Forward Camps / Kagrenac

vortexman11 · May 2016

Telel wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

https://youtu.be/OwKDMLQDBqE

Apparently the answer is they spam prox det until they get bored with being wiped out by a PUG.

Telel, when you're in a group of 12 every player counts. To me, each member of the groups I'm in are worth 100 times more than the small 20k AP of a camp. If dropping one means saving the time to res one or two people, then I'd drop one without hesitating.

Zheg · May 2016

vortexman11 wrote: »

Telel wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

https://youtu.be/OwKDMLQDBqE

Apparently the answer is they spam prox det until they get bored with being wiped out by a PUG.

Telel, when you're in a group of 12 every player counts. To me, each member of the groups I'm in are worth 100 times more than the small 20k AP of a camp. If dropping one means saving the time to res one or two people, then I'd drop one without hesitating.

You poor, misguided soul. If you put down a camp you can't tbag them before rezzing them. Priorities man. It's perfectly acceptable in my groups to die while tbagging if it's ghost or tex on the ground. Vigorous tbags reduce the rez timer, it's a known fact.

Sanct16 · May 2016

I think camps are fine.

When I'm leading I don't even bother burning camps at all unless I want to trigger some zerglings so they chase us.

The actual problem that gives huge groups a big advantage is battle rez with soulgems because it has no cooldown. If you're heavily outnumbered in lets say a keep, often the reason you die in the end is because you can't clear it. Everyone you kill just gets rezzed once you leave his corpse. If you clear topfloor everyone on the flags get rezzed and instantly starts flipping them back. When you drop down again the people from top get rezzed and keep on oiling you. So given that you have to kill the same people 10 times within 2 minutes, a canp doesn't really change anything either.

manny254 · May 2016

Personally I think that camps should be changed some thing like this. (When I say keep range I mean all the terrain that a camp could be used to Attack or Defend.)

Defenders can only place a camp within keep range if they control at least one resource at the keep. Attackers can essentially only place camps on resources.

Resources would be relevant during an entire keep battle, and they would encourage people to spread out more. Attackers would have a way "starve" the enemy out of camps. Huge fights would be shorter, and smaller groups would have a more direct purpose. I think it could help lag, and create more diverse PVP.

Docmandu · May 2016

To bring up DAoC : "resurrection sickness" was a good way to prevent all these issues.. ie. after getting resurrected, you have an efficiency debuff placed on you.

Think more games have something like this. (quick google seems to indicate WoW also has smth like this?! )

RinaldoGandolphi · May 2016

While the current Camps could use tweaking, its better then horse simulator.

Honestly, I don't know why they simply don't:

1. Remove Forward Camps
2. Make where you can rez at a resource you control

I think thats a fair balance between Horse Simulator and Forward Camp spam. If you can hold the flags of a resource your color, you should be able to rez at them just like keeps(with a 2 min cooldown), want to stop them from rezing? Flip the resource flag...there is only one flag, the flag can not be moved or set up someplace else(like camps can)

just my 2 cents

PS: bring back mercenary contracts so that way when 40 EP are outside the keep i can put down 50 Mercs and wait for them to knock the door down

ahh how i miss the days of Mercs and ground oils...those were the days indeed!

Ishammael · May 2016

manny254 wrote: »

Personally I think that camps should be changed some thing like this. (When I say keep range I mean all the terrain that a camp could be used to Attack or Defend.)

Defenders can only place a camp within keep range if they control at least one resource at the keep. Attackers can essentially only place camps on resources.

Resources would be relevant during an entire keep battle, and they would encourage people to spread out more. Attackers would have a way "starve" the enemy out of camps. Huge fights would be shorter, and smaller groups would have a more direct purpose. I think it could help lag, and create more diverse PVP.

That would be a neat mechanic.

Would be doubly neat of there were more than two flags at a keep. For example, two additional flags in the courtyard that would speed up the capture of a keep, but are not required.

Zheg · May 2016

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

While the current Camps could use tweaking, its better then horse simulator.

Honestly, I don't know why they simply don't:

1. Remove Forward Camps
2. Make where you can rez at a resource you control

I think thats a fair balance between Horse Simulator and Forward Camp spam. If you can hold the flags of a resource your color, you should be able to rez at them just like keeps(with a 2 min cooldown), want to stop them from rezing? Flip the resource flag...there is only one flag, the flag can not be moved or set up someplace else(like camps can)

just my 2 cents

PS: bring back mercenary contracts so that way when 40 EP are outside the keep i can put down 50 Mercs and wait for them to knock the door down

ahh how i miss the days of Mercs and ground oils...those were the days indeed!

Horse sim hasn't been a thing since the early days of the game. Slot rapids and take it off when you near your destination if you aren't a stam build running it normally. If you rode far away to a behind-the-lines keep, there should be a risk that you're taking, if you're going that far away, you should be encouraged to play well and not overextend/die. There is no risk to death right now other than ego.

I shouldn't have to go wipe your entire group at warden when we have all of our home keeps and remain there because some random got away is going to put down a camp and instantly get the entire group up. It's one thing if 1-2 survive and stealth and try for rezzes, that's something a small squad/pugs can handle, but when there's a mechanic that allows the entire group to instantly rez, you can't return to where you're supposed to be without having to go right back to warden when it lights up 2 minutes later.

Travel distance is not bad at all with max speed horse, and if you're dying as soon as you get to where you're going, well ... change your build. Horse sim is not a relevant argument anymore imo.

Telel · May 2016

vortexman11 wrote: »

Telel wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

https://youtu.be/OwKDMLQDBqE

Apparently the answer is they spam prox det until they get bored with being wiped out by a PUG.

Telel, when you're in a group of 12 every player counts. To me, each member of the groups I'm in are worth 100 times more than the small 20k AP of a camp. If dropping one means saving the time to res one or two people, then I'd drop one without hesitating.

