having a large territory for PvP.

NO

Yes and if you would pay any sort of attention to the forums you'd see that there were plenty of discussions and ideas on how to get rid of blood porting. Did you even read through this thread?

And traveling through Cyrodiil is so much fun right? The game is basically horse simulater 2015 and it's very boring and tedious.

Daveheart · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Find some way to lock them to a guild and put a timer on the rez (similar to the amount of time it take to rez up from your own soul gem in PvE).

Joy_Division · July 2015

ThyIronFist wrote: »

They need to come back, but revamped. Example: if you die to NPCs you cannot respawn at a FC to prevent bloodporting. Or make it so that if you die within the radius of the FC you can respawn, die outside of it, you can't respawn.

I have no idea why ZOS suddenly removed FCs as there were plenty of discussions going on about FCs and how to improve them. The game has become too zergy with the removal of FCs. With FCs there was a potential to bring PvP all across the map, it made keep defenses much more challenging and fun... and oh those glorious 30k defense ticks. Now you're lucky if you get a 2k tick.

Want to take a scroll and run it across the map? You could place camps along the way and taadaa, open world PvP with both large and small scale encounters. Stuff like this barely happens anymore and it makes me sad that the game has turned into a zergfest.

As of anno 2015, with the introduction of 1.6 and removal of FCs, small scale is all but dead and zerging reigns supreme. Either zerg or roll a NB and gank.

As one of the people who supported forward camps, I can assure you I was very much in the minority in advocating that they should stay. But many many others, most of whom will conveniently forget the hypotheses they advocated that did not come true, insisted on their outright removal from the game.

Ghostbane · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Joy_Division wrote: »

As one of the people who supported forward camps, I can assure you I was very much in the minority in advocating that they should stay. But many many others, most of whom will conveniently forget the hypotheses they advocated that did not come true, insisted on their outright removal from the game.

Vizier · July 2015

ThyIronFist wrote: »

Vizier wrote: »

Hell no.

FC's were the worst thing to ever happen to PvP other than the lighting upgrades introduced by ZoS about 1.3.

Zergs committing mass suicide only to respawn where teams had 50/50 keeps.

Troll camps

pretty much nobody traveling through Cryodiil. Just people WTF blood-porting to FC everywhere...IMO. Stupid mechanic and totally defeats the purpose of having a large territory for PvP.

NO

Yes and if you would pay any sort of attention to the forums you'd see that there were plenty of discussions and ideas on how to get rid of blood porting. Did you even read through this thread?

And traveling through Cyrodiil is so much fun right? The game is basically horse simulater 2015 and it's very boring and tedious.

I did. ZoS commented on this before they removed FCs. They had looked into making changes but the actual implementation of restricting respawns at this camp over that camp depending on where players died was problematic. Apparently it put too much of a strain on the system and was too much of a hassle to recode.

Horse simulator? honestly takes almost no time to get from keep to keep, especially on a horse. I like that there is a need for players to actually navigate the terrain. It gives death more meaning. It makes it so those that are better organized and maintain the keeps immediate to the rear of their front have an edge on the attrition factor. Attrition and mitigating should be a factor in the overall strategy. FC's utterly negate that merely to appease this overwhelming need to get in the action "right now."

Look. You want instant action. Play a first person shooter. FC's are crap for PvP in Cyrodiil. Maybe Imperial City will be able to fulfill your need for instant action.

Draxys · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Vis wrote: »

Draxys wrote: »

Mr_Bubbely wrote: »

ThyIronFist wrote: »

They need to come back, but revamped. Example: if you die to NPCs you cannot respawn at a FC to prevent bloodporting. Or make it so that if you die within the radius of the FC you can respawn, die outside of it, you can't respawn.

I have no idea why ZOS suddenly removed FCs as there were plenty of discussions going on about FCs and how to improve them. The game has become too zergy with the removal of FCs. With FCs there was a potential to bring PvP all across the map, it made keep defenses much more challenging and fun... and oh those glorious 30k defense ticks. Now you're lucky if you get a 2k tick.

