A suggested change to Keep and Resources

k2blader

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Flags spawning in random locations would not be easy to add in.

Would be "hilarious" though!

Personally I like the idea of allowing 1 resource to somehow be a "rez node" for keep defenders. Should require something more than just owning the resource, but I dunno what.

reften

I say take one resource of a keep, and make that keep a one way transit.

For instance - Take Faregyl farm. AD from the gates can still port to and through Faregyl, but AD can not port to Fare from say Roe or Alessia now.

Basically, a partial keep flagging.

I agree, resources are pointless

Manoekin

k2blader wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Flags spawning in random locations would not be easy to add in.

Would be "hilarious" though!

Personally I like the idea of allowing 1 resource to somehow be a "rez node" for keep defenders. Should require something more than just owning the resource, but I dunno what.

Forward Camps.

k2blader

Manoekin wrote: »

k2blader wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Flags spawning in random locations would not be easy to add in.

Would be "hilarious" though!

Personally I like the idea of allowing 1 resource to somehow be a "rez node" for keep defenders. Should require something more than just owning the resource, but I dunno what.

Forward Camps.

If you mean bring back forward camps but they can only be used at a resource, I like that. I do not want Trolly Camps back.

Enodoc

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.

I think the best way to think about this is to think of a tower when it's health is at 0. If I'm remembering correctly, when a tower hits 0%, the top floor and much of the outer balcony are destroyed, but there is an interior higher-level floor (just below the balcony level) which remains intact. This would be the best place to move the flag to, and then towers can still be destructible. (You know that the tower will be at 0% by the time you come to capture it, because you need to get it down to 0 to destroy the door and get inside.) I think making the towers non-destructible (or removing the doors) would completely remove the purpose of putting the flag in the tower in the first place - the reasoning behind this idea is to provide a purpose and cause to siege the tower.

I also agree with what tinythinker said; resources need to have more of an effect on their keeps, and enemy control of a resource should not take forever to degrade the keep. For example, if an enemy takes control of a resource, maybe the keep should be debuffed so that its health is capped at 75%; once all the upgrades have degraded, base HP would be 150k instead of 200k. Conversely, being in control of your own resource should have better benefits, but they maybe should take longer to appear. For example, instead of wall HP being increased by 25k at Level 1/3/5, make it 50k, so that it's a clear bonus for controlling that resource. Similarly, maybe boost the regen rate (Level 2/4) from 10 HP in 20 seconds to 50 HP in 20 seconds.

Some people also mentioned adding more flags to keeps; this would be a great idea too. Every keep should have a third flag in the outer courtyard in addition to the two inside. Large keeps (Glade/Arrius/Faregyl and the gate keeps) should have a fourth flag on one of the upper levels inside.

Manoekin

Enodoc wrote: »

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.

I think the best way to think about this is to think of a tower when it's health is at 0. If I'm remembering correctly, when a tower hits 0%, the top floor and much of the outer balcony are destroyed, but there is an interior higher-level floor (just below the balcony level) which remains intact. This would be the best place to move the flag to, and then towers can still be destructible. (You know that the tower will be at 0% by the time you come to capture it, because you need to get it down to 0 to destroy the door and get inside.) I think making the towers non-destructible (or removing the doors) would completely remove the purpose of putting the flag in the tower in the first place - the reasoning behind this idea is to provide a purpose and cause to siege the tower.

At 0% the tower is completely crumbled and only the bottom floor is left with multiple entry points.

I think the suggestions I put forth of removing the door and making it indestructible makes a lot of sense.

First of all, how many people want to spend more time on siege hitting walls? Second, removing the door will even out the playing field for teams that just want to farm a tower and use the time loading through the door as an advantage over the people entering. You already have the advantage of cover and siege use, you don't need a small gap where the other person has no control over their character. Also, it keeps things as simple as they are right now. Lastly increasing the timer for resources will allow defenders to respond rather than always walking up to an enemy resource because you can't instantly teleport to it. I'm not saying make it take minutes, but if someone is paying attention they can get there in time to put up a fight. Tower fights are always fun we should have more of them.

