Ignorant Layout Of Keeps Building a Keep in A Valley??

defilade__ESO

What can I say, what idiot builds a keep in the low ground, and surrounds the keep with higher ground for the enemy to siege from?

Too many keeps are designed this way, either the keep is in a valley, surrounded by high cliffs that the siege weapon inside the keep walls cannot reach, or the keep's resource sits on the higher elevation, and once again the siege engines inside the keep cannot reach them.

If that is not bad enough, the area inside the inner keep where you can lay sieges down, are on the opposite side of the keep where the high ground is, making it impossible to siege the breech from inside the inner keep.

defilade__ESO

In real life, no one would build a keep on the lower ground, surround itself with higher ground, they would tear down the higher ground to lower all the surrounding area so the keep was higher, or build on that higher ground.

timidobserver

It is very important to have the low ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIslHNMf3g8
*See the last 20 seconds.

Germtrocity

timidobserver wrote: »

It is very important to have the low ground.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIslHNMf3g8
*See the last 20 seconds.

I am oddly satisfied after watching that.

defilade__ESO

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

ToRelax

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

They play AD and they don't like DC .

Elsonso

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

The outposts are not much better. They can really only be defended on one side, but they can be attacked from three.

I have decided, for myself, not to bother defending outposts. Bleakers and Sejanus are particularly undefendable given adjacent high ground on the backside where the defenders are unable to place siege.

The inner keep structure, which is shared between outposts and keeps in many cases, needs to be completely circumnavigational on the upper level and wide enough at all points to place siege defenses.

iseko

Might not be very functional but at least its pretty? Got a nice eagle eye view of keeps...

Im pretty sure thats the designer motto of eso devs (lighting patch, BoL animation,...)

SHADOW2KK

Defo have to agree with you OP, the location and terrain of the keeps is absolutely atrocious (no offence Zeni:P) in terms of strategic placement for defence, absolutely devoid of it.

Keeps in history were built on defensible terrain, i.e high ground, wherein defensive weaponry had longer range than what is the norm in Cyrodil, and where the planners of the castles etc, would study the terrain to take advantage of natural defences and implement measures to cover approaches effectively, like killing grounds, marshes, trapped ground, the list goes on.

Way it is atm in Cyrodil, a half dead gerbil with no training whatsoever could take a keep no problems.

But I suppose that the design may be deliberate if Zeni did not consult any military personnel in how to create defensible terrain in the context that they want keeps to fall a lot, to keep the game flowing, as many would be put off by some impenetrable citadels hehe.

I personally would love the challenge, and rise to it on other games like the Total War series, but lets face it, PvP in Cyrodil does not come even anywhere close to strategy in those games.

Sanct16

ToRelax wrote: »

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

They play AD and they don't like DC .

Alessia farm? All factions have bad terrain (EP on Chalman) but DC has the worst design I agree.

Zargorius

ESO keeps have nothing to do with actual keep design, they are terribly placed and have structure that does not make sense. I suppose we will need to wait for Camelot Unchained to see proper keeps in proper spots.

[Moderator Note: Edited per our rules on BASHING AND SLANDEROUS COMMENTS]

kevlarto_ESO

I agree op and NERF the HIGH GROUND !!!!

They don't have to reflect real life keeps of old but they should at least not have crazy vantage points, I think being able to siege from hill tops down into the keep or from a resource towers, should be corrected.

Dagoth_Rac

At the real world Battle of Alesia, it took Julius Caesar and 60,000 men weeks of siege and days of battle to win the fight. Because in the real world, Keeps and Castles and walls are designed in strategic positions that make them extremely difficult to breach. But this is a video game. Keeps are designed to be taken to insure the game is dynamic and exciting. Easy-to-take and hard-to-defend makes for much more entertaining and active gameplay than hard-to-take and easy-to-defend.

Tripwyr

I think the most important factor is that the variety of keep placements and designs makes this video game more interesting.

Dreyloch

defilade__ESO wrote: »

What can I say, what idiot builds a keep in the low ground, and surrounds the keep with higher ground for the enemy to siege from?

Too many keeps are designed this way, either the keep is in a valley, surrounded by high cliffs that the siege weapon inside the keep walls cannot reach, or the keep's resource sits on the higher elevation, and once again the siege engines inside the keep cannot reach them.