This one never said it was a bad idea. They just answered the question of how one affords the cost of dropping so many. Also it gets this one's meager youtube offerings more views. Sneaky khajiit is sneaky.

Conversely Khajiit has to be very very thrifty with their own camps as they have different priorities in PVP.

For example as they often operate in the vicinity of players who are purposefully bad or are outright there to help the opposition this one has to consider if wiping and returning later is more efficient than placing down a camp their own group may not get much use out of.

There's also many many other factors to be weighed in but that is obviously for another discussion. Preferably one with tiny moon sugar cakes, and bubbly drinks.

bowmanz607 · May 2016

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

While the current Camps could use tweaking, its better then horse simulator.

Honestly, I don't know why they simply don't:

1. Remove Forward Camps
2. Make where you can rez at a resource you control

I think thats a fair balance between Horse Simulator and Forward Camp spam. If you can hold the flags of a resource your color, you should be able to rez at them just like keeps(with a 2 min cooldown), want to stop them from rezing? Flip the resource flag...there is only one flag, the flag can not be moved or set up someplace else(like camps can)

just my 2 cents

PS: bring back mercenary contracts so that way when 40 EP are outside the keep i can put down 50 Mercs and wait for them to knock the door down

ahh how i miss the days of Mercs and ground oils...those were the days indeed!

Horse sim hasn't been a thing since the early days of the game. Slot rapids and take it off when you near your destination if you aren't a stam build running it normally. If you rode far away to a behind-the-lines keep, there should be a risk that you're taking, if you're going that far away, you should be encouraged to play well and not overextend/die. There is no risk to death right now other than ego.

I shouldn't have to go wipe your entire group at warden when we have all of our home keeps and remain there because some random got away is going to put down a camp and instantly get the entire group up. It's one thing if 1-2 survive and stealth and try for rezzes, that's something a small squad/pugs can handle, but when there's a mechanic that allows the entire group to instantly rez, you can't return to where you're supposed to be without having to go right back to warden when it lights up 2 minutes later.

Travel distance is not bad at all with max speed horse, and if you're dying as soon as you get to where you're going, well ... change your build. Horse sim is not a relevant argument anymore imo.

One not every person has maxed horses. Additionally, for every to on a player starts they have to wait 60 days at best to get a max horse. So even ppl who have been playing for a long time can have trouble getting somewhere in a decent amount of time. Additionally, there are other scenarios that make it feel like a horse sim. For instance, trying to get to a fight that is already a decent way away such as far to Alessia or brindle which can take about 1 min to cover that geound, then adding in getting ganged and starting again. Even if you avoid the gang area you then are riding upwards of double the distance just to avoid gank alley.

No one wants to be sitting on a horse to get to a fight. This was a huge complaint even leading up to the re-release of forward camps.

Plus, with the extra restictions added to forward camps this time around, there can be detriments. First a player needs to be willing to part with 20k ap which is a lot for some players. Especially with new sets coming out in the vendors and the weekend vendor. There are plenty of things to sink ap into now which helps to limit the ap that people have which in the long run will see a drastic decrease in the amount of ap people have laying around. Not to mention, selling ap to others.

Having forward camps also adds an extra dimension to fights. An alliance must scout and be aware of their surroundings to effectively eliminate the enemy. Want to take a keep, then u better be sending people to destroy camps. Even with camps there is a detriment to dieing. Let's say a group wipes at a keep breach and one player gets away to lay a camp. By the time that player gets to a suitable location, everyone rezes and then goes back to breach the breach is repaired and you must start over. Not to mention sometimes your outside the area to rez. Also, the timer makes it so you can't just rez and die and repeat. Now if your on a cool down it likely will be faster to ride back rather than wait.

The camp also allows for fighting in an opponents backyard. A contributor to zeroing was the fact that everyone would just go to the next keep in the line to fight. Many times people did not want to have to ride all the way deep in enemy territory to fight just to get wiped after a long ride. This deterred people from fighting behind enemy lines and Contributed to mass fighting in one area which led to more lag. Camps helped this issue.

danno8 · May 2016

Telel wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

https://youtu.be/OwKDMLQDBqE

Apparently the answer is they spam prox det until they get bored with being wiped out by a PUG.

Not what I envisioned when they said camps were coming back...

Justice31st · May 2016

Burn the camp FFS. You seriously complaining about having more action in Cyrodil? Do you not remember how bad it was having to ride a horse back every time you died? You must of not been playing for very long.

Makkir · May 2016

EP Forward Camps are like fast food joints stuffing burgers in my mouth.
Why the hell would you want to burn that down?

Docmandu · May 2016

Justice31st wrote: »

Burn the camp FFS. You seriously complaining about having more action in Cyrodil? Do you not remember how bad it was having to ride a horse back every time you died? You must of not been playing for very long.

You can't burn the camp (caltrops).. and it will be too late since 20 will insta-pop the second it's put down.

If the horse riding was so bad, you probably went gung-*** too much and died frequently.. there was a fix for that already (even before turbo horses).. die less or have your group rez you.

Ghost-Shot · May 2016

Justice31st wrote: »

Burn the camp FFS. You seriously complaining about having more action in Cyrodil? Do you not remember how bad it was having to ride a horse back every time you died? You must of not been playing for very long.

Then don't die, camps should have never been brought back.

bowmanz607 · May 2016

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Justice31st wrote: »

Burn the camp FFS. You seriously complaining about having more action in Cyrodil? Do you not remember how bad it was having to ride a horse back every time you died? You must of not been playing for very long.

Then don't die, camps should have never been brought back.

I respectfully disagree with this statement.

mtwiggz · May 2016

Oh right, Horse Simulator Online is much better than camps.

Rune_Relic · May 2016

bowmanz607 wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

While the current Camps could use tweaking, its better then horse simulator.