Alucardo

I actually like the idea of bringing the resources into the picture. Who doesn't love a good ol' resource fight, and yeah this could help promote more small scale stuff if people are scattered trying to flip/defend multiple resources.
Not only that, but you're bringing in new tactics, making war that little bit more dynamic instead of the same old techniques.
Could be interesting!

Enodoc

Manoekin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

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.

I think the best way to think about this is to think of a tower when it's health is at 0. If I'm remembering correctly, when a tower hits 0%, the top floor and much of the outer balcony are destroyed, but there is an interior higher-level floor (just below the balcony level) which remains intact. This would be the best place to move the flag to, and then towers can still be destructible. (You know that the tower will be at 0% by the time you come to capture it, because you need to get it down to 0 to destroy the door and get inside.) I think making the towers non-destructible (or removing the doors) would completely remove the purpose of putting the flag in the tower in the first place - the reasoning behind this idea is to provide a purpose and cause to siege the tower.

At 0% the tower is completely crumbled and only the bottom floor is left with multiple entry points.

I think the suggestions I put forth of removing the door and making it indestructible makes a lot of sense.

First of all, how many people want to spend more time on siege hitting walls? Second, removing the door will even out the playing field for teams that just want to farm a tower and use the time loading through the door as an advantage over the people entering. You already have the advantage of cover and siege use, you don't need a small gap where the other person has no control over their character. Also, it keeps things as simple as they are right now. Lastly increasing the timer for resources will allow defenders to respond rather than always walking up to an enemy resource because you can't instantly teleport to it. I'm not saying make it take minutes, but if someone is paying attention they can get there in time to put up a fight. Tower fights are always fun we should have more of them.

I'm not sure how that would increase capture time any more than it is now. You'd just have your group roll up through the open door, roll through the guards, and straight onto the flag. Only then would it be marked Under Attack, and it would be too late for defenders to get there, even if the time taken to actually flip the flag was increased. You couldn't increase it enough for defenders to get there from the keep while still keeping it short enough that the attackers aren't literally just standing there doing nothing. With tower siege being a requirement, defenders would know the resource was under attack when tower HP reached 50%, giving them much more time to get there to defend.

Manoekin

Enodoc wrote: »

Manoekin wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

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.

I think the best way to think about this is to think of a tower when it's health is at 0. If I'm remembering correctly, when a tower hits 0%, the top floor and much of the outer balcony are destroyed, but there is an interior higher-level floor (just below the balcony level) which remains intact. This would be the best place to move the flag to, and then towers can still be destructible. (You know that the tower will be at 0% by the time you come to capture it, because you need to get it down to 0 to destroy the door and get inside.) I think making the towers non-destructible (or removing the doors) would completely remove the purpose of putting the flag in the tower in the first place - the reasoning behind this idea is to provide a purpose and cause to siege the tower.

At 0% the tower is completely crumbled and only the bottom floor is left with multiple entry points.

I think the suggestions I put forth of removing the door and making it indestructible makes a lot of sense.

First of all, how many people want to spend more time on siege hitting walls? Second, removing the door will even out the playing field for teams that just want to farm a tower and use the time loading through the door as an advantage over the people entering. You already have the advantage of cover and siege use, you don't need a small gap where the other person has no control over their character. Also, it keeps things as simple as they are right now. Lastly increasing the timer for resources will allow defenders to respond rather than always walking up to an enemy resource because you can't instantly teleport to it. I'm not saying make it take minutes, but if someone is paying attention they can get there in time to put up a fight. Tower fights are always fun we should have more of them.

I'm not sure how that would increase capture time any more than it is now. You'd just have your group roll up through the open door, roll through the guards, and straight onto the flag. Only then would it be marked Under Attack, and it would be too late for defenders to get there, even if the time taken to actually flip the flag was increased. You couldn't increase it enough for defenders to get there from the keep while still keeping it short enough that the attackers aren't literally just standing there doing nothing. With tower siege being a requirement, defenders would know the resource was under attack when tower HP reached 50%, giving them much more time to get there to defend.