If that is not bad enough, the area inside the inner keep where you can lay sieges down, are on the opposite side of the keep where the high ground is, making it impossible to siege the breech from inside the inner keep.

Myself and bunches of people I've played with have the same thought. Never at anytime in history of the human race,has anyone ever built a Keep even remotely close to anything that resembles these. Totally and completely useless. Someone at ZoS needs to take a friggin' history class or watch some kind of medieval movies. /agree 1 billion times over OP...

Zargorius

Tripwyr wrote: »

I think the most important factor is that the variety of keep placements and designs makes this video game more interesting.

There are other was on making the gameplay interesting without taking a dump on logic.

Rylana

I do get bored of always defending the same wall of every keep.

Its always chalman mine, its always aleswell farm, its always kings lumber

etc etc

Elsonso

Zargorius wrote: »

Tripwyr wrote: »

I think the most important factor is that the variety of keep placements and designs makes this video game more interesting.

There are other was on making the gameplay interesting without taking a dump on logic.

I am guessing that you are new to The Elder Scrolls games? Logic is frequently the first casualty. One does not play any TES game and expect that any laws of time, space, or design are followed.

RedTalon

lordrichter wrote: »

Zargorius wrote: »

Tripwyr wrote: »

I think the most important factor is that the variety of keep placements and designs makes this video game more interesting.

There are other was on making the gameplay interesting without taking a dump on logic.

I am guessing that you are new to The Elder Scrolls games? Logic is frequently the first casualty. One does not play any TES game and expect that any laws of time, space, or design are followed.

True dragon breaks see to that often enough, and wonder how many have figured out Skyrim most likely meant the makers of elder scrolls get to have fun with another dragon break

prose08b14a_ESO

Sanct16 wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

They play AD and they don't like DC .

Alessia farm? All factions have bad terrain (EP on Chalman) but DC has the worst design I agree.

Warden, Rayles, Glademist, and Aleswell. 4/6 of DC homekeeps have this disadvantage that has been exploited repeatedly. At least it makes it easy to know where the enemy is hitting us from, but sadly the low DC population, coupled with the fact that 66% of our home territory is easy-mode for siege, makes playing DC a quick way to have your family worried about you after 6-8 hours of yelling at the monitor...

RedTalon

prose08b14a_ESO wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

They play AD and they don't like DC .

Alessia farm? All factions have bad terrain (EP on Chalman) but DC has the worst design I agree.

Warden, Rayles, Glademist, and Aleswell. 4/6 of DC homekeeps have this disadvantage that has been exploited repeatedly. At least it makes it easy to know where the enemy is hitting us from, but sadly the low DC population, coupled with the fact that 66% of our home territory is easy-mode for siege, makes playing DC a quick way to have your family worried about you after 6-8 hours of yelling at the monitor...

Yup and it shows the devs never played dc side also, just thought hey this will be interesting lets do this for this side of the map, it will look cool

defilade__ESO

lordrichter wrote: »

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

The outposts are not much better. They can really only be defended on one side, but they can be attacked from three.

I have decided, for myself, not to bother defending outposts. Bleakers and Sejanus are particularly undefendable given adjacent high ground on the backside where the defenders are unable to place siege.

The inner keep structure, which is shared between outposts and keeps in many cases, needs to be completely circumnavigational on the upper level and wide enough at all points to place siege defenses.

I'd forgotten about the outposts, yes, Senjanus's siege platforms are on the opposite side of the high ground too, something no one would do if they had any common sense.

defilade__ESO

Zargorius wrote: »

ESO keeps have nothing to do with actual keep design, they are terribly placed and have structure that does not make sense. I suppose we will need to wait for Camelot Unchained to see proper keeps in proper spots.

I had heard the the actual keep designs were supposedly taken from actual medieval keeps. But the way the devs placed the keeps, that was terrible, and in many cases completely bassakwards

[Moderator Note: Edited quote to match moderated version]

MisterBigglesworth

King of Swamp Castle

When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

Teargrants

MisterBigglesworth wrote: »

King of Swamp Castle

When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.

But I don't want any of that - I'd rather...rather just...sing!

bosmern_ESO

defilade__ESO wrote: »

In real life, no one would build a keep on the lower ground, surround itself with higher ground, they would tear down the higher ground to lower all the surrounding area so the keep was higher, or build on that higher ground.

