Excellent idea, I really like it.
Maybe make it 3 ressources for gate keeps, 2 ressources for arrius/glade/faregyl and 1 ressource for emp keeps? The closer you get to the enemy base, the harder it gets?
This would defnitely help people spread out and add a lot more depth to warfare and group coordinations. Would make things a lot more interesting.
Excellent idea, I really like it.
Maybe make it 3 ressources for gate keeps, 2 ressources for arrius/glade/faregyl and 1 ressource for emp keeps? The closer you get to the enemy base, the harder it gets?
This would defnitely help people spread out and add a lot more depth to warfare and group coordinations. Would make things a lot more interesting.
I would say that your own relic keeps would not require any resources, dragonclaw/brindle/drakelow and your two own emp keeps would require one, enemy emp keeps would require two, and enemy relic keeps require all three.
@RinaldoGandolphi overall I really like this idea. Gives smaller groups some impact and forces the almighty zerg blob to dare I say send some players out on their own to capture resources.
Also, please do something about the disparity between the amount of time it takes a zerg to flip a resource flag and a solo player. Thanks
spenc_cathb16_ESO wrote: »Excellent idea, I really like it.
Maybe make it 3 ressources for gate keeps, 2 ressources for arrius/glade/faregyl and 1 ressource for emp keeps? The closer you get to the enemy base, the harder it gets?
This would defnitely help people spread out and add a lot more depth to warfare and group coordinations. Would make things a lot more interesting.
I would say that your own relic keeps would not require any resources, dragonclaw/brindle/drakelow and your two own emp keeps would require one, enemy emp keeps would require two, and enemy relic keeps require all three.
@RinaldoGandolphi overall I really like this idea. Gives smaller groups some impact and forces the almighty zerg blob to dare I say send some players out on their own to capture resources.
Also, please do something about the disparity between the amount of time it takes a zerg to flip a resource flag and a solo player. Thanks
/signed
This actually sounds amazing, and simple af to code in.
I brought this up in TS a long time ago and it was shot down very quick.
Reasons:
1. Would make it very difficult for small groups to flip keeps. My response: So this would prevent daycapping/nightcapping?
2. The only other reason to mention. Would promote larger zergs. Reasoning: Guilds like GoS, Nexus, Havoc, VE, Decibel, No Mercy, etc would just wipe the floor with the zerg groups due to skill alone. Since they would be split up holding resources while taking the keep. They would end up bringing more and more players until they could take it. Which would lead to all fights being at one place on the map and decrease server performance.
For the record, I love the idea. Makes taking a keep a bit more strategic than 20/20 siege and zerg the flags.
Edit: Always felt there should be a flag outside the inner of a keep and one on the roof/third floor as well.
I brought this up in TS a long time ago and it was shot down very quick.
Reasons:
1. Would make it very difficult for small groups to flip keeps. My response: So this would prevent daycapping/nightcapping?
2. The only other reason to mention. Would promote larger zergs. Reasoning: Guilds like GoS, Nexus, Havoc, VE, Decibel, No Mercy, etc would just wipe the floor with the zerg groups due to skill alone. Since they would be split up holding resources while taking the keep. They would end up bringing more and more players until they could take it. Which would lead to all fights being at one place on the map and decrease server performance.
For the record, I love the idea. Makes taking a keep a bit more strategic than 20/20 siege and zerg the flags.
Edit: Always felt there should be a flag outside the inner of a keep and one on the roof/third floor as well.
Adding flags to the third floor/roof is also something I've been wanting, and could be added on top of the ressource change.
Currently, if a guild requires more people to take a keep, it means packing even more people through that breach and onto the flags. In this scenario, it means keeping the same numbers inside, and sending the reinforcements to the ressources. So even though you end up with more people at the keep, they are overall more spread out, so I think the performance impact wouldn't be as big.
So technically, more people, but not larger zergs.