You can accidentally take down a tower with meatbags from the inside if you're not paying attention trying a tower farm. I don't think siegeing a tower down would take long at all. Also, in my idea you don't have to sit there doing nothing. You would be preparing to defend the tower. Right now I can get a group to capture a resource in like 10 seconds. It's ridiculous. But I'm not going to make a group of 4 people siege down a tower when there's a more fun way to do it. I'd rather defend a tower than my siege weapon. All in all it might take the same time for both scenarios. I just prefer to not have to siege everything.

TheBull

Great job with the communication @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Remdale

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Taking into account the current gameplay mechanics\mentality we currently see on live:

...we are leaning more towards making the keeps harder to break into and making defense easier for smaller groups.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

It's so nice to see a dev on the right page and posting his thoughts regardless. I'm tired of games making this easy and just leaving it between the players who take the easiest way without fail. Just because something is hard to take isn't going to stop players from doing it when they have incentive, desire, and know what to do. And it's much more rewarding for both sides.

I like the idea of the towers having a role. I don't so much like how much of a damage boost you get from capping stuff. For excellently geared glass cannon builds it can put them over the top, and a player faced with that wouldn't necessary know it's because they just capped X or Y. I agree with everything you said, but I think instead of just incentivizing the capture of resources, making it more mandatory in some fashion, and letting them be defended better by players, is a far better solution.

As it is, when a keep is breached, the zerg just rolls up the stairs and anyone trying to defend the flags from the top is just rolled over. There are some things you can do with siege to prevent the zerg rolling over you as they come up the stairs but they don't do squat unless you're an extremely organized and experienced group and/or numbers are near even. I'd like to see flags able to be defended from more than one safe position, that is from more than one side, from a position of some [temporary] safety.

Keep/Resource Defense

In keeps that would mean being able to fire down on the flags, the flags not having a straight open path from one to the other, and the second level not being open to an enemy that just wants to stroll up. How to achieve that? Well, there could be a field like the siege shield graphic that prevents access between the flags until one is captured, and there could be doors to the stairs that have to be struck down by player blows, but could be shot at from another angle by defenders. On resources it would mean either a flag in the tower, or multiple towers surrounding the flag which would form a sphere of protection for themselves and the flag between them. For resources it would be great if they could be more different in what it takes to capture them, between the different types at least, but between the different locations too. Variety is the spice of fun. PvP right now is too predictable with too few elements. Players crave more!

Imperial City Gates

It bugs me that the gates to the Imperial City themselves, at their location, are never contested. Instead of being open to all factions and either depending on other owned keeps or not, the entrance could actually be or house nearby a small base like a resource tower and a flag. Something easy to take, just something to fight over. Just think what this could do for smaller groups and spreading action out across the map. I don't think players should be able to just port back to their base by going out the door either..... maybe if you added a very small AP cost to do so or just remove that, it would actually incentivize players to ride back and there would be more action.

Scroll Walls

The Temples are great fights, but how often when outnumbered can you actually hold at the wall? Never in my experience. The Wall is just a means for the enemy to camp you within your own base or a barrier for outnumbered attackers........ I'd like to see a very recessed door that is difficult but possible to hit with siege and actual murder holes above. Too much for you to do? Well..... a PvPer can dream.

Forward Camps

All that said, if defenses are going to be tougher, it would be a perfect time for Forward Camps to be brought back in a more limited fashion! They should have a smaller sphere that you have to die within to spawn at, and, IMHO, not be allowed/functional inside or very near Keeps. Defenders need to know their risk of dying and this will prevent defenders from continuously spawning at the point of contention when outdone, but it will also prevent attackers from getting a spawnpoint inside the base or right near it. Attackers would have to put their spawn point near but not too near, and the same for defenders which would only work if the base was not completely surrounded and pinned down - you would end up with a tent halfway between the line of travel for defenders and halfway between the line of attackers for them. It could give some interesting action that simulates an actual supply line without giving a feel of lameness. The forward camp could give a small buff to allies within its sphere and would be a way of determining whether you are in it to spawn or not.