Honestly, I don't know why they simply don't:

1. Remove Forward Camps
2. Make where you can rez at a resource you control

I think thats a fair balance between Horse Simulator and Forward Camp spam. If you can hold the flags of a resource your color, you should be able to rez at them just like keeps(with a 2 min cooldown), want to stop them from rezing? Flip the resource flag...there is only one flag, the flag can not be moved or set up someplace else(like camps can)

just my 2 cents

PS: bring back mercenary contracts so that way when 40 EP are outside the keep i can put down 50 Mercs and wait for them to knock the door down

ahh how i miss the days of Mercs and ground oils...those were the days indeed!

Horse sim hasn't been a thing since the early days of the game. Slot rapids and take it off when you near your destination if you aren't a stam build running it normally. If you rode far away to a behind-the-lines keep, there should be a risk that you're taking, if you're going that far away, you should be encouraged to play well and not overextend/die. There is no risk to death right now other than ego.

I shouldn't have to go wipe your entire group at warden when we have all of our home keeps and remain there because some random got away is going to put down a camp and instantly get the entire group up. It's one thing if 1-2 survive and stealth and try for rezzes, that's something a small squad/pugs can handle, but when there's a mechanic that allows the entire group to instantly rez, you can't return to where you're supposed to be without having to go right back to warden when it lights up 2 minutes later.

Travel distance is not bad at all with max speed horse, and if you're dying as soon as you get to where you're going, well ... change your build. Horse sim is not a relevant argument anymore imo.

One not every person has maxed horses. Additionally, for every to on a player starts they have to wait 60 days at best to get a max horse. So even ppl who have been playing for a long time can have trouble getting somewhere in a decent amount of time. Additionally, there are other scenarios that make it feel like a horse sim. For instance, trying to get to a fight that is already a decent way away such as far to Alessia or brindle which can take about 1 min to cover that geound, then adding in getting ganged and starting again. Even if you avoid the gang area you then are riding upwards of double the distance just to avoid gank alley.

No one wants to be sitting on a horse to get to a fight. This was a huge complaint even leading up to the re-release of forward camps.

Plus, with the extra restictions added to forward camps this time around, there can be detriments. First a player needs to be willing to part with 20k ap which is a lot for some players. Especially with new sets coming out in the vendors and the weekend vendor. There are plenty of things to sink ap into now which helps to limit the ap that people have which in the long run will see a drastic decrease in the amount of ap people have laying around. Not to mention, selling ap to others.

Having forward camps also adds an extra dimension to fights. An alliance must scout and be aware of their surroundings to effectively eliminate the enemy. Want to take a keep, then u better be sending people to destroy camps. Even with camps there is a detriment to dieing. Let's say a group wipes at a keep breach and one player gets away to lay a camp. By the time that player gets to a suitable location, everyone rezes and then goes back to breach the breach is repaired and you must start over. Not to mention sometimes your outside the area to rez. Also, the timer makes it so you can't just rez and die and repeat. Now if your on a cool down it likely will be faster to ride back rather than wait.

The camp also allows for fighting in an opponents backyard. A contributor to zeroing was the fact that everyone would just go to the next keep in the line to fight. Many times people did not want to have to ride all the way deep in enemy territory to fight just to get wiped after a long ride. This deterred people from fighting behind enemy lines and Contributed to mass fighting in one area which led to more lag. Camps helped this issue.

All good point on both sides.

Thats why I soggested making camps work on a supply line basis.
You need to make a chain of camps from one side of the map to the other (like keeps).
Somoene breaks the chain in the middle/root...the end camps collapse or become disabled.

You can hide those camps away requiring scouts to find them.
But you can still jump from one side of the map to the other.
Camps then become another point to fight over (other than keeps and resource) as they become strategically fundamental.
ie temporary, short range, wayshrines

Anazasi · May 2016

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

LOL. I know this is not happening on TF so you must be talking about Had. Perhaps EP and DC should think about their strategies on Had. You push AD to the last 3 keeps with your double and triple raid stacks. Then you complain about the AD zerging you down. I have played every night on Had and DC and EP constantly attack AD even when map logic dictates otherwise. You think its ok to do this because its become SOP (standard operating procedure) for EP. Then you try and justify it on the forums, calling for help from other campaigns and dare i say the other faction (DC). You look at the population locks and immediately think well AD on HAD is locked they must be zerging; assumption. Well lets all grow up and stop your propaganda war. The pop locks lie they do not represent an accurate number of players actually playing on the map, everyone knows it includes IC, and honestly most of the AD players are there or doing other things besides fighting off DC and EP zergs. No one will ever believe when you screenie your group of 8-12 and claim you are not zerging, that there isn't another group of 24 right beside you on the field. The fact that AD uses Camps only shows that when pushed into a corner we will fight and fight hard. We try not to zerg, we prefer not to zerg. But when EP and DC force us to do it, WE DO AND DO IT VERY WELL. Do not ever forget EP learned all that they know from AD when the game launched. Do not every forget that many of those DC and EP leaders started off as AD players. You may think that Winter has come but in reality Summer is just around the corner. Taran has played for 2 years with 2 or 3 nice breaks along the way. I have millions of AP on that account and happy to drop a few hundred thousand AP on camps if it helps the cause. You need to crawl back into your corner on TF with the Pact Militia and stay there.

Inarre · May 2016

Anazasi wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

LOL. I know this is not happening on TF so you must be talking about Had. Perhaps EP and DC should think about their strategies on Had. You push AD to the last 3 keeps with your double and triple raid stacks. Then you complain about the AD zerging you down. I have played every night on Had and DC and EP constantly attack AD even when map logic dictates otherwise. You think its ok to do this because its become SOP (standard operating procedure) for EP. Then you try and justify it on the forums, calling for help from other campaigns and dare i say the other faction (DC). You look at the population locks and immediately think well AD on HAD is locked they must be zerging; assumption. Well lets all grow up and stop your propaganda war. The pop locks lie they do not represent an accurate number of players actually playing on the map, everyone knows it includes IC, and honestly most of the AD players are there or doing other things besides fighting off DC and EP zergs. No one will ever believe when you screenie your group of 8-12 and claim you are not zerging, that there isn't another group of 24 right beside you on the field. The fact that AD uses Camps only shows that when pushed into a corner we will fight and fight hard. We try not to zerg, we prefer not to zerg. But when EP and DC force us to do it, WE DO AND DO IT VERY WELL. Do not ever forget EP learned all that they know from AD when the game launched. Do not every forget that many of those DC and EP leaders started off as AD players. You may think that Winter has come but in reality Summer is just around the corner. Taran has played for 2 years with 2 or 3 nice breaks along the way. I have millions of AP on that account and happy to drop a few hundred thousand AP on camps if it helps the cause. You need to crawl back into your corner on TF with the Pact Militia and stay there.