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »Taking into account the current gameplay mechanics\mentality we currently see on live:
If it were all three required to "open the flags" for capture, it most likely would turn into everyone piling up at the "last resource" needed (you sort of see this already with Emperor-ship keeps). That's what I'd do at least...why worry about defending the keep when you know the flags can't be flipped as long as that last resource is held/easily flipped back to your side? This would be the most effective way of defending a keep, by balling up at a resource....which seems odd.
If it were 2 out of three, that may help mitigate the issue but could also promote "more bigger zerg" vs. "little zerg" warfare as players would roll from resource to resource flipping and back flipping.
That's not to say either of these ideas wouldn't get implemented...In fact we've brought this up internally before as well. Currently however we are leaning more towards making the keeps harder to break into and making defense easier for smaller groups.
We've also talked about moving the flags into Towers as we've seen that mentioned several times, however the Towers would then need to be non-destructible as a flag floating on the third floor if the tower is burned down would be uncapturable. "Snapping" the flag to the ground would be an nasty amount of code to add as well mind you. There are other options for the towers too, such as possibly putting an additional flag at the middle level and not letting them get totally blown up.
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »Taking into account the current gameplay mechanics\mentality we currently see on live:
If it were all three required to "open the flags" for capture, it most likely would turn into everyone piling up at the "last resource" needed (you sort of see this already with Emperor-ship keeps). That's what I'd do at least...why worry about defending the keep when you know the flags can't be flipped as long as that last resource is held/easily flipped back to your side? This would be the most effective way of defending a keep, by balling up at a resource....which seems odd.
If it were 2 out of three, that may help mitigate the issue but could also promote "more bigger zerg" vs. "little zerg" warfare as players would roll from resource to resource flipping and back flipping.
That's not to say either of these ideas wouldn't get implemented...In fact we've brought this up internally before as well. Currently however we are leaning more towards making the keeps harder to break into and making defense easier for smaller groups.
We've also talked about moving the flags into Towers as we've seen that mentioned several times, however the Towers would then need to be non-destructible as a flag floating on the third floor if the tower is burned down would be uncapturable. "Snapping" the flag to the ground would be an nasty amount of code to add as well mind you. There are other options for the towers too, such as possibly putting an additional flag at the middle level and not letting them get totally blown up.
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »Taking into account the current gameplay mechanics\mentality we currently see on live:
If it were all three required to "open the flags" for capture, it most likely would turn into everyone piling up at the "last resource" needed (you sort of see this already with Emperor-ship keeps). That's what I'd do at least...why worry about defending the keep when you know the flags can't be flipped as long as that last resource is held/easily flipped back to your side? This would be the most effective way of defending a keep, by balling up at a resource....which seems odd.
If it were 2 out of three, that may help mitigate the issue but could also promote "more bigger zerg" vs. "little zerg" warfare as players would roll from resource to resource flipping and back flipping.
That's not to say either of these ideas wouldn't get implemented...In fact we've brought this up internally before as well. Currently however we are leaning more towards making the keeps harder to break into and making defense easier for smaller groups.
We've also talked about moving the flags into Towers as we've seen that mentioned several times, however the Towers would then need to be non-destructible as a flag floating on the third floor if the tower is burned down would be uncapturable. "Snapping" the flag to the ground would be an nasty amount of code to add as well mind you. There are other options for the towers too, such as possibly putting an additional flag at the middle level and not letting them get totally blown up.
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »If it were all three required to "open the flags" for capture, it most likely would turn into everyone piling up at the "last resource" needed (you sort of see this already with Emperor-ship keeps). That's what I'd do at least...why worry about defending the keep when you know the flags can't be flipped as long as that last resource is held/easily flipped back to your side?
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »There definitely is more space to fight over in open field at a Resource for sure and that's why it could possibly work
The stairs are exactly where we are talking about maybe adding a flag....we'd need a smaller flag...or taller towers to make it fit in there however.
I also want to note the idea would work very well in a controlled situation with 2 sides having equal numbers, but we all know that's not exactly how it turns out in Cyrodiil 99% of the time.
RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »2. All other keeps require 2 out of 3 resources to be captured in order to be able to flip the flags in the keep.