Want to take a scroll and run it across the map? You could place camps along the way and taadaa, open world PvP with both large and small scale encounters. Stuff like this barely happens anymore and it makes me sad that the game has turned into a zergfest.

As of anno 2015, with the introduction of 1.6 and removal of FCs, small scale is all but dead and zerging reigns supreme. Either zerg or roll a NB and gank.

I read on some patch notes that they removed forward camps to reduce lag that resulted from a huge amount of players constantly respawning.

I don't know if that was their intention or not, but a lot of people championed the removal of forward camps as the end of lag and zerging. Both are worse now.

That's not true at all. The worst zerg fight and lag I ever saw was around forward camp spams.

grats on having an experience that is different from others' and claiming its inerrancy

synnerman · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Quite funny seeing people blaming forward camps for lag and zerging when they have been gone for months and what have we still got Lag and zerging. I said the week they took them away it was a mistake and they need to come back with the radius etc. TBH if they say they are fixing the lag with the LoS changes etc I wouldn't even care about bloodporting .

Recremen · July 2015

I miss forward camps dearly, but there were certainly a lot of issues with them back in the day. There were issues with blood porting, as mentioned ad-nauseum, troll camping, and, worst, keep stagnation. It took hours and hours to only maybe capture a keep, because you could easily earn enough AP in a fight to pay for a new forward camp. Even competitive campaigns could be forced into buff-server status if someone nightcapped the whole map. After all, defense of a keep was far easier than capture.

Still, a lack of forward camps leads to other problems. Nubs stay pretty nubby because they can't fight long enough or often enough to gain experience. Then they try to run back to the fight only to be slaughtered one by one by experienced gankers. Thus, they have to zerg along with more experienced groups for safety, even if the experienced group would rather spread out and not cause massive server lag. There's also an enormous reduction in AP flow, which I believe throws off the expected acquisition time of Alliance War ranks and skills. It also seems to encourage burnout AP grinding, to which we've probably lost some of the most high-profile players.

I would love for forward camps to come back, just changed a bit to prevent the more egregious issues we saw with them from resurfacing. In-radius respawn restrictions seems a good place to begin testing from, as has been suggested repeatedly by pretty much everybody who wants to see them back.

JamilaRaj · July 2015

No (explain)

No, thanks. I prefer the dead to kinda...stay dead. Takes away fun and point of killing them in the first place if they do not.

The question however presents somewhat false dichotomy, as there can be campaigns with different rulesets, i.e. zombie deathmatch campaigns as well as death matters campaigns.

Obligatory cash shop joke: the rich shoud be provided with Epic Scrolls of Phoenix from the crown store, so they could respawn instantly at the spot they slipped on a fish. It would save them time riding back to deathmatch zone, therefore it would be typical time-saving item. It would have to cost more than riding lessons though.

Cathexis · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Get rid of terrain type limits (flat terrain bs)

Increase spawns to 100

Have guild and public camps (which can be in range of each other)

Only allow spawning in range of camps

Sacadon · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

I'd be fine with the limited FC's as ZOS has described them so far w/a limited rez and radius.

Yuke · July 2015

No (explain)

Still against it. Speedbuff + Mount is fast enough to reach every location on the map. If they would change the camps DRASTICALLY i may consider my opinion about it.

What means drastically?

- extreme respawn penalties (like in daoc -> damage reduction and health reduction + introduction of a TEMPLAR SKILL with HUGE REUSE TIMER to cure those negative effects ON ONE TARGET)

- every char can only respawn once (a second chance is ok, but if you still havent learned from your mistakes you dont deserve a third chance)

- group only camps (+ limit group size to 12 in cyrodiil)

- limited respawn radius

Tankqull · July 2015

Yuke wrote: »

Still against it. Speedbuff + Mount is fast enough to reach every location on the map. If they would change the camps DRASTICALLY i may consider my opinion about it.

What means drastically?