Do you go on Had regularly? EP was pushing DC to dethrone all day yesterday and into the evening when i logged off (didnt see if they were successful) believe it was my EP raid plus another guilds raid (maybe not sure) pushing DC. We were waiting for AD to make a move. I didnt see one before i left cyrodiil.

Point is every point anyone makes is a sore generalization about their observances (not necessarily the whole picture) so its worth being decisive and factual with actual statements rather than insulting generalizations.

Besides what you put to the table is really a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first. And im pretty sure everyone is done fighting about who zerged who first. Well. At least im tired of looking at it.

Anazasi · May 2016

Inarre wrote: »

Anazasi wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

LOL. I know this is not happening on TF so you must be talking about Had. Perhaps EP and DC should think about their strategies on Had. You push AD to the last 3 keeps with your double and triple raid stacks. Then you complain about the AD zerging you down. I have played every night on Had and DC and EP constantly attack AD even when map logic dictates otherwise. You think its ok to do this because its become SOP (standard operating procedure) for EP. Then you try and justify it on the forums, calling for help from other campaigns and dare i say the other faction (DC). You look at the population locks and immediately think well AD on HAD is locked they must be zerging; assumption. Well lets all grow up and stop your propaganda war. The pop locks lie they do not represent an accurate number of players actually playing on the map, everyone knows it includes IC, and honestly most of the AD players are there or doing other things besides fighting off DC and EP zergs. No one will ever believe when you screenie your group of 8-12 and claim you are not zerging, that there isn't another group of 24 right beside you on the field. The fact that AD uses Camps only shows that when pushed into a corner we will fight and fight hard. We try not to zerg, we prefer not to zerg. But when EP and DC force us to do it, WE DO AND DO IT VERY WELL. Do not ever forget EP learned all that they know from AD when the game launched. Do not every forget that many of those DC and EP leaders started off as AD players. You may think that Winter has come but in reality Summer is just around the corner. Taran has played for 2 years with 2 or 3 nice breaks along the way. I have millions of AP on that account and happy to drop a few hundred thousand AP on camps if it helps the cause. You need to crawl back into your corner on TF with the Pact Militia and stay there.

Do you go on Had regularly? EP was pushing DC to dethrone all day yesterday and into the evening when i logged off (didnt see if they were successful) believe it was my EP raid plus another guilds raid (maybe not sure) pushing DC. We were waiting for AD to make a move. I didnt see one before i left cyrodiil.

Point is every point anyone makes is a sore generalization about their observances (not necessarily the whole picture) so its worth being decisive and factual with actual statements rather than insulting generalizations.

Besides what you put to the table is really a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first. And im pretty sure everyone is done fighting about who zerged who first. Well. At least im tired of looking at it.

I play every night on HAD. AD faught DC at FAR then EP at FAR then EP at BM. Then we got lucky and stealth took ROE while Chal was flagged. Then we fought EP at FAR EP and DC at FAR then got Alessia from EP by stealth taking the front door. But EP fought for another 20 mins to try and take it back. By this time DC had retaken Aleswell and it was 1130pm est time i logged. AD spent most of the night simply trying to get home keeps while constantly fighting off both factions.

ShadoPanauin · May 2016

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

They give smaller groups a chance against larger groups such as your own, especially when the lag produced by such a large group gets to said smaller group. Is that why you guys are arguing for this?

Also, you do realize that a group cannot simply place a camp inside a keep that they do not own... right? And that bombard spam would not be an issue to the victors because everything is dead or trying to get back to the keep, right?

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

That is probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That would render camps to be the equivalent of magicka-built Nord DKs -- just there to look good.

Again, is the above reason why you guys are posting here?

Rylana wrote: »

Ghost-Shot wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

As someone that plays in an organized group, FCs have been disastrous for map play. Not only can the entire group get up in a single second, but they can do so again 2 minutes later. The timer is WAY too short. The fact that you rez with full stats while the victors that just killed you are likely at 20% stamina trying to move out of the bombard spam is moronic.

The benefits that some people love (extending farms, duels, never ending fights) do not outweigh the negatives.

WTB 10 minute cooldown(at least) and res sickness from camps

This, I am completely sick of losing defended keeps vs hordes of AD zergers spamming 10+ camps to take BRK with sheer force of numbers. The AP is great sure, but it cant be defended, the defenders just eventually get zerged down.

More importantly though, how the hell are people able to afford 200k+ AP a fight worth of camps, when its unlikely they got even 10k total from the battle back?

Because you totally can't spam your own camps outside that keep... it's not as if you can simply tell a Nightblade to move away and drop a camp somewhere for the defenders... oh wait.

The-Baconator wrote: »

Honestly I wouldn't mind if they completely removed the area restriction and upped the timer to at least 5 minutes or so. The ability to constantly be in action is nice but its not worth all of the trouble they bring as a result of such a low timer. FCs combined with the new siege + decreased mitigation has lead to some of the longest, boring, and laggy stalemates I've ever witnessed.

I do agree that forward camps do not necessarily help with the lag, and I don't disagree with you stating that forward camps contribute to stalemates, but forward camps are not hard to counter. Find it and burn it (or kill the group then farm it relentlessly). It's just that simple.

