Forward Camps

Drummerx04 · December 2016

I am trying to decide whether forward camps are a good feature for open world pvp. I'm leaning towards disliking them, but I'm curious how the community feels about them. I'll just summarize a few points about camps, and hopefully, it sparks some interesting discussion.

Empowers faction stacking by allowing the entire faction to continuously respawn near/in a battle. This can make it insanely difficult to actually defend a keep against superior numbers, as they can just pour in until you are eventually overwhelmed by numbers and lag. This also makes dethrones difficult against a faction that is actively fighting to protect the emp. If we wipe 2 raids of whatever, they can be back in the fight hiding behind oils and coldfire in no time.
Allows skilled groups/guilds to persist in one area for an extremely long time. Pugs continuously stack at a keep/gate/tower until they eventually overwhelm the skilled group.... but they just camp and start all over.
Allows the rescue of a few group members that were unfortunate enough to get snared by a tremorscale ***hole and zerged down. This can help to keep a group together. This is different from the above point as instead of recovering from a 90% wipe, they recover from a 10% wipe.
They do allow you to avoid horse simulator...

As I see it, forward camps are a large contributor to the massive zergs that we see today. If an attacking zerg loses a few slow or out of place gazelles, then they typically just respawn instantly within the safety of the zerg. Successfully killed off a large chunk? Wrong, they are back at the camp.

If forward camps weren't around, then killing the enemy at a keep take or defense would be more meaningful because they would either be forced to wait for an ally to reclaim that location and revive them, or they need to run back from a nearby keep, and perhaps this would give just enough of a buffer to reduce the extent of the faction stacking that we currently see. Removing camps may also encourage faction members to revive each other. Either revive this guy, or he can't help you unless he runs back from the nearest keep.

Taylor_MB · December 2016

I'm for them.

Sieges and pitched field battles have enough people sitting back sniping and sieging and not engaging or pushing even when they have a clear advantage. Completely removing forward camps will make people play waaayyyyyy more defensively and ultimately make combat more boring.

I do appreciate they often empower the zerg, but they also benefit small group or even solo (I drop FC's just for myself a lot XD) just as much.

Enodoc · December 2016

This shouldn't be too much of an issue due to the restrictions on them:

Each forward camp only has a certain number of respawn available (I think it's 20?)
You can only respawn at a camp if you die within its radius - essentially you can't enter the battle if you weren't already in it
You can only use a forward camp for respawn once in 5(?) minutes
There's a limit to how many forward camps can exist on the battlefield at once

WuffyCerulei · December 2016

Forward camps come in very handy when there's enemies in and all over a flagged keep. Can't go in and rez people with 10 enemies right where all the dead are. Camps also help with NOT having to ride across the map and possibly get ganked.

Leandor · December 2016

We had this period of no forward camp pvp. It was stale AF, everyone camping inside keeps, little to no open world battles, taking keeps was possible only with bomb trains...

It was utter bullcrap. FCs have been proven to be necessary for healthy pvp.

geonsocal · December 2016

Leandor wrote: »

We had this period of no forward camp pvp. It was stale AF, everyone camping inside keeps, little to no open world battles, taking keeps was possible only with bomb trains...

It was utter bullcrap. FCs have been proven to be necessary for healthy pvp.

this pretty much sums it up for me, plus, the whole skipping the horse simulator thing...

kevlarto_ESO · December 2016

I liked better when they took them out, but they are better imho than they used to be blood porting is bad mm-k, you can kinda blood port now if you own on of the cities at least a little travel is involved. I like riding to battle with a large group of my faction feels epic, this whole horse simulator is just crap and hyperbole, the map is big but you can get places pretty fast if you have a maxed out mount.

Maybe a new crown item, temporary speed for your mount, don't lag behind get this 2 hour horse buff stay up with your friends, in the heat of battle die quickly like them..LOL

for those that have no sense of humor that ^^^ is a joke.

Drummerx04 · December 2016

Enodoc wrote: »

This shouldn't be too much of an issue due to the restrictions on them:
Each forward camp only has a certain number of respawn available (I think it's 20?)

You can only respawn at a camp if you die within its radius - essentially you can't enter the battle if you weren't already in it

You can only use a forward camp for respawn once in 5(?) minutes

There's a limit to how many forward camps can exist on the battlefield at once

I think I've only seen this come into play once ever. And the camp timers help, but often there are so many people that there is almost always a few that can take any camp at any given time.