This does a few things:
1. It will require zergs to leave people behind at these resources and ensure someone doesn;t flip the resources back while they are inside the keep fighting over the inner, as if they lose control of the required resources before taking the keep, they will have to go back and retake it before the flags hence the keep can flip.
2. It helps spread people out and adds more map tactics to PVP..it also naturally spreads out the fighting as there will be folks that will guard the resources outside the keep as well as people fighting inside and folks wanting to try and flip those resources, it overall adds more spread out fighting across the entire keep fight. It also allows delaying and buying time in defenses as well.
Yes i know people will try and say folks could troll take resources, and they should. thats the point! if you have all 70 people inside the keep and no one guarding the resource and a small group flips a resource flag outside preventing you from flipping the keep, that has now extended the fight over the keep and you have been outsmarted.
How many do you send outside to take back the resource?
How many enemies are outside at the resource?
If you leave, the enemy could repair the walls while your trying to get the resource back to flip
If you all stay inside you will be stuck fighting respawning NPC's
I like this idea...if forces us to think more objectively about what to do instead of just ramming everyone into one place...Resources will become prime spots for 5-7 man skirmishes fighting over control while the larger forces are fighting inside...it allows smaller groups to have a real chance of influencing outcomes without being forced into large groups...
imagine the excitement...the enemy has wiped most of your factions teammates inside the keep and just as they are about to flip, you take the resource denying them the capture, now your teammates have regrouped and another push occurs.
this could literally give us keep battles that last for HOURS and folks are more spread out over the 3 min sieges we have now....its hard to keep 70 people in one place when there are 3 resources they need to fight over and a keep and outside of relic keeps you need to keep 2 of them to flip the flags...this spreads people out by design around the keep....i think its a good idea and it makes resources actually matter. it also gives the small scale crowd the non-zerg skirmishes they are after...as large groups will still be required to take keep inners so both styles are still 100% viable.
Basically, you *have to* take the farm plus either the mill or the mine, depending on whether you want to hit the walls or the gates. So, in essence, you would need 2 out of the 3 resources for a cap attempt. Similar ideas, just working in/building on the existing debuff mechanics.tinythinker wrote: »Revising the way strongholds are captured:
Currently, if you are interested in capturing a stronghold, the reasons for taking resources are limited to:
1. Good place to siege from.
2. A fallback position with a quartermaster.
3. To cut off transit even if the stronghold unflags.
4. Uhh, just coz, you dig?
There is a mechanic that is supposed to help you cap the stronghold, wherein you can weaken the walls, gates, and NPC guards by taking the mine, lumbermill, and farm respectively. There is currently no point to bother with it since the degrading takes too long and does too little. Just set up a bunch of siege, punch the wall down fast, and rush in. You can wipe the NPCs no sweat because the best strategy rewards having everyone together on siege, then together through the breach.
How about this instead?
Greatly speed up how quickly stronghold degradation happens and increase the impact *IF* players stay at the resource, the more the better, up to some cap. So if you get 1-2 or 4-5 or ???? many people to *stay at the farm* until the stronghold is capped, the guards will be easier, especially if you cap the farm first and have the players stay while others go off to siege. The same for weakening the walls by taking the mine. And why bother? See the previous section about map domination/PvDoor. The hit points of walls, gates, and guards would be boosted a ton. No resources would mean even at siege limit you are going to be taking a reaaaaally long time to get inside. Don't want to weaken the guards? Get your zerg rekt by guards.
To be clear, the effects of holding a resource would not take forever to manifest, and doing so would make strongholds the same strength they are at present. Taking stronholds wouldn't be impossible it would just require coordination and a little bit more strategy. However, you couldn't just have everyone together at the same place. The sieging force would have to spread out as people would need to stay at the resources to get the easier cap. That makes the resources a target for defenders as well, and losing control of the resource means the debuffs go away, so imagine a force ready to charge the inner breach take a flag and they suddenly lose the farm... "Oopsy."