Docmandu wrote: »

MLRPZ wrote: »

If your forum name match your ingame name, then I think your zerg (AKA 80 solo players at the same place) is also responsible of the lag, and not only the ball group that farmed you =/

#chalmangate4life

Yesterday AD was fighting DC.. probably some 100 people in total.. everything was performing dandy. Half an our later, banana lag appears and inc 700+ ms ping. Now.. that might just be all the people chasing you guys or your ball itself causing it.. all I know is when you guys ball up and run around, the rest of the server suffers huge latency spikes.

I have nothing against your playstyle (play as you like)..

But.. this is not about that.. this is about FCs and you have to admit that the way you can use it is rather silly. Before camps, if you died, there was a penalty, ie. the penalty was time to get back into the action. With camps, there is no penalty at all.. you insta rez with 100% combat readiness and full resources .. which is something I'm against.. death should mean something.

It works as a cheap/ super fast 20 person 100% AoE rez, with nothing you can do about it, unless succeed in interrupting the person putting down the camp.

IMHO a possible solution would be that taking a rez at a FC would not give you 100% magicka/stamina/health.. or would put an unpurgeable efficiency debuff on you for 20 seconds.

Having a longer deploy time wouldn't be such a bad idea either.

I don't think the way forward camps are used is silly at all. They are used to avoid horse simulator 2015/16 and allow for group A to get another shot at group B. Horse simulator is something all of us hate and this is the best solution to the issue of it.

Also, death still means something; it means that there is a pause in the fighting for the enemy group to recuperate and regroup. In a lot of cases, this pause means the forward camp will be put at risk and possibly burned.

Also, I'm sorry, but you're complaining about 100 man groups when you yourself play in groups on that scale (assuming the guy who pointed out what guild you are in is correct). That is insanely hypocritical.

Valencer wrote: »

Forward camps really just promote bad play. Outnumbered keep defenses succumb eventually because the attackers just end up crushing you with sheer numbers while you cant get a forward camp of your own up because theyre all over the keep.

They made proxi trains easier to wipe out with the rapids/barrier/purge changes but then also gave them forward camps to instantly respawn the whole group at full resources. It's just starting to become silly, really.

Valencer wrote: »

Easier said than done in situations where the attackers outnumber you 2 to 1 or worse. They'll be all over the courtyard/keep while you need every able man/woman to defend the breach.

I'm going to just say one thing that will blow your mind:

you can put forward camps outside of keeps.

Reevster wrote: »

Camps dont last long enough imo, and cost way too much, maybe 5k ap would be more reasonable and last twice as long.

While I like forward camps and all, this would be overboard. They are just fine as is.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Camps should take longer to place imo like 10s+ where you can be interrupted. Only change which is needed.

This wouldn't really change anything even if a change was needed. It's not as if a good group is going to be dropping a forward camp near an enemy who can burn it.

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Camps should take longer to place imo like 10s+ where you can be interrupted. Only change which is needed.

That will likely make it even easier for the side with far more numbers to have access to camps, and the side with fewer to have reduced access.

While I do agree with the fact that cooldowns would be unnecessary, like I said above people are not going to be placing forward camps near the enemy group regardless of whether you have more or less numbers than your opposition.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Camps should take longer to place imo like 10s+ where you can be interrupted. Only change which is needed.

That will likely make it even easier for the side with far more numbers to have access to camps, and the side with fewer to have reduced access.

It wouldn't.

Currently if a zerg comes along they can simply place a camp whenever they want to res their allies. You can't stop it at all because it's near impossible to interrupt the player inside their zerg in time.

I've had camps be placed literally next to my group by zergs we have been fighting at which point they all res because you can't burn it due to damage.

If there was an increased cast time (which could only be done out of stealth) or which was interrupted by damage taken -much in the way burning a camp is interrupted. It would be far better for smaller groups to control the area around them.

Simply kill them as they rez up. Them placing a forward camp right next to you (if I'm picturing the scenario right) is an awful idea.

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Camps should take longer to place imo like 10s+ where you can be interrupted. Only change which is needed.

That will likely make it even easier for the side with far more numbers to have access to camps, and the side with fewer to have reduced access.

It wouldn't.

Currently if a zerg comes along they can simply place a camp whenever they want to res their allies. You can't stop it at all because it's near impossible to interrupt the player inside their zerg in time.

I've had camps be placed literally next to my group by zergs we have been fighting at which point they all res because you can't burn it due to damage.

If there was an increased cast time (which could only be done out of stealth) or which was interrupted by damage taken -much in the way burning a camp is interrupted. It would be far better for smaller groups to control the area around them.

Picture a keep battle where you have 3-4 times your numbers assaulting it, there's no way you can stop them from putting down a camp. The outnumbered defenders have an even harder time putting a camp down with that timer once the assaulters are on the inner.

Camps just need to go, they never should have been reintroduced in the first place. I remember at launch thinking they were helpful because of how big the map was, but once you get max speed horses and rapids unlocked one of the camp's original purposes is made obsolete. All it does is serve to prolong laggy zerg fights, and I'm sorry, but I could care less about extending a farm in a field as you kite pugs around - it's frequently cited as a benefit for camps and I hardly see how that outweighs all of the problems they cause.

The issue with your logic on the second statement is this: let's say you're at Brindle/Dragonclaw/Drakelowe/whatever you prefer and your group dies. Now let's say that your entire faction is currently gated. What do you do, kids? You drop a forward camp. What do you do without forward camps? You rez up and enjoy the oh-so-lovely perks of being gated. It is made far more pointless to make deep map pushes in order to attempt to get your faction out of gatedness... much less farm from deep in the map, which is no fun.

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Zheg wrote: »

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

Camps should take longer to place imo like 10s+ where you can be interrupted. Only change which is needed.

That will likely make it even easier for the side with far more numbers to have access to camps, and the side with fewer to have reduced access.

It wouldn't.

Currently if a zerg comes along they can simply place a camp whenever they want to res their allies. You can't stop it at all because it's near impossible to interrupt the player inside their zerg in time.