WuffyCerulei wrote: »

Forward camps come in very handy when there's enemies in and all over a flagged keep. Can't go in and rez people with 10 enemies right where all the dead are. Camps also help with NOT having to ride across the map and possibly get ganked.

Typically, when an enemy faction has zerged a keep, then FC are just delaying the inevitable. As soon as one gets placed then the enemy swarm just flocks over and runs them over again.

Leandor wrote: »

We had this period of no forward camp pvp. It was stale AF, everyone camping inside keeps, little to no open world battles, taking keeps was possible only with bomb trains...

It was utter bullcrap. FCs have been proven to be necessary for healthy pvp.

What open world battles have you been having? The only battles I ever really see are either in a keep, or they are between emp keeps and maybe in a town.

I came into pvp probably on patch 1.5-1.6, so forward camps were a 'new' edition for me. Before them you could send some small groups on a strategic mission to flag another keep and delay reinforcements for an ongoing battle. If I'm the only one who doesn't enjoy fighting an infinitely camping faction stack with 500+ ping and 5 frames for 40 straight minutes, I guess I can accept that, but I'm a little surprised I haven't heard anything from the "zergs are bad and everything favors numbers" crowd.

Leandor · December 2016

Drummerx04 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

We had this period of no forward camp pvp. It was stale AF, everyone camping inside keeps, little to no open world battles, taking keeps was possible only with bomb trains...

It was utter bullcrap. FCs have been proven to be necessary for healthy pvp.

What open world battles have you been having? The only battles I ever really see are either in a keep, or they are between emp keeps and maybe in a town.

I don't know what server and campaign you are playing on, but on BWB and TF EU, there are plenty of big fights between the objectives. Alessia bridge and Chalman waygate are the most prominent and often hated, but also between Roebeck, Nikel and Ash waygate has a lot of action.

Often, gankers disrupting reinforcement lines evolve into longer cat & mouse plays.

There is plenty of open world if you don't transitus all the time.

Drummerx04 · December 2016

Leandor wrote: »

Drummerx04 wrote: »

Leandor wrote: »

We had this period of no forward camp pvp. It was stale AF, everyone camping inside keeps, little to no open world battles, taking keeps was possible only with bomb trains...

It was utter bullcrap. FCs have been proven to be necessary for healthy pvp.

What open world battles have you been having? The only battles I ever really see are either in a keep, or they are between emp keeps and maybe in a town.

I don't know what server and campaign you are playing on, but on BWB and TF EU, there are plenty of big fights between the objectives. Alessia bridge and Chalman waygate are the most prominent and often hated, but also between Roebeck, Nikel and Ash waygate has a lot of action.

Often, gankers disrupting reinforcement lines evolve into longer cat & mouse plays.

There is plenty of open world if you don't transitus all the time.

TF NA, and I also regularly see the same battles. Typically, the fights in those areas start with one faction gaining momentum until the keep spawn rate reinforcements eventually halt the zerg and get pushed back to the gate or keep until the roles get reversed again. Rinse. Repeat. Interestingly, the zerg pushing normally only comes with FC involved when they turn into gate or resource farms.

Derra · December 2016

I don´t like them.

BRogueNZ · December 2016

I think they're better than they were.

I wish the range was a little larger oh and came with claymores and a laser turret.

leepalmer95 · December 2016

I still think you shouldn't be able to put a forward camp in a keep.

Kind of defeats the purpose of flagging a keep if they can just respawn anyway.

Drummerx04 · December 2016

leepalmer95 wrote: »

I still think you shouldn't be able to put a forward camp in a keep.

Kind of defeats the purpose of flagging a keep if they can just respawn anyway.

Pretty much this. Especially in cases such as a dethrone where most of the faction will stack for the defense. There are so many defenders that there is almost always someone ready to respawn at a camp even with a 5 minute cooldown.

ziaodix · December 2016

I like both sides of this argument, and believe that a nice balance could be achieved when we take into account all the good comments being made.

I do like the usage of them, occasionally, but this is a one sided argument where I generally only like them when they benefit me and my group, but hate them when they work the opposite. So this back and forth doesn't ultimately bother me as much.

On the other hand, I agree the radius that disallows enemy factions from placing camps near a keep should extend to the faction itself that owns the keep. That way no camps, regardless of who owns the keep, can be placed. This idea I like a lot.

In any case, I think healthy discussion and positive feedback (whether for or against something) is nice to see on the forums.

kyle.wilson · December 2016

At least the forward camps don't work like they did at launch. There was no cooldown.

