we need an indicator that a keep is under siege BEFORE its flagged

Wing

1) keeps should take longer to flag, either more hp (especially on doors) or just don't flag till around 25% rather then 50%

2) we need a new indicator that a keep is under siege once it hits 90%


as it stands now its "the keep is under attack por. . . and its gone. . ."

a chance to fight without pitching tents in our own keeps waiting would be nice

I would also suggest letting recall stones work from within keep limits, I actually don't get why you cant use them. BUT disallow the ability to keep recall, blood port, or rez at any keep your faction cannot teleport to under normal means (this means the keeps that have the *lock" on the transitis network line when you own them)

Wing

@ZOS_BrianWheeler because the edit feature is broken

Ankael07

Theres already an indicator for that. You can see the number of siege weapons before its flagged. Besides if an alliance doesnt scout its own keeps they deserve to lose them.

zyk

ZOS has probably crunched the numbers and found the pvdoor zergs are their best customers in Cyrodiil.

I've lost all faith in ZOS and the people who play this game.

JamilaRaj

Ankael07 wrote: »

Theres already an indicator for that. You can see the number of siege weapons before its flagged.

I think you can see only your own sieges.

Ankael07 wrote: »

Besides if an alliance doesnt scout its own keeps they deserve to lose them.

The point is that remarkably high number of sieges are either PvD, if attackers are not spotted early, or one sided slaughters, if they are (and entire opposing faction can then fast travel to roflstomp them). The rest, aside from cases like the last emp keep, are accidents that occur when both attackers and defenders partially fail at execution of their moves. Yet these accidents are more entertaining than either of the prevalent cases.
In other words, there is discrepancy between playing rationally and entertainment, which could be reduced somewhat if keeps lit up sooner, because it would curb both extremes; PvD on one hand, because defenders would have more time to react, and wipe in front of unlit keep, because they would have less time for fast travel and respawning with full resources just seconds away from where fighting takes place.
It would also reduce ping pong, because pushes could develop into outright sieges more readily.

Joy_Division

Some days I feel sorry for Brian.

"You need to do something to stop stacking on the Emperor ring and spread out!"

"You need to do something to stop people from PvDooring empty keeps!"

That being said, I do agree keep transit stones should be able to used anywhere.

Dutchessx

One of the things I have noticed no matter what server I have been on is people don’t maintain keep walls to 100% anymore or they don’t repair breached doors to 100%. I have also noticed people not putting a keep is under attack right away in zone. If people would do these simple things it would give groups a chance to respond when siege on a keep us discovered. I don’t know what faction or campaign or server you play on but might check and see if that is happening.

redspecter23

PvDoor only works well if there is an empty keep to take. Put scouts at keeps to avoid this issue. The fact that the opponent is attacking a weak undefended spot is a tactical move. Take that zerg from the front line and designate a few to guard your trikeeps. If you railroad the center keeps with 100+ people and leave your home undefended, that is on your team.

One could argue that guard duty is boring and not very rewarding, which is also true. ZOS could add some incentive to being an active lookout, but I have a hard time coming up with something appropriate.

idk

A keep getting the flag is the indicator. It does not make sense to have another indicator. Move faster. I have quite often seen keeps defended very well.

If you want an earlier indicator have someone at the keep watching for an attack.

technohic

Yeah, I think this part is fine as is. You use scouts and this is often a tactic of smaller groups to kill time of the larger groups having to ride to get there. Generally if it is a big enough group to where they can drop the outer and inner down that fast, they can do what? Maybe 1 keep like that and then everyone knows there is a big group and where they should expect them. When the smaller groups take them uncontested; it usually is because the other side is busy stacked up somewhere else and refuses to split to cover their back line

KappaKid83

Use Cyrhud, profit?

White wabbit

Hurts small groups as the zergs will be at them before they even break down the outer door

Haashhtaag

This seems like a terrible ideas.

HankTwo

This would make it impossible for an organized mid size group (~ 6 players) to rush a keep on their own.

zyk

Joy_Division wrote: »

Some days I feel sorry for Brian.

I feel sorry for Brian every day because I assume he hates all the problems of AvA as much as the players, but isn't enabled by his employer to do what is necessary to make meaningful changes.