I've had camps be placed literally next to my group by zergs we have been fighting at which point they all res because you can't burn it due to damage.

If there was an increased cast time (which could only be done out of stealth) or which was interrupted by damage taken -much in the way burning a camp is interrupted. It would be far better for smaller groups to control the area around them.

Picture a keep battle where you have 3-4 times your numbers assaulting it, there's no way you can stop them from putting down a camp. The outnumbered defenders have an even harder time putting a camp down with that timer once the assaulters are on the inner.

Camps just need to go, they never should have been reintroduced in the first place. I remember at launch thinking they were helpful because of how big the map was, but once you get max speed horses and rapids unlocked one of the camp's original purposes is made obsolete. All it does is serve to prolong laggy zerg fights, and I'm sorry, but I could care less about extending a farm in a field as you kite pugs around - it's frequently cited as a benefit for camps and I hardly see how that outweighs all of the problems they cause.

Sure you could stop them placing. There are only certain places camps can be placed on a keep attack. One nb in stealth could lock down a position with a cast time so long. Where as whilst the same could be true of an attacking force its harder to lock down this as camps can be placed almost anywhere by the defending side.

The game got worse since camps were removed initially. They used to spread out combat to different parts of the map because you could blood port to them. Now they prolong fights. But it's still more interesting than 24/7 bridge fight.
I remember at the beginning when camps quite often bugged and couldn't be placed back up for 1h after use. This was the best time of camps.

They should last until destroyed but once destroyed cannot be placed again for a long period of time. (30m for example)

We no longer play in the same meta, nor have the same populations. Forward camps have now had 2 months to demonstrate that they do anything BUT spread people out. It doesn't matter if I light up a second keep, the red force wont respond until they're done at whatever objective they're all at first.

And no, a nb cannot lock down the 'few' spots camps can be placed outside of keeps because one nb cannot cover that much distance. You also really can't spare people if you're heavily outnumbered. This point reminded me of frozn's vampire ninja assassins that were supposed to hunt down enemy countersiege.

What did you expect? They are literally resurrection stations -- they are made to allow groups to regroup.

The-Baconator · May 2016

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

I'm not sure I get how you're coming to your conclusions. Throughout your post you contend that somehow camps are beneficial to smaller groups going after larger groups, or that camps can be just as helpful to a group that is outnumbered when used intelligently. I would like to know if you have any experience running in an elite\top tier pvp guild, as I would find it hard to believe that someone with that kind of experience could make those assertions.

Out of the last two months of forward camp pvp I could probably count the amount of times my group, which is anything from 2-16, won a fight because we got clutch respawns at a forward camp on one hand. To be clear this excludes fights were we benefited from FC respawns only after we had forced our enemy to utilize their own camps multiple times, meaning if there were no camps we would have won with the first\second\third\etc wipe. However, there were more than a handful of times over the last day of PvP were my group was alone\with 1-4 pugs and faced opposition outnumbering us by a 1:2-4 ratio and we lost SOLELY because of forward camps.

When I have 12 people and I'm defending a keep against 60, I don't have the luxury of sending a half dozen nightblades off to take their time in finding the perfect spot to set a camp down like the group of 60 does. I also lack the ability to send a dozen players off hunting for enemy forward camps. You say that the solution to camp spam is "simple" and that we just need to burn the opposing faction's camps, but that really isn't possible when heavily outnumbered. In both of these situations it is impossible to deny that the larger force has a significant advantage due to forward camps alone, and in the worst case scenario (perpetual camp spam) it means you're essentially guaranteed a stale mate until you wipe, you crash, or you get bailed out by your own faction's zerg.

I agree there are strong positives of having camps--more action and ap--but there is no reason to pretend they are perfect. They have made lag worse by prolonging fights where entire servers are stacked in one location and they allow larger groups to wear down smaller groups and win fights they wouldn't have been able to win otherwise.

ShadoPanauin · May 2016

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

I'm not sure I get how you're coming to your conclusions. Throughout your post you contend that somehow camps are beneficial to smaller groups going after larger groups, or that camps can be just as helpful to a group that is outnumbered when used intelligently. I would like to know if you have any experience running in an elite\top tier pvp guild, as I would find it hard to believe that someone with that kind of experience could make those assertions.

I'm not too sure why you don't understand how I'm coming to the conclusion of camps being beneficial to smaller groups, but I'll try to explain my reasoning.

So let's say group A is larger than group B. Group A wipes group B due to their numbers. However, a member of group B got away and places a forward camp. Group B now can resurrect themselves, re-evaluate their tactics and go at it again, putting group A at risk. It really is that simple -- it gives smaller groups a better chance at taking down large groups.

If you have any more questions on this part of my reasoning, ask away.

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

Out of the last two months of forward camp pvp I could probably count the amount of times my group, which is anything from 2-16, won a fight because we got clutch respawns at a forward camp on one hand. To be clear this excludes fights were we benefited from FC respawns only after we had forced our enemy to utilize their own camps multiple times, meaning if there were no camps we would have won with the first\second\third\etc wipe. However, there were more than a handful of times over the last day of PvP were my group was alone\with 1-4 pugs and faced opposition outnumbering us by a 1:2-4 ratio and we lost SOLELY because of forward camps.

As to the first part of this paragraph, it all depends on playstyle. I'm not sure what type of group you guys run, or what guild you're in, but in the playstyle in which people bomb groups forward camps are utilized to one's advantage more often than in some other playstyles.

As to the second part, you probably did not lose solely because of forward camps. You were extremely outnumbered and forward camps likely made no difference in whether the group was going to wipe you or not. All that forward camp did was help them get back to fight you again and avoid horse simulator.