Yell at Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

If there wasnt castles/keeps in Oblivion the Keep placement in ESO would be a lot better.

But they have to follow the already established lore or everyone is going to loose their minds and rant about it endlessly. The Terrain around all keeps is beneficial for everyone. If your enemy can siege a keep from a hill to get in, so can you when they have that keep.

driosketch

prose08b14a_ESO wrote: »

Sanct16 wrote: »

ToRelax wrote: »

defilade__ESO wrote: »

I realize they used actual castle designs for the keep structures, but they threw out all common sense when they decided where to place the actual keep. Who builds a keep on completely indefensible ground, from which our enemy can attack the keep from on high with impunity?

They play AD and they don't like DC .

Alessia farm? All factions have bad terrain (EP on Chalman) but DC has the worst design I agree.

Warden, Rayles, Glademist, and Aleswell. 4/6 of DC homekeeps have this disadvantage that has been exploited repeatedly. At least it makes it easy to know where the enemy is hitting us from, but sadly the low DC population, coupled with the fact that 66% of our home territory is easy-mode for siege, makes playing DC a quick way to have your family worried about you after 6-8 hours of yelling at the monitor...

Technically, if you can get up there, Ash can be seiged from cliffs as well. Also Bleakers.

bosmern_ESO wrote: »

defilade__ESO wrote: »

In real life, no one would build a keep on the lower ground, surround itself with higher ground, they would tear down the higher ground to lower all the surrounding area so the keep was higher, or build on that higher ground.

Yell at Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.

If there wasnt castles/keeps in Oblivion the Keep placement in ESO would be a lot better.

But they have to follow the already established lore or everyone is going to loose their minds and rant about it endlessly. The Terrain around all keeps is beneficial for everyone. If your enemy can siege a keep from a hill to get in, so can you when they have that keep.

Not quite. The walls around Ales are on the N and E, the direction of incoming reinforcements from EP. Same with Bleakers, which is also facing the wrong way.

defilade__ESO

Too many keeps are designed specifically so they cannot be defended from the obvious high ground, which is why in a lot of fights no one bothers to defend the keep from siege attacks anymore. Players just sit inside the keep and wait for the attackers to enter thru the breech of the inner keep postern, and then Zerg them in a ball with AoE spams.

I understand the devs want the keeps to regularly change hands, to make the game play more exciting, but do they really need to break out the double hammer of stupidity to accomplish it? A keep surrounded by high ground, and no keep siege capable of reaching the attackers?

Because they have made the keep designs and placements so stupid, everyone attacks specific keeps from the same side of the keep. Is that what the devs wanted? For players to always attack the same keeps from the same side every time?

If they want to add variety, then make the keep walls much stronger on the sides afflicted with the high ground of stupidity. This way, when attacker do siege from the ridiculously high tower at the resource, or up on the conveniently tall cliffs-of-impunity, the keep walls will be stronger and maybe some attackers will actually sit and ponder attacking from a different direction.

Do you devs get where I'm coming from?

1) attacking from the high ground might be easier, and offer little risk, if any at all.... but it takes much longer because of the reinforced walls

2) attacking from the other side of the keep from the open field will bring the weaker keep walls down more quickly, but it's more dangerous and will require a little skill and defensive coordination

kevlarto_ESO

Yep that farm side over at Alessia is pretty much worn out, then we can get flying sorcs jumping from the mountain side and 4 blinks in the air and they are in the keep..

RedTalon

I don't even bother repairing walls fully anymore for DC when I play, if I see a weaken wall at some points just ignore it. cause its not the side that will be attacked by groups that will pose a threat...it has all become to predictable. part of why I'm on a break

defilade__ESO

RedTalon wrote: »

I don't even bother repairing walls fully anymore for DC when I play, if I see a weaken wall at some points just ignore it. cause its not the side that will be attacked by groups that will pose a threat...it has all become to predictable. part of why I'm on a break

Agreed, I don't bother repairing walls above 80% if they don't face high ground or a resource tower close enough to hit the keep, because it's very doubtful anyone will attack from that side.

The one simple change I've proposed in post #28, and adding another couple siege defense placements facing the high ground would add some more variety and reduced the silliness.