But, when I running solo, I like hunting for the camps and burning them. They waste 20k ap to rez maybe 1 or 2 people. And usually the zerg doesn't stay around the camp so I get many easy kills.

kyle.wilson · December 2016

kevlarto_ESO wrote: »

I liked better when they took them out, but they are better imho than they used to be blood porting is bad mm-k, you can kinda blood port now if you own on of the cities at least a little travel is involved. I like riding to battle with a large group of my faction feels epic, this whole horse simulator is just crap and hyperbole, the map is big but you can get places pretty fast if you have a maxed out mount.

Maybe a new crown item, temporary speed for your mount, don't lag behind get this 2 hour horse buff stay up with your friends, in the heat of battle die quickly like them..LOL

for those that have no sense of humor that ^^^ is a joke.

I had forgoten about bloodporting to a camp. When I was an EP, I watched a entire zerg suicide off an outpost wall to bloodport to a camp.

pcar944 · December 2016

on one hand, stacking is bad, on the other hand, like you said - horse simulator

I think the timer they added is too long if you are defending vs a huge zerg, but then that's also a 2-way street right?

ZoS should add more points on the map that factions can control for respawn points - like Bruma/Cropsford/Vlastarus

and make those points matter on the score card for evaluation every hour - and then we can start thinking about FC changes or removal completely

this way you will get more little fights all across the map for tactical points on the map (or they would be just zerged down lol)

but zerg will still zerg no matter what

Drummerx04 · December 2016

pcar944 wrote: »

on one hand, stacking is bad, on the other hand, like you said - horse simulator

I think the timer they added is too long if you are defending vs a huge zerg, but then that's also a 2-way street right?

ZoS should add more points on the map that factions can control for respawn points - like Bruma/Cropsford/Vlastarus

and make those points matter on the score card for evaluation every hour - and then we can start thinking about FC changes or removal completely

this way you will get more little fights all across the map for tactical points on the map (or they would be just zerged down lol)

but zerg will still zerg no matter what

I understand why the zerging occurs. Sometimes it's as simple as there is NOTHING else happening on the map, and going anywhere solo or small group can be an enormous disadvantage. Trying to take a resource at Arrius while there are no battles? 15 man response team because they have nowhere better to go.

I honestly don't think anyone feels particularly good about zerging, but I can also understand that is sucks to get killed when there's really nothing you can do about it. Glade lumber flips red for instance, is it one guy who thinks he's being clever or is it a 5+ haxus group that baits and wipes pugs by the dozen? I can handle a few bad players by myself, but I'm not surviving, much less killing, a coordinated group of players without assistance.

At least while following one of the faction zergs you can be sure to have some level of backup. I guess in the end camps facilitate that backup that people want, so I don't really expect them to be removed.

visionality · December 2016

I'm pretty happy with forward camps, I only would change one detail: You can ress once immediately in a FC, then get your 5 min cooldown for the 2nd FC-ress, but no option for a 3rd FC-ress in a row. Ofc getting manually ressed or respawning at your own keep/outpost/town would reset the counter.

While this would still help to keep a battle going, it would prevent the inifinite battles we're seeing atm. It would also stop the farming groups that have one NB hiding and setting up a camp for the whole group or even single members after each wipe in enemy territory.

visionality · December 2016

Oh, and maybe it would be an improvement to make FCs visible on enemy's maps as soon as players start ressing there?

Sugaroverdose · December 2016

visionality wrote: »

Oh, and maybe it would be an improvement to make FCs visible on enemy's maps as soon as players start ressing there?

No reason for such, there's always a guy who runs by straight line from camp to battle, so it's easily traceable

Sharee · December 2016

There is one thing in regards to point 2 in the OP that i would like changed. A freshly built forward camp should stay inactive (cannot respawn at it) but vulnerable (can be destroyed) for X amount of time.

This will prevent the situations where you have an extremely annoying tight group that is very hard to kill, and when you finally do, they will all instantly respawn 1 second after a camp was placed by one stealthed surviving member, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that save being extremely lucky and finding the stealther before he can place the camp.

If the camp has to be placed and be visible for some time before the enemies can respawn there, it will give their opponents a small window to locate and destroy the camp.

Drummerx04 · December 2016

visionality wrote: »

I'm pretty happy with forward camps, I only would change one detail: You can ress once immediately in a FC, then get your 5 min cooldown for the 2nd FC-ress, but no option for a 3rd FC-ress in a row. Ofc getting manually ressed or respawning at your own keep/outpost/town would reset the counter.