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

When I have 12 people and I'm defending a keep against 60, I don't have the luxury of sending a half dozen nightblades off to take their time in finding the perfect spot to set a camp down like the group of 60 does. I also lack the ability to send a dozen players off hunting for enemy forward camps. You say that the solution to camp spam is "simple" and that we just need to burn the opposing faction's camps, but that really isn't possible when heavily outnumbered. In both of these situations it is impossible to deny that the larger force has a significant advantage due to forward camps alone, and in the worst case scenario (perpetual camp spam) it means you're essentially guaranteed a stale mate until you wipe, you crash, or you get bailed out by your own faction's zerg.

First of all, I have no idea why any group would send half a dozen nightblades to place a camp, a task that one person can do easily. That is dumb. All that task requires is one nightblade to cloak away and drop a camp on some flat land.

Secondly, I meant it is simple in the sense that you wipe the group and push to their camp, then burn it. I run in groups of a similar size to what you mentioned, and it really is not a difficult thing with a good group and leader.

Thirdly, no it is not impossible to deny that because I'm going to do it right now. It is not as if that forward camp the larger group placed is suddenly going to fly off and blow everything up. No, what does end up killing the smaller group is the fact that the enemy group is a lot larger. Let's reverse the roles: the small group places a forward camp and the large group does not. Let's also assume that both groups are of equal skill level. The large group, obviously, wins, regardless of the small group's forward camp.

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

I agree there are strong positives of having camps--more action and ap--but there is no reason to pretend they are perfect.

I am not pretending that they are perfect. I am saying that they are just fine, as in "okay" as is. Okay ≠ perfect.

Zheg · May 2016

Good god your walls of text are even more OP than mine, and that's saying something.

On paper, yes, someone in a small group has the chance to get away. In reality, the chance is HIGHER for someone in the larger group to get away and put down a camp. If you've been pvping throughout the TG patch you should know this, even the most stalwart defender of FCs will acknowledge that fact. When it's more likely that the larger group can camp and less likely that the smaller group can camp, that means on average FCs are far worse for smaller groups. Go watch any of pact militia's videos and witness them spamming camps nonstop. Sure, there are times when the terrain sucks for the larger group and the small group is able to get one down and instantly bomb and win, but that's the exception, not the norm. As a whole FCs favor larger groups, disputing that is asinine.

ShadoPanauin · May 2016

Zheg wrote: »

On paper, yes, someone in a small group has the chance to get away. In reality, the chance is HIGHER for someone in the larger group to get away and put down a camp. If you've been pvping throughout the TG patch you should know this, even the most stalwart defender of FCs will acknowledge that fact. When it's more likely that the larger group can camp and less likely that the smaller group can camp, that means on average FCs are far worse for smaller groups.

I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion; it does not mean that at all.

Think of it like this:

Let us say that the larger group is represented by wealthy people. Now let us say that the smaller group represents poor people.

The wealthy people have more money (people) and can thus likely buy thing A (thing A represents a forward camp and "buying" represents placing a forward camp). However, it is less likely that the poor people can buy thing A. Does that make thing A any less beneficial to a randomly selected person from either group? No, it does not.

Zheg wrote: »

Go watch any of pact militia's videos and witness them spamming camps nonstop. Sure, there are times when the terrain sucks for the larger group and the small group is able to get one down and instantly bomb and win, but that's the exception, not the norm. As a whole FCs favor larger groups, disputing that is asinine.

Using the analogy I gave above, forward camps do not favor larger groups.

Also, you must understand that with a guild like pact militia the main factor is not the fact that they are dropping forward camps -- the main factor is the numbers that they have and the sheer amount of lag that guilds like it cause. Besides, if the terrain does not already benefit the small group (choke points, etc.) then the small group is doing it wrong.

Zheg · May 2016

You keep talking about random analogies, but after 2 months of playing with them in the game it's brutally obvious to me who they tend to benefit more. As many have said before, they do have some positives, but the reality is that there are far more negatives. It's clear we aren't going to agree, and that's fine, but almost every large keep fight I've been in has been made larger, take longer, and favors the side that decided to bring an extra 2 raids to the party - because of forward camps. Previously you used to be able to defend a keep against overwhelming numbers because you could wipe a group, reposition and stop rezzes, take on another group, and by the time they ride back/get off a handful of rezzes the tide of the fight has turned. That's not theorizing, that's been the reality as I've experienced it.

Delsskia · May 2016

I really hate the FC's in their current iteration. A 5 - 10 minute rez timer with rez sickness could be an option, but I'd prefer if they just went away again altogether.

The-Baconator · May 2016

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

I'm not sure I get how you're coming to your conclusions. Throughout your post you contend that somehow camps are beneficial to smaller groups going after larger groups, or that camps can be just as helpful to a group that is outnumbered when used intelligently. I would like to know if you have any experience running in an elite\top tier pvp guild, as I would find it hard to believe that someone with that kind of experience could make those assertions.

I'm not too sure why you don't understand how I'm coming to the conclusion of camps being beneficial to smaller groups, but I'll try to explain my reasoning.

So let's say group A is larger than group B. Group A wipes group B due to their numbers. However, a member of group B got away and places a forward camp. Group B now can resurrect themselves, re-evaluate their tactics and go at it again, putting group A at risk. It really is that simple -- it gives smaller groups a better chance at taking down large groups.

If you have any more questions on this part of my reasoning, ask away.

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

Out of the last two months of forward camp pvp I could probably count the amount of times my group, which is anything from 2-16, won a fight because we got clutch respawns at a forward camp on one hand. To be clear this excludes fights were we benefited from FC respawns only after we had forced our enemy to utilize their own camps multiple times, meaning if there were no camps we would have won with the first\second\third\etc wipe. However, there were more than a handful of times over the last day of PvP were my group was alone\with 1-4 pugs and faced opposition outnumbering us by a 1:2-4 ratio and we lost SOLELY because of forward camps.

As to the first part of this paragraph, it all depends on playstyle. I'm not sure what type of group you guys run, or what guild you're in, but in the playstyle in which people bomb groups forward camps are utilized to one's advantage more often than in some other playstyles.