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »Taking into account the current gameplay mechanics\mentality we currently see on live:
If it were all three required to "open the flags" for capture, it most likely would turn into everyone piling up at the "last resource" needed (you sort of see this already with Emperor-ship keeps). That's what I'd do at least...why worry about defending the keep when you know the flags can't be flipped as long as that last resource is held/easily flipped back to your side? This would be the most effective way of defending a keep, by balling up at a resource....which seems odd.
If it were 2 out of three, that may help mitigate the issue but could also promote "more bigger zerg" vs. "little zerg" warfare as players would roll from resource to resource flipping and back flipping.
That's not to say either of these ideas wouldn't get implemented...In fact we've brought this up internally before as well. Currently however we are leaning more towards making the keeps harder to break into and making defense easier for smaller groups.
We've also talked about moving the flags into Towers as we've seen that mentioned several times, however the Towers would then need to be non-destructible as a flag floating on the third floor if the tower is burned down would be uncapturable. "Snapping" the flag to the ground would be an nasty amount of code to add as well mind you. There are other options for the towers too, such as possibly putting an additional flag at the middle level and not letting them get totally blown up.
CJohnson81 wrote: »I was just thinking that there could be another way to move the heavy fighting away from the keeps from time to time. I was thinking how PVP is basically capture the flag, which tends to be my least favorite game type.
...I would like to feel that everything we do within the campaign has a reason. So I think that part of the key to winning a campaign should also include having to complete some number of missions spying, escorting, and straight ahead PVP battling in addition to owning keeps.
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We've also talked about moving the flags into Towers as we've seen that mentioned several times, however the Towers would then need to be non-destructible as a flag floating on the third floor if the tower is burned down would be uncapturable. "Snapping" the flag to the ground would be an nasty amount of code to add as well mind you. There are other options for the towers too, such as possibly putting an additional flag at the middle level and not letting them get totally blown up.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
For me I would like to get away from the whole.. break down walls and stack up on flags to flip a keep. Instead I would like to see Keep Lords and Generals added in.. just get rid of the flags and add in two Keep Generals and one Keep Lord that must be beaten in order to flip the keep!. By doing this you also give all classes a roll as you will need some tanks for the Lords and Generals and healers to keep them alive!!
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »There definitely is more space to fight over in open field at a Resource for sure and that's why it could possibly work
The stairs are exactly where we are talking about maybe adding a flag....we'd need a smaller flag...or taller towers to make it fit in there however.
I also want to note the idea would work very well in a controlled situation with 2 sides having equal numbers, but we all know that's not exactly how it turns out in Cyrodiil 99% of the time.
@ZOS_BrianWheeler
For me I would like to get away from the whole.. break down walls and stack up on flags to flip a keep. Instead I would like to see Keep Lords and Generals added in.. just get rid of the flags and add in two Keep Generals and one Keep Lord that must be beaten in order to flip the keep!. By doing this you also give all classes a roll as you will need some tanks for the Lords and Generals and healers to keep them alive!!
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »There definitely is more space to fight over in open field at a Resource for sure and that's why it could possibly work
The stairs are exactly where we are talking about maybe adding a flag....we'd need a smaller flag...or taller towers to make it fit in there however.
I also want to note the idea would work very well in a controlled situation with 2 sides having equal numbers, but we all know that's not exactly how it turns out in Cyrodiil 99% of the time.
What if you:
- Made the towers slightly larger and indestructable
- Put the flag at the top of the tower
- Remove the door from the tower leaving it open
- Move the guards into the tower(buff guards too + add another mage or archer guard to the resource garrison)
- Increase the time it takes to capture a resource flag to an acceptable time for defenders from the keep to react
That plus only requiring 1/3 or 2/3 of resources for a keep capture might be good. The idea of capturing a keep and then not having it flip over to you because you don't have the lumbermill never sat well with me. Maybe look into taking all three resources = flagging a keep instead of just cutting transit, though I can see some issues with that.
Nice.ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »That's not to say either of these ideas wouldn't get implemented...In fact we've brought this up internally before as well. Currently however we are leaning more towards making the keeps harder to break into and making defense easier for smaller groups.