ESO AvA was supposed to have NPCs players could hire who could perform functions like watch keeps. It's not reasonable to think players are going to spend their time doing that. I know some will -- I have ! -- but usually that's not going to be the case. ESO AvA is an unfinished game.

Plus even if it's scouted, there is usually no urgency to defend keeps because the players who would are chasing oticks. As much as anything else, the culture of the game is broken. It's full of players who aren't, IMO, fundamentally interested in PVP. They enjoy grindy MMO things like what taking keeps has become.

Merlight

HankTwo wrote: »

This would make it impossible for an organized mid size group (~ 6 players) to rush a keep on their own.

Is that a vote for, or against?

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

There is already an indicator. It's called player scouting and zone chat.

DocFrost72

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »

There is already an indicator. It's called player scouting and zone chat.

^

Sometimes all it takes is one person in the keep to squawk early and ruin a take. I can't tell you how many times I've typed "(keep name) x (faction) siege fd" to have the cavalry arrive right as they start on the inner.

vamp_emily

I'm the most hated indicator of Cyrodiil.. or at least I used to be, now I try to be silent when playing PvP.

This is kind of how it goes ( zone chat ):

Me: Zerg of EP leaving Chal now
Me: Zerg just past the chal gate
Me: Need help at Bleakers
Me: Bleakers UA
Zone Player: who the <blank blank blank> cares about bleakers

Me: Inc Nik 10 AD
Me: need help at Nik
Me: Nik UA
Me: Omg... why is it I can show up at 80% of the UAs but 3 bars of DC can't?
Zone Player: Emily <blank blank blank>! We don't play for you.

Indicators don't work.

zyk

ZOS should give players 5000 AP to players for dying to slaughterfish, just as a social experiment so we can study the people who actually spend hours doing that -- which they would.

HankTwo

Merlight wrote: »

HankTwo wrote: »

This would make it impossible for an organized mid size group (~ 6 players) to rush a keep on their own.

Is that a vote for, or against?

I'm against this proposal.

msalvia

Yeah, I agree that this takes away some of the skill and strategy of PvP. Basically, changing this would further entrench the "numbers are everything" nature of PvP. However, I kinda like this idea in that it makes bluffing more viable--I could solo ballista a wall, trick the enemy to come to the keep, and pull them off of an actual target. But overall, this seems to support zerging over small group play, so I don't think it would be beneficial overall.

Dutchessx

Even if you had that you could still siege most Keeps and some outposts without being on the keep/outpost grounds so it wouldn’t show if you wanted to. It would just take longer and you would have the zerg on you most likely before you finished it.

While I understand I wouldn’t be for this either but then again I don’t play the map much anymore unless I need to.

zyk

msalvia wrote: »

Yeah, I agree that this takes away some of the skill and strategy of PvP. Basically, changing this would further entrench the "numbers are everything" nature of PvP.

It's actually the opposite. As someone who shows up to defend keeps, it's normally the defenders getting zerged down 10-50:1.

technohic

vamp_emily wrote: »

I'm the most hated indicator of Cyrodiil.. or at least I used to be, now I try to be silent when playing PvP.

This is kind of how it goes ( zone chat ):

Me: Zerg of EP leaving Chal now
Me: Zerg just past the chal gate
Me: Need help at Bleakers
Me: Bleakers UA
Zone Player: who the <blank blank blank> cares about bleakers

Me: Inc Nik 10 AD
Me: need help at Nik
Me: Nik UA
Me: Omg... why is it I can show up at 80% of the UAs but 3 bars of DC can't?
Zone Player: Emily <blank blank blank>! We don't play for you.

Indicators don't work.

I've only said who cares about Bleakers or Nik when a full keep is under attack. Or, in the case of this past late Saturday/early sunday; we had a gate open and DC was still fighting at freaking nickel and Bleakers! 5 or so of us were scattered around trying to slow AD down and luckily DC finally showed up as they reached the actual scroll.

So yes; you might get some negative responses when people call out for an outpost DC seems obsessed with when keeps, especially hone keeps and scrolls are worth a lot more.