Well.... I think I've gone on enough. >_<

RoamingRiverElk

I really like the idea of varying how many resources you need to have around a keep in order to be able to flip the flags in the inner keep. The idea that it's easier to capture your home keeps and more difficult to capture enemy keeps is good.

I miss those days when capturing resources was actually a thing to do. These days, resources really don't matter much because NPCs are so weak compared to players (it used to be a demonstration of the skill of a player to solo a resource - these days it isn't difficult at all), and resources aren't needed for placing forward camps either (since camps are so rare now).

Forztr

If you want to make keeps harder to take then:-

Have keeps flagged on the map as being under attack at 80% not 50% but also allow transit to a keep until outer wall or front gate breached.

Let the inner wall close at 50% instead of 90% when repairing

Have keeps self repair quicker maybe based on having resources.

Reduce the cost of wall repair kits or make them repair for more.

A tougher fix would be to redesign the map so keeps aren't built in places where attackers can place siege that can't be hit by counter siege.

Do something with Purge so that its not so effective at negating siege weapon damage and debuffs.

Hammy01

Rust_in_Peace wrote: »

Hammy01 wrote: »

@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!!

no more pve in pvp please and thank you

Well it is better than current system of knocking down the walls, running in and standing around a couple of flags until the keep changes faction.

The way I see it -
The more resources you own the faster you can get in through the outer walls, if you want to get into the keep then you will need to kill the two generals outside and if you want to capture the keep you will need to kill the keep lord. All of these checkpoints have a good opportunity for some good pvp as it gives defenders and attackers time to show up and fight it out. As it stands now keeps can flip very fast and often before defense can even arrive. Plus this system could help even out the faction pops or at the very least help the low pop factions stand a chance against the cap locked factions (IE - if your faction is pop locked then Keep lords are twice as tough, 50% to 75% the Keep Lords are 1.5 times as tough under 50% they are normal).

But this is only a suggestion and I would be pleased with any creative updates to Cyrodiil that promoted a healthy and fun pvp game for us all to play!!!

Erondil

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

Turelus

Some interesting insights @ZOS_BrianWheeler thank you.

Can I ask though what sort of numbers do you (ZOS) feel should be fighting at keeps, the early game development was very focused on selling it as a large siege/war game for PvP with hundreds of players.
I understand that lag is an issues and you want to work to minimise that as much as possible in order to give everyone an enjoyable gaming experience. However there are a number of us who love these large siege battles and want them to continue.

I am worried that because there is so much hate for "zerging" (which at this point is any group larger than two for some people) your efforts will be in making the game balanced around smaller groups and penalising large guilds or groups trying to play in the massive battles.

Etaniel

Turelus wrote: »

Some interesting insights @ZOS_BrianWheeler thank you.

Can I ask though what sort of numbers do you (ZOS) feel should be fighting at keeps, the early game development was very focused on selling it as a large siege/war game for PvP with hundreds of players.
I understand that lag is an issues and you want to work to minimise that as much as possible in order to give everyone an enjoyable gaming experience. However there are a number of us who love these large siege battles and want them to continue.

I am worried that because there is so much hate for "zerging" (which at this point is any group larger than two for some people) your efforts will be in making the game balanced around smaller groups and penalising large guilds or groups trying to play in the massive battles.

No, the only people who argue that a 2 man group can be considered a zerg are the zergers themselves to try to discredit the small scalers' claims. It really is a troll argument. Being outnumbered doesn't necessarily mean getting zerged down.

Anyhow I don't think the objective here is to reduce the amount of people at keep battles. It will spread them out yes, and you should be happy about that, because it will allow groups to actually use strategy when taking keeps. I think it will help weed out the poor ball groups from the good ones, as only very organized groups would be able to take keeps.
It would definitely add more depth to keep battles.