As to the second part, you probably did not lose solely because of forward camps. You were extremely outnumbered and forward camps likely made no difference in whether the group was going to wipe you or not. All that forward camp did was help them get back to fight you again and avoid horse simulator.

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

When I have 12 people and I'm defending a keep against 60, I don't have the luxury of sending a half dozen nightblades off to take their time in finding the perfect spot to set a camp down like the group of 60 does. I also lack the ability to send a dozen players off hunting for enemy forward camps. You say that the solution to camp spam is "simple" and that we just need to burn the opposing faction's camps, but that really isn't possible when heavily outnumbered. In both of these situations it is impossible to deny that the larger force has a significant advantage due to forward camps alone, and in the worst case scenario (perpetual camp spam) it means you're essentially guaranteed a stale mate until you wipe, you crash, or you get bailed out by your own faction's zerg.

First of all, I have no idea why any group would send half a dozen nightblades to place a camp, a task that one person can do easily. That is dumb. All that task requires is one nightblade to cloak away and drop a camp on some flat land.

Secondly, I meant it is simple in the sense that you wipe the group and push to their camp, then burn it. I run in groups of a similar size to what you mentioned, and it really is not a difficult thing with a good group and leader.

Thirdly, no it is not impossible to deny that because I'm going to do it right now. It is not as if that forward camp the larger group placed is suddenly going to fly off and blow everything up. No, what does end up killing the smaller group is the fact that the enemy group is a lot larger. Let's reverse the roles: the small group places a forward camp and the large group does not. Let's also assume that both groups are of equal skill level. The large group, obviously, wins, regardless of the small group's forward camp.

The-Baconator wrote: »

ShadoPanauin wrote: »

A lot of stuff

I agree there are strong positives of having camps--more action and ap--but there is no reason to pretend they are perfect.

I am not pretending that they are perfect. I am saying that they are just fine, as in "okay" as is. Okay ≠ perfect.

On your group A\B example, it just doesn't make any sense because as every single extra opportunity the smaller group gets due to camps the larger group gets as well. As stated above, it sounds good on paper but in practice larger groups always have more\better opportunities to place camps and all it takes is 3-5 seconds to get 20 people back into the fight. They have more people so the odds of someone getting off to place a camp is much higher and on top of that the smaller group cannot spare players to run around looking for camps as the larger group can, as going from 12 to 10 when fighting 40 is a significant loss. Also even if we sent those two players off and they were able to successfully burn the camp ( a miracle scenario when fighting a massive amount of players), they will get hunted down by +10 and even if we are able to wipe the rest while the are getting zerged, one camp and the fight is simply reset.

As for your second response, when I have smaller groups (2-7) we tend to just take resources outside of high traffic areas and hope a massive pug zerg comes along or just zergsurf if our pugs are hitting a brick wall and we want some objectives to flip blue. If we have a 8-12 man we'll look for either a massive pug zerg to fight\farm or if another good guild is present on our server we might go seek them out if we're bored of playing a zombie survival simulator. Once we get up closer to 16 we start pushing contested objectives on our own (not PvDoor hoping to beat the first responders) , continue farming pugs, or jump over to a buff server and test ourselves against a full\1bar\1bar scenario. Lately we have enjoyed playing on a buff server more than the main pvp campaign as we can no longer tolerate the 2 second weapon swaps at 12pm est.

Continuing on that I have a major issue with you saying "you wouldn't have wiped them even without forward camps" and "all it did was help them avoid horse simulator." Forcing someone to resume horse simulator IS WIPING THEM. If you are not capable of forcing someone into horse simulator eventually, you are not capable of wiping them. And there are many situations where I cannot wipe a massive zerg merely because they simply camp spam. When I push out of an inner and kill 15-20 on the steps immediately and then push into an adjacent tower to limit exposure to siege\other AoEs, everyone I just killed on the steps are already up and a 10 second run from making its a 60v12 fight once again. Yes if we have a camp up we can rez up if we wipe as well, but it is 10x harder for a smaller group to use camps proactively (dropping it prior to a push as a cushion in case of a full group wipe) which means it will most likely be dropped post wipe. This means we either need to have someone stay behind for the purpose of dropping a camp, while hoping that they won't get 10v1d once they go out a door and gimping our group during our push, or hope that someone is able to get away. While this is happening, the +30 that aren't busy trying to find the 1-2 that got away or stayed behind to drop a camp can easily flip flags.

Also the nightblade example was simple hyperbole to represent a point, the smaller group doesn't have the luxury of sparing even half a dozen people to hunt\place and defend camps at all times. This lets the much larger group use camps proactively much more effectively than a smaller group. When their camp is outside of a keep in a resource tower and there are 5ish players sitting on the resource at all times while people continue to stream from the camp to the keep, my group cannot feasibly spare the people that would be needed to burn it\prevent them form placing more without loosing our ability to stop what's inside the keep from force flipping the flags. We do not end up wiping in this scenario simply because their group is larger, we wipe because forward camps--the new kags zombie rez--means we simply cannot keep everyone dead. And saying that if the larger group doesn't use camps then camps will help smaller groups is like saying siege is always most useful for the outnumbered party as long as it isn't used by the massive zerg. If they were not being used in this way, they wouldn't be a problem.

That overall is my point, I like what forward camps can do in regards to extending action. The problem is they have replaced templar zombie rezing with kags + battle rez 2 as the new go to crutch for zerg guilds (those fielding 2-3 sometimes more groups) to guarantee takes on objectives by eventually overwhelming their opponent with absurd numbers that do not see a real penalty for death. They also have a tendency to prolong large fights and make server performance stay in the toilet for that much longer by condensing numbers. Despite this I would like to see them stay in game, I myself enjoy the more consistent action. But as someone that likes to fight around and occasionally for objectives, when they are present to their fullest capacity they cause major issues. That's why I feel like a larger respawn timer would be helpful in preventing death from becoming truly meaningless in certain scenarios that heavily favor the side with overwhelming numbers.