- extreme respawn penalties (like in daoc -> damage reduction and health reduction + introduction of a TEMPLAR SKILL with HUGE REUSE TIMER to cure those negative effects ON ONE TARGET)

- every char can only respawn once (a second chance is ok, but if you still havent learned from your mistakes you dont deserve a third chance)

- group only camps (+ limit group size to 12 in cyrodiil)

- limited respawn radius

- only FC placed before your death are release options

Leandor · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Tankqull wrote: »

Yuke wrote: »

Still against it. Speedbuff + Mount is fast enough to reach every location on the map. If they would change the camps DRASTICALLY i may consider my opinion about it.

What means drastically?

- extreme respawn penalties (like in daoc -> damage reduction and health reduction + introduction of a TEMPLAR SKILL with HUGE REUSE TIMER to cure those negative effects ON ONE TARGET)

- every char can only respawn once (a second chance is ok, but if you still havent learned from your mistakes you dont deserve a third chance)

- group only camps (+ limit group size to 12 in cyrodiil)

- limited respawn radius

- only FC placed before your death are release options

ITT: How to make things overly complicated.

No one will use an FC, if you get a sickness that is only curable by a single class and with those restrictions. A camped FC is useless, since again people respawn, get one snipe and are dead again without the chance to influence the fight. With the sneak functionality in game, you just provide an AP source for gankers.

Preplacing a camp before you attack so that everyone can spawn is only feasible for defenders. Attackers have a high chance of giving away their surprise advantage.

If you limit the camps to group only and 12 groups maximum, who decides which group is allowed to place the camp. What happens if one troll places a camp, thereby locking out all others.

Come on. If you want restrictions, at least propose something that makes sense.

Laggus · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Limit FC to within a certain range of a Keep or the resource at a Keep to prevent griefers putting them in the middle of nowhere on purpose and PvEr's putting them outside Delves etc.

PhatGrimReaper · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

I miss the huge long lasting battles that thrived in the Camp era. They were epic. We need camps back, but....

1 - I think 'No Blood Porting' is mandatory.... Meaning you will actually have to make your way to an objective on foot/horseback. That keeps the solo/small group gankers in business.

2 - Camps can only be placed on a captured resource & each resource has a designated 'Campsite' where the camps can be placed. This will force attacking forces to capture resources before placing a camp & force defenders to keep an eye on their resources. This will force the huge groups to spread a little. Some of the attacking force will have to remain at resource to guard their camp & some of the defenders will have to attack the captured resource to cut off enemy reinforcements.

3 - Also, designated campsites inside the keep walls. just inside the front door would be cool. This would incentivise attacking groups to go for the front door in order to cut off defensive reinforcements, but expose them to more defensive siege... greater risk equates to greater reward.

4 - I also think there should be a cost associated with spawning at a camp... It should cost 1 soul gem the first time I use a camp, 2 soul gems the next time and so on. This would reset when the keep is either captured or defended successfully. Soul gems become a lot more precious and it would actually encourage groups to res their dead rather than burn out the groups soul gem reserves.

Sausage · July 2015

No (explain)

Seems kind of pointless now, fastest mounts ride to the battle fast now.

I think Cyrodil main thing is now, whether to go with chat or no. Are we gonna go with zerg, organized attacks, teamwork or random chaos PVP, occasional organized guild action with teamwork. I think if they removed chat from PC, that would be as fresh breath of air for PC players as well.

Leandor · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Removal of forward camps linearized the battle very much. Considering the time needed for attacker reinforcements as opposed to the time required to repair a keep so respawn is possible again, the only sensible strategy is to not got beyond hopping one enemy keep (e.g. Arrius blue, you may go chalamo or BRK, but alessia or aleswell is suicide except with a megazergblob.

Yes I know some groups can pull it off, but generally, deep enemy territory sieges are a thing of the past. Reintroducing FCs would bring those back. If done correctly (no blood porting), this would enhance gameplay very much.

reften · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Ghostbane wrote: »

- 40 spawns per camp
- Only can use if you die in the 'map area' that the camp is located, ie 'Arrius Keep' or 'North Weald' etc
- 2 minute cooldown per personal spawn

And, can only be used if you're grouped with the person who put down the FC.

AllPlayAndNoWork · July 2015

No (explain)

No no no.

Death will mean nothing. And there is nothing wrong in PvP atm. Not missing them at all.