Manoekin

Erondil wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

The biggest problem though.

How about the suggestions to making resources more difficult, and as for importance the keep will be flagged/burst if its owner does not control all three resources? So you can take the keep, but it will not unflag until resources are taken allowing people to rally to resources to keep it flagged instead of having to tag a breach. No difference then from say taking Bleakers as AD since you can't port or res to it anyway most of the time.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

Undefended, meaning just NPCs are there, a Keep was designed for 12-18 people to take over a period of about 10-12 minutes from first Siege down to last flag flipped. A Keep can house a lot more than that for battles between larger groups though.

Resources were for small groups, 2-4 players, and maybe 5 minutes at most.

Manoekin

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Undefended, meaning just NPCs are there, a Keep was designed for 12-18 people to take over a period of about 10-12 minutes from first Siege down to last flag flipped. A Keep can house a lot more than that for battles between larger groups though.

Resources were for small groups, 2-4 players, and maybe 5 minutes at most.

Is that still how you envision things though? For an undefended keep that basically allows the entire faction to respond. I understand keeps can flip way too fast at the moment, but that timing seems like you could be lazy about it and still get there to defend.

Dalglish

How about the NPC's being given extremely strong anti-zerg abilities (like proxy det on steroids) when resources are not taken? It gives another zerg time to react and for the small groups that defend it without a zerg a chance of actually defending the keep.

It wouldn't punish the small-group players because the attacks would not do anywhere near as much damage to them; but for groups of N+ hugging at a flag without resources taken could be extremely punished.

Darlgon

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Undefended, meaning just NPCs are there, a Keep was designed for 12-18 people to take over a period of about 10-12 minutes from first Siege down to last flag flipped. A Keep can house a lot more than that for battles between larger groups though.

Resources were for small groups, 2-4 players, and maybe 5 minutes at most.

So, when our guild does a speed run and takes a emp keep every five minutes, we are doing good..

RinaldoGandolphi

Wow im glad to see so many people discussing, i see a lot of good ideas in here!

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Thank you for popping in to chime in. I really like you guys have considered this in house, and i think even a 2 resource requirement would be ok.

Reasons I like a 2 resource requirement:

1. It splits the keep attackers and keep defenders between 2 resources and the inside of the keep.(Having the fight spread out across 3 objectives(two resources and the keep itself) instead of just one would surely help the game.
2. I think Maneokin has a good idea of having 2-3 resources taken as bursting the keep, but allowing a resource you control as the only place to use forward camps.

I also ecstatic that your looking into ways to make keeps harder to knock the walls down and to give smaller numbers a better chance of defending since keeps do seem to get taken way to fast.

Overall i feel this has been a very positive discussion with some good feedback here, thanks again Brian!

mike.eso

Sorry if it has already been suggested and I missed it but wanted to throw in my 2 cents.

And FYI I know nothing about programming or game design so I do not know if what I describe below is possible or not, but here’s my thought…

What about adding/segmenting keep captures even more? What I mean by this is something along the lines of, in order for a group of attackers to get into the inner portion of the keep they must first capture the courtyard of the keep. This could be done by adding 4 new flags, 1 in each corner of the keep. A large group that has broken through the outer wall of keep would have to flip all four of these new courtyard flags in order to break into the inner portion of the keep and complete the capture.

This would add several new aspects to keep fights. The large group would not simply be able to just break in and feel safe due to numbers, they would either have to break up into smaller groups to flip the flags quicker or move as a large group from one flag to another. This would leave open the opportunity for a small group of defenders to move in behind and back flip the flags, prolonging the zergs ability to burst through the keep and buying time for possible reinforcements. If the zerg does manage to capture all four flags they would also have to dispatch players to protect those flags while the main force sieges.