Alucardo

Ankael07 wrote: »

Theres already an indicator for that. You can see the number of siege weapons before its flagged. Besides if an alliance doesnt scout its own keeps they deserve to lose them.

Pretty much this.

Personally I think it's fine the way it is. If it gets captured so fast you barely had time to ride there, then chances are you were going to lose it anyway because there's a zerg waiting for you.
There are other indicators also. If you see resources flipping, then it's either basic res farmers or an incoming siege. It's best to go scout out the situation anyway.
If the resource flag flips really quickly, then you know they have a large number of people. There are addons available to tell you all this so you don't have to constantly glance at your map.

OtarTheMad

Sometimes calling it out in zone just simply does not work. I lost count on how many times I have called stuff out in zone only for no one to show up to defend or even worse, later wondering when <insert keep name here> flipped and why no one said anything. A good amount of players tend to ignore zone, just have it turned off or the guilds they are in are so active stuff gets missed.

Best to get an add-on that tells you honestly, a few exist. Cyrodiil alerts, cryhud

Soul_Demon

vamp_emily wrote: »

I'm the most hated indicator of Cyrodiil.. or at least I used to be, now I try to be silent when playing PvP.

This is kind of how it goes ( zone chat ):

Me: Zerg of EP leaving Chal now
Me: Zerg just past the chal gate
Me: Need help at Bleakers
Me: Bleakers UA
Zone Player: who the <blank blank blank> cares about bleakers

Me: Inc Nik 10 AD
Me: need help at Nik
Me: Nik UA
Me: Omg... why is it I can show up at 80% of the UAs but 3 bars of DC can't?
Zone Player: Emily <blank blank blank>! We don't play for you.

Indicators don't work.

Just a suggestion, as it could help somewhat where organized raids are concerned and getting the response you want.

Don't use the word 'zerg' as its laughable and a meme now. List approximate size of attacking group, where they are arriving or heading (appear to be). A good example would be "half raid, inc to brk fd." or possibly "raid plus passing gate at chal". I know some raids out there appreciate the quick estimate to help them decide how, when and by what means they go to defend things. Generic terms tend to be ignored as some players call "zerg" for three gankers where others call group of 10 not sieging "zerg attacking Ash" and yet other scream in zone "zerg inc to bleaks" only with 60+. I think its possible that the message you are sending may get more attention that way- if it interests you.

VaranisArano

KappaKid83 wrote: »

Use Cyrhud, profit?

On PC, yes.

If ZOS wants that to be a base game feature, they could extend their functionality to include that for everyone. If they don't, obviusly they can remove the API functionality.

Otherwise, the reliable old standby for alerting players that a keep is under attack is very simple.

Zone Chat: "large AD raid at Kings!"

But that requires players sitting at back keeps as scouts and most players don't wait to sit and wait.

Jaimeh

I think part of the fun is strategy, anticipating attacks, scouting, etc. Having an indicator would take that away, so I wouldn't want that feature personally.

idk

zyk wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

Some days I feel sorry for Brian.

I feel sorry for Brian every day because I assume he hates all the problems of AvA as much as the players, but isn't enabled by his employer to do what is necessary to make meaningful changes.

ESO AvA was supposed to have NPCs players could hire who could perform functions like watch keeps. It's not reasonable to think players are going to spend their time doing that. I know some will -- I have ! -- but usually that's not going to be the case. ESO AvA is an unfinished game.

Plus even if it's scouted, there is usually no urgency to defend keeps because the players who would are chasing oticks. As much as anything else, the culture of the game is broken. It's full of players who aren't, IMO, fundamentally interested in PVP. They enjoy grindy MMO things like what taking keeps has become.

We did have NPCs we could "hire" but they were not designed to warn us a keep was under attack. We placed them and they would help us defend the keep. Mages were especially good.

I think Zos removed them because it permitted a small group to be able to successfully defend a keep under attack. Maybe if a normal size group was defending it made things OP. I remember using them.

As for leaving scouts at key keeps, we used to do that. We used to do a great many things. Part of it is probably changes Zos has made over the years to how we earn points, but much is also due to the leadership we had then has long left the game.

Leadership determines tactics used. So many of the old tactics that would still be effective today are not are not used.