While this would still help to keep a battle going, it would prevent the inifinite battles we're seeing atm. It would also stop the farming groups that have one NB hiding and setting up a camp for the whole group or even single members after each wipe in enemy territory.

That actually seems like a reasonable ballpark for a change to camps. Effectively infinite respawns without a keep is what I would like to see gone.

Sharee wrote: »

There is one thing in regards to point 2 in the OP that i would like changed. A freshly built forward camp should stay inactive (cannot respawn at it) but vulnerable (can be destroyed) for X amount of time.

This will prevent the situations where you have an extremely annoying tight group that is very hard to kill, and when you finally do, they will all instantly respawn 1 second after a camp was placed by one stealthed surviving member, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that save being extremely lucky and finding the stealther before he can place the camp.

If the camp has to be placed and be visible for some time before the enemies can respawn there, it will give their opponents a small window to locate and destroy the camp.

Nice! Another possible solution would be to implement a spawn queue at the camp. The queue could discharge one player every 1-3 seconds. This would prevent an entire raid from instantly reviving, but would still allow for steady reinforcements or a raid to reform if the camp was well hidden.

Sugaroverdose · December 2016

Sharee wrote: »

There is one thing in regards to point 2 in the OP that i would like changed. A freshly built forward camp should stay inactive (cannot respawn at it) but vulnerable (can be destroyed) for X amount of time.

This will prevent the situations where you have an extremely annoying tight group that is very hard to kill, and when you finally do, they will all instantly respawn 1 second after a camp was placed by one stealthed surviving member, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that save being extremely lucky and finding the stealther before he can place the camp.

If the camp has to be placed and be visible for some time before the enemies can respawn there, it will give their opponents a small window to locate and destroy the camp.

If guy who placed camp smart enough, he'll drop caltrops to not allow opponents to burn it

Sharee · December 2016

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

There is one thing in regards to point 2 in the OP that i would like changed. A freshly built forward camp should stay inactive (cannot respawn at it) but vulnerable (can be destroyed) for X amount of time.

This will prevent the situations where you have an extremely annoying tight group that is very hard to kill, and when you finally do, they will all instantly respawn 1 second after a camp was placed by one stealthed surviving member, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that save being extremely lucky and finding the stealther before he can place the camp.

If the camp has to be placed and be visible for some time before the enemies can respawn there, it will give their opponents a small window to locate and destroy the camp.

If guy who placed camp smart enough, he'll drop caltrops to not allow opponents to burn it

That's what ballistae are for

visionality · December 2016

Sugaroverdose wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

There is one thing in regards to point 2 in the OP that i would like changed. A freshly built forward camp should stay inactive (cannot respawn at it) but vulnerable (can be destroyed) for X amount of time.

This will prevent the situations where you have an extremely annoying tight group that is very hard to kill, and when you finally do, they will all instantly respawn 1 second after a camp was placed by one stealthed surviving member, and there is nothing you can do to prevent that save being extremely lucky and finding the stealther before he can place the camp.

If the camp has to be placed and be visible for some time before the enemies can respawn there, it will give their opponents a small window to locate and destroy the camp.

If guy who placed camp smart enough, he'll drop caltrops to not allow opponents to burn it

I don't think you can stop the perma-spawners by making their camps visible as the campbots won't mind setting up another one.The best solution is to limit the times players can respawn at a forward camp before they have to start back in their own territory.

GreenSoup2HoT · December 2016

Forward Camps should have twice the radius but not allowed near keeps. This makes open field fighting more possible while preventing keep stalemates. Id also make it so they take longer to burn and last longer duration wise.

pcar944 · December 2016

yeah but if you think about it, if you place more things on the map that can be controlled for scores and such - you are allowing people to go places where:

1) they normally would not have gone at ALL

2) they actually have to kind of plan what, how, and when they are going to do

the idea is what I saw playing on my EP toon vs AD over last week - anytime they went to take Sej/Drake - EP or AD - they always went for Cropsford

something I hardly see happen with Bruma/Aleswell/Dragon or Vlastarus/Ash/Roebeck

so if you add more of these "points" on map you can potentially create small scale and add a little spice to the same mundane thing going on

thankyourat · December 2016

Forward camps should reduce the resources you have when you revive there. kind of how when you res someone they don't have full resources. It should also drain your ultimate. It's kind of dumb that you can wipe a group and then they res in a camp and ulti bomb you. You just depleted all your resources wiping a group and then they all revive with full resources. That's ridiculous

Stridig · December 2016

Before they brought forward camps back you would get ganked by the whole zerg instead of 1 or 2 people.