Furthermore, in order to prevent this from being too much of a stale mate when taking keeps, you could instead do a %dmg modifier based on how many of the 4 courtyard flags are owned by the team sieging. If the attackers own 0 of the courtyard flags when sieging the inner walls, then siege dmg is reduced to 25% on the inner walls. This would mean it is still possible to take down the inner and flip the keep without taking the courtyard flags however it would be more difficult and will take more time again making keep captures more dynamic/variable fights. With each flagged owned by the group sieging the %dmg modifier would be reduced and when all 4 courtyard flags are owned by the sieging group full dmg to the inner walls is granted.

Over all I think currently it happens too often that a large group rolls onto a keep and unless the group defending is similar in numbers or there is a very large gap in player skill, the defends cannot do much. While I want to maintain that player skill should play the largest roll in whether or not one group can be victorious over another, I think adding in another segment to capturing the keep like this would add a level of strategy that is currently missing from pvp objective play.

Ultimately it would make it slightly tougher for a large group to just roll through keep after keep while giving a small group a chance if played strategically to defend or at least delay keep captures for potential reinforcements to show up.

As a side note I don’t think that resources should be tied to whether keep should be able to be captured or not unless it is similar mechanic to the %dmg modifier as described above.

Zheg

I like the idea of making the resources more important - right now they're completely negligible other than having at least one for transit.

But, please be careful with any changes that could result in more raw numbers being necessary (or significantly more useful) at a keep. Regardless of what people say, almost all of my lag is caused by the sheer volume of people within the vicinity of a keep, including a resource. I can't count the number of times 3+ yellow raids buzz between ash mine and the keep and performance is crippled even when no one is fighting them. What I DON'T want to see is the logic becoming, "oh we normally bring 3 raids? Let's bring 4 so we can have a raid go take the resources at the same time." I feel like it's naive to think people will spread out; in my experience, people are more likely to just bring more numbers for something like this.

Another issue this will potentially raise - given how quickly you can rez an entire wiped group, if you were to spread out your force like the OP intends and take the resources, or maybe even leave a few people to defend, what happens when the 15+ dead bodies at each resource flag are rezzed while your main force moves towards the inner? What, you need to leave 10 people of your own at two resource flags to stop rezzes? PLUS have enough to take the inner? That sounds like a recipe for adding more numbers to keep sieges and making the lag worse.

I'd like to see the inner keep be harder to take. If you make the outer walls too strong, a half-effort defense + counter siege already can make this difficult if you aren't running obscene numbers. Once past the outer wall though, the attackers at least have options to tactically take cover when appropriate, rather than be in an open field the whole time. Maybe add more doors (garbage chutes? ) for defenders to move in and out of the inner (but can't be sieged) so they have more options to stealth bomb the attackers? Or aid in the ability to be able to go out, kill 1 or 2 on siege, and make it safely back inside before they have 20 people on them. While beneficial on its own, to piggyback on that vein of thought, maybe add in a penalty where if you are rezzed 2 or 3 times, it now takes 10 minutes or something before you can be rezzed by another player (you can still run back if you choose). This will help a good coordinated small team to still be able to whittle down the numbers of much larger forces, because now the person you've killed 2-3 times already won't be rezzed back in literally 1 second by a templar in kagrenac's hope. This would also promote smart engagements and smart players rather than just stacking 3 raids and being able to rez up anyone that went afk in the middle of it.

One last thing to be wary of, if you make keeps significantly harder to take, this will give a noticeable bonus to the alliance on a campaign that can nightcap the map. When primetime rolls in and you have 1-2 keeps on the entire map, if keep sieges are now a slogfest solely because the people you're fighting have more oceanic players (or no lives and don't sleep), that will serve to discourage the population that is already (frankly) discouraged by the lag and lack of dev love

Etaniel

Erondil wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

I don't necessarily agree with you Denne, It doesn't promote more people stacking in one place. It promotes the division of that group. Overall, it means requiring more people to take a keep but without the stacking, and maybe that's not too bad.

Your 12 man group will still be able to farm people, and you'll even face less zergs, but you will need to coordinate with other people in order to successfully take keeps. Currently, as Brian said, keeps are designed to be taken by 12-18 people, but that could change to a bit higher number and I think it would make more sense.