Did I mention NO ! !

JamilaRaj · July 2015

No (explain)

Leandor wrote: »

Removal of forward camps linearized the battle very much. Considering the time needed for attacker reinforcements as opposed to the time required to repair a keep so respawn is possible again, the only sensible strategy is to not got beyond hopping one enemy keep (e.g. Arrius blue, you may go chalamo or BRK, but alessia or aleswell is suicide except with a megazergblob.

Yes I know some groups can pull it off, but generally, deep enemy territory sieges are a thing of the past. Reintroducing FCs would bring those back. If done correctly (no blood porting), this would enhance gameplay very much.

Generally, people do not siege at all. They either start with capping resources, which neither cut port lines until all three are taken nor, more importantly, disable respawn (and btw blood porting), therefore by the time they perhaps would start a proper siege, a keep in question is crawling with enemies. Obviously there is no point in capping resources for sake of making a keep weaker, because NPC guards are joke even if they could not be shot from safe distance.
That is the better case. The worse and far more common is they ride to a keep/outpost and then just stand in front of it and kill people coming out of it until they come out in such numbers (while their own has dwindled meanwhile), because they of course can port in as nobody hits walls, that they get roflstomped. Victorious zerg then continues to a keep attackers came from and repeats the exact same scenario with swapped roles. Siege engines, if at all, are used only to hit players.
There is no reason why a keep further deep in an enemy's territory could not be taken, except perhaps when attackers are spotted early enough and zerg of defenders comes and wipes them out, which would more than anything imply a problem with a bit too fast traveling, be it ports or horse speeds (relative to distances in between keeps). It's not as though it would take substantial time or would be an actual challenge to flip a keep. There is just nobody doing it last but not least because it would not be difficult to flip it back for an enemy as well; there is no substance to it. Keeps are just respawn points in deathmatch; majority of players could not care less where will a deathmatch take place and in fact only get upset if repawn points are somehow threatened, because without repawn, a deathmatch can not continue!!!

I would suggest different changes along these lines:
- allow respawn only at the nearest keep (if not disabled) or base camps
- make a single flipped resource cut ports immediately and disable respawn in a keep
- make a defense levels of a keep rise/drop at faster rate (a keep just flipped starts at max)
- buff NPC guards substantially, last but not least make them take 0 damage from out of their range distance
- cap/nerf movement speed so there is fixed minimal time/distance in between keeps
- there has to be cost associated with concentration of troops at one spot in that they can not be quickly (in fact more like instantly) redeployed to a different , distant spot. It could be done by charging a fee for ports in APs, which would grow with distance and party size (obviously disbanding-banding would have to be addressed). O perhaps directional only ports between some keeps.

Leandor · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

@JamilaRaj

You and me seem to play a different game.

Bleakraven · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Yes, and also at keeps under siege or in resource points you control. As soon as a keep is under siege, a limited number of teleports/respawns are available. If you control nearby resource points, you can also respawn there with a limited number of respawns.
Alternatively, introduce "siege camps" that players can build together (not an individual item being used, but actually using up resources like wood/stone brought from controller resource points) that allow the attacking faction to spawn there (doesn't have to be right on top of the attacked keep, but at least in between 2 keeps.

Cathexis · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Bleakraven wrote: »

Yes, and also at keeps under siege or in resource points you control. As soon as a keep is under siege, a limited number of teleports/respawns are available. If you control nearby resource points, you can also respawn there with a limited number of respawns.
Alternatively, introduce "siege camps" that players can build together (not an individual item being used, but actually using up resources like wood/stone brought from controller resource points) that allow the attacking faction to spawn there (doesn't have to be right on top of the attacked keep, but at least in between 2 keeps.

This is am awesome idea. A similar thing could be implemented for camps inside keep outer walls. A great fc strategy was to plant them there when the keep was burst or in anicipation of bursting to get reinceforcements. This was probably one of the coolest uses for fcs because it meant that bursting a keep wasn't a decisive advantage.

