Zippity wrote:I like the idea of making it so that you have to take 2 towers to disable realm teleporting. Df control system should remain as is in my opinion however.

Of course, every tower will have a similar impact to the DF control, just the first tower wouldn't have an impact on porting aswell, only the 2nd and 3rd.

panachier wrote:- it has never been able to port to camp if you were not able to port to your home keep ( missing tower/keep).

I think everyone knows you are the one who is wrong.... Towers nor keeps mattered. You could always port from border or teleport keeps to the camp. Why do you think so few of us remembered u could also take a horse?

Edit: My mistake, losing home KEEPS did affect it, sorry.

panachier wrote:- people that are planing to take tower/keep use boats and don't care about camp. if you really want to bash doors, the situation is the same with or without the camp, except the fact that at the moment it's the funnier thing you can do in the day time

Uhhm.. ? What? You might think people who take towers dont care about the camp, but that doesnt make it true in every case. Besides, making 2 towers affect Agramon porting will only increase the tower action, since you will have to port to the home keeps instead. This will make it harder to just ignore your realm defense by porting to the camp instead of trying to defend your towers.
You may also say that the current system is the same as my proposal, but it's not.. not at all.

Pls, try informing yourself before making posts like this.

Blue wrote:The argument for a timed port is that some players will be ported together, so that the formerly single ported player won't be alone when facing enemies at the target location. Some kind of implicite protection.

I agree that this will form some kind of implicite protection, but I think it will be somewhat neglectable at lowpeak hours, which I think will be the most dangerous times to actually port. I'm not for or against this measure, I think it would work either way and wouldn't impact the whole so much, besides for it being rather 'annoying' than useful at lowpeak hours.
When using a port pad and an AoE port, I think people will try to make it so that they port in group, even without a timer, when they feel threatened.

Zarkor]
[quote="panachier wrote:- it has never been able to port to camp if you were not able to port to your home keep ( missing tower/keep).

I think everyone knows you are the one who is wrong.... Towers nor keeps mattered. You could always port from border or teleport keeps to the camp. Why do you think so few of us remembered u could also take a horse?

[/quote]

/hug zarkor

http://www.uthgard-server.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9807&highlight=porting+camp

i think that kills all your argumentation... i have even not to answer the rest of your post, you shown by yourself that you have no idea about what you are talking and your knowledges about the rvr situations are wrong

panachier wrote:

Zarkor]
[quote="panachier wrote:- it has never been able to port to camp if you were not able to port to your home keep ( missing tower/keep).

I think everyone knows you are the one who is wrong.... Towers nor keeps mattered. You could always port from border or teleport keeps to the camp. Why do you think so few of us remembered u could also take a horse?

If that really was the case then it was absolutely not intended and a bug. Camps were clearly intended to be parts of the supply chain.

That is not correct. You were not able to port to the camp if you lost your keep and your towers.

There was though a bug, that a certain tower was checked before the other components like keep and second tower. So if you had raided the keep and the second tower, the enemy had still the possiblity to port because he still owned the first tower.

Ah sorry I was confused with towers and keeps, took the keep for a tower, my bad .