I think this would make keep capturing harder, and would give more meaning to keeps I think.

Minno

Etaniel wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

I don't necessarily agree with you Denne, It doesn't promote more people stacking in one place. It promotes the division of that group. Overall, it means requiring more people to take a keep but without the stacking, and maybe that's not too bad.

Your 12 man group will still be able to farm people, and you'll even face less zergs, but you will need to coordinate with other people in order to successfully take keeps. Currently, as Brian said, keeps are designed to be taken by 12-18 people, but that could change to a bit higher number and I think it would make more sense.

I think this would make keep capturing harder, and would give more meaning to keeps I think.

Exactly why this a good thread go consider this; the trade off seems to make a lot of sense.
It would depend on how far the lag limits the play around the keep though. I'm worried, with this many players, even resources would be hurt. We'd have to study lag effects between inside keep and at resources. I'd imagine ZOS has that info.

All top notch suggestions and counter remarks by everyone!
@BrianWheeler nice job responding!

Erondil

Etaniel wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

I don't necessarily agree with you Denne, It doesn't promote more people stacking in one place. It promotes the division of that group. Overall, it means requiring more people to take a keep but without the stacking, and maybe that's not too bad.

Your 12 man group will still be able to farm people, and you'll even face less zergs, but you will need to coordinate with other people in order to successfully take keeps. Currently, as Brian said, keeps are designed to be taken by 12-18 people, but that could change to a bit higher number and I think it would make more sense.

I think this would make keep capturing harder, and would give more meaning to keeps I think.

I'm sure we will still be able to farm people, that's not my point. My point is it's quite stupid that if we try to get a keep agaisnt 40 defenders, we manage to clear the flags, we cant turn the flag because some ennemies took an undefended ressource in our back.
What could we do? If at this point we leave the keep to clear the ressources defenders will all rezz inside and/or repair walls, if we stay to clear the few left, defenders will have time to ride back and if we split, considering the state of the game we won't be able to do sh*t agaisnt a big zerg stacked on the ressource. If we leave some members of our group behind to defend the ressources, we would have to increase our number because we can't take flags of a keep with 40 ennemies inside when we're 8-10, and that is if we leave only one guy per ressource. Bigger group to take keeps means bigger group when we fight open field, means more lag and (imho) less fun.
Sure we could try to coordinate with some other organized group but did you see how many left, at least in our faction? You saw those people, do you think we can trust pugs to help us smartly?
I do think keeps should be harder to take, but this ressource thing wouldn't make them much harder to take, it would just require more people. Number is already promoted enough over skill, no need more incentives especially when the servers can't handle it.

Etaniel

Erondil wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

I don't necessarily agree with you Denne, It doesn't promote more people stacking in one place. It promotes the division of that group. Overall, it means requiring more people to take a keep but without the stacking, and maybe that's not too bad.

Your 12 man group will still be able to farm people, and you'll even face less zergs, but you will need to coordinate with other people in order to successfully take keeps. Currently, as Brian said, keeps are designed to be taken by 12-18 people, but that could change to a bit higher number and I think it would make more sense.

I think this would make keep capturing harder, and would give more meaning to keeps I think.

I'm sure we will still be able to farm people, that's not my point. My point is it's quite stupid that if we try to get a keep agaisnt 40 defenders, we manage to clear the flags, we cant turn the flag because some ennemies took an undefended ressource in our back.
What could we do? If at this point we leave the keep to clear the ressources defenders will all rezz inside and/or repair walls, if we stay to clear the few left, defenders will have time to ride back and if we split, considering the state of the game we won't be able to do sh*t agaisnt a big zerg stacked on the ressource. If we leave some members of our group behind to defend the ressources, we would have to increase our number because we can't take flags of a keep with 40 ennemies inside when we're 8-10, and that is if we leave only one guy per ressource. Bigger group to take keeps means bigger group when we fight open field, means more lag and (imho) less fun.
Sure we could try to coordinate with some other organized group but did you see how many left, at least in our faction? You saw those people, do you think we can trust pugs to help us smartly?
I do think keeps should be harder to take, but this ressource thing wouldn't make them much harder to take, it would just require more people. Number is already promoted enough over skill, no need more incentives especially when the servers can't handle it.