Ghostbane · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

reften wrote: »

Ghostbane wrote: »

- 40 spawns per camp
- Only can use if you die in the 'map area' that the camp is located, ie 'Arrius Keep' or 'North Weald' etc
- 2 minute cooldown per personal spawn

And, can only be used if you're grouped with the person who put down the FC.

This alienates a pile of solo players though. I think the popular opinion of 'two types' of FCs be looked at with various different settings, or the same.

Yuke · July 2015

No (explain)

Leandor wrote: »

ITT: How to make things overly complicated.

No one will use an FC, if you get a sickness that is only curable by a single class and with those restrictions. A camped FC is useless, since again people respawn, get one snipe and are dead again without the chance to influence the fight. With the sneak functionality in game, you just provide an AP source for gankers.

Preplacing a camp before you attack so that everyone can spawn is only feasible for defenders. Attackers have a high chance of giving away their surprise advantage.

If you limit the camps to group only and 12 groups maximum, who decides which group is allowed to place the camp. What happens if one troll places a camp, thereby locking out all others.

Come on. If you want restrictions, at least propose something that makes sense.

Well, obviously your opinion differs from mine.

All i can say is, that ive been playing daoc for over a decade and they had death penalties + cure for it later on. It was great, because in my opinion you should be punished if you did a dumb mistake.

The penalty faded away after a couple of minutes (so you can think about the mistake you've done and what went wrong there

) or the main supporter of your group could cure it with a spell (long reuse timer).

Also the maximum group size of 8 was great. Zergs had more difficulties to organize themselfs giving a premade 8 man group a bigger chance to fight them succesfully.

Decisions should matter and small scaling should be supported. Thats how you build a very good pvp system that is still there after almost 15 years.

Obviously you have to adjust the penalty timer, group size and reuse timer for the cure in ESO, because it is much faster than daoc is. I would say 30sec penalty, max group size = 12 and reusetimer for the cure = 5min. Thats how i would do it.

Btw besides our differences i agree with the point you mentioned there:

Leandor wrote:

- only FC placed before your death are release options

Leandor · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Yuke wrote: »

Btw besides our differences i agree with the point you mentioned there

Leandor wrote:

- only FC placed before your death are release options

Please point me to where I have written that. I can't remember ever writing that and furthermore I always use the "list"-tag.

EDIT: Found it. The quote you attribute to me was actually written by @Tankqull, not by me. Please fix that. It does not reflect my opinion.

For reference:

Tankqull wrote: »

Yuke wrote: »

Still against it. Speedbuff + Mount is fast enough to reach every location on the map. If they would change the camps DRASTICALLY i may consider my opinion about it.

What means drastically?

- extreme respawn penalties (like in daoc -> damage reduction and health reduction + introduction of a TEMPLAR SKILL with HUGE REUSE TIMER to cure those negative effects ON ONE TARGET)

- every char can only respawn once (a second chance is ok, but if you still havent learned from your mistakes you dont deserve a third chance)

- group only camps (+ limit group size to 12 in cyrodiil)

- limited respawn radius

- only FC placed before your death are release options

Grampa_Smurf · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

Ghostbane wrote: »

- 40 spawns per camp
- Only can use if you die in the 'map area' that the camp is located, ie 'Arrius Keep' or 'North Weald' etc
- 2 minute cooldown per personal spawn

This idea get a big thumbs up.

Cathexis · July 2015

Yes, but with changes (explain)

AllPlayAndNoWork wrote: »

No no no.

Death will mean nothing. And there is nothing wrong in PvP atm. Not missing them at all.

Did I mention NO ! !

Such a dumb argument. Death is better if it means a 5 minute horse ride back to a keep, with a chance of being ganked from stealth along the way?

Id rather have the huge, epic, hour long keep battles we had in the past.

People make this assumption that there is no strategy in fcs but its totally false.

Back in the day, we had epic defences with just a handful of people defending waves of zergs, dynamic scroll runs, tooth and nail fights at keeps reinforced by camps, spontaneous field battles, strategic camp networks, good fights at keeps like drakelow/dragonclaw/brindle.

Now all the fighting primarily focuses around the corridors between outposts and inner keeps, its become very boring.