I'm not sure how you intend to make keeps harder to take without requiring more people though

Erondil

Etaniel wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

Etaniel wrote: »

Erondil wrote: »

RinaldoGandolphi wrote: »

Hi,

@ZOS_BrianWheeler

I would like to make a suggestion that I think would help tremendously with the issues everyone is trying to address in PVP. The basis of this being keeps and resources. Right now resources are not important enough, and keeps are too easy to take. I would like you guys to consider this:

1. The 2 gate keeps/Relic keeps of a faction should require all 3 resources to be taken by the enemy before the flags inside the keep can be flipped.
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.

Anything that adds strategy and depth to map and objectives i think is a good thing.

just my 2 cents, and thank you for taking the time to read.

While it seems cool, I think it will again promote numbers and reduce the impact of smaller groups on the map. In our group we mainly play with 12 people, and often take keeps with many many more defenders inside. If we had to have all ressources when we flip flags (or even 1) we could never take keeps because we can't deal with 3 less players that would defend ressources when we fight 30+ defendors. On the other hand 4 randoms can easily take back ressources when we are fighting inside inner, trying to flip flags but not able to get the keep because of ppl spending hundreds of soul gems when we move between flags.
So yeah a 12 people group could not take any keep with defendors, and that has nothing to do with their skill, its only because of numbers. On the other hand I dont see why it would really slow down big zergs bc 5 ppl less dont matter much when youre 50.

I don't necessarily agree with you Denne, It doesn't promote more people stacking in one place. It promotes the division of that group. Overall, it means requiring more people to take a keep but without the stacking, and maybe that's not too bad.

Your 12 man group will still be able to farm people, and you'll even face less zergs, but you will need to coordinate with other people in order to successfully take keeps. Currently, as Brian said, keeps are designed to be taken by 12-18 people, but that could change to a bit higher number and I think it would make more sense.

I think this would make keep capturing harder, and would give more meaning to keeps I think.

I'm sure we will still be able to farm people, that's not my point. My point is it's quite stupid that if we try to get a keep agaisnt 40 defenders, we manage to clear the flags, we cant turn the flag because some ennemies took an undefended ressource in our back.
What could we do? If at this point we leave the keep to clear the ressources defenders will all rezz inside and/or repair walls, if we stay to clear the few left, defenders will have time to ride back and if we split, considering the state of the game we won't be able to do sh*t agaisnt a big zerg stacked on the ressource. If we leave some members of our group behind to defend the ressources, we would have to increase our number because we can't take flags of a keep with 40 ennemies inside when we're 8-10, and that is if we leave only one guy per ressource. Bigger group to take keeps means bigger group when we fight open field, means more lag and (imho) less fun.
Sure we could try to coordinate with some other organized group but did you see how many left, at least in our faction? You saw those people, do you think we can trust pugs to help us smartly?
I do think keeps should be harder to take, but this ressource thing wouldn't make them much harder to take, it would just require more people. Number is already promoted enough over skill, no need more incentives especially when the servers can't handle it.

I'm not sure how you intend to make keeps harder to take without requiring more people though

First off increase walls and doors hp because atm it's way to fast to take down if you do 50/50 with 20 sieges (I mean sometimes I'm at alessia I see roebeck going ua, ride as fast as possible with max speed horse and can't get in before flags turn).
Give NPC's better AoE stuff and as @Dalglish proposed make it depends on the amount of ressources taken (also their level I would say so it gives an incentive to defend them rather than just recap it agaisnt npcs). Sure to counter that you can go the lazy way and increase numbers, but you can deal with it even with a smaller group unlike the OP suggestion.
I also like @Manoekin 's idea of taken keeps staying flagged until all the ressources are controled (but taking ressources after the keep turned shouldn't flag it).