[Concept Idea] Reducing Keep Flipping and Making Keep Fights More Divers

Sublime

In one of his recent posts, Brian pointed out that they were looking into ways to make the switching of keeps less frequent. And since I like figuring out new game mechanics and applying them to ESO, I gave it a shot:

First off before people start complaining, this approach assumes that there are only active, populated campaigns and is not tailored to solve the buff campaign problem. For this watch my other threads.

I guess this seems like a rather random gameplay change, but it is a fundamental part of making keep ownership more important. This will in turn make potential keep upgrades (not the resource ones) more desired by players or guilds, as keeps shouldn't be flipping every 4h anymore. So it's actually a basis for further additions which would make the Alliance War feel more like an actual war with strategic pushes, retreats and long-time sieges instead of constant blitzkrieg.

Basically each keep battle has three stages. First, (sometimes) taking the resources and besiegeing the outer wall, second besiegeing the inner wall, and third taking the flags inside the keep. As you can see this is pretty straight-forward and doesn't allow for much gameplay diversity, so I decided to give boring parts (especially stage 1 and 2) some new flavour.

While reading this post, please keep in mind that giving the defender some significant streangth is intended. As a result I designed the attacking pattern to be about denying perks from the defender by taking certain objectives. Meaning invaders do not get any actual buffs from taking an intermediate objective, but equalize the power level between the two alliances by weakening the defenders.

Currently NPC's are rather a decoration than actual combatants, giving them battle leveling should solve this problem.

Stage 1: Resources and Outer Wall
While besiegeing can be interesting at times, it gets rather boring at some point, so I decided to shift the focus more on the resources and actual player-to-player combat.

The changes in numbers:

• Once an attacker takes a ressource the keep downgrades once every 5min
• Once a defender takes a ressource the keep upgrades once every 40s
• Each resource yields specific boni

Lumbermill:

• Increases the range of siege engines by 4/8/12/16/20%
• Increases the damage dealt by NPC's by 6/12/18/24/30%
• Increases the HP of doors by 50k/100k/150k/200k/250k (400k total health at level 5)
• Increases the healing value of door repair kits by 20/40/60/80/100%

Mine:

• Increases the defensive values of NPC's by 6/12/18/24/30%
• Increases the HP of walls by 70k/140k/210k/280k/350k (550k total health at level 5)
• Increases the healing value of wall repair kits by 20/40/60/80/100%

Farm:

• Increases the damage of siege engines by 20/40/60/100%
• Grants NPC's modified versions of skills or 5pc set boni
• • Mender: Remembrance (Ressource level increases: healing value/duration/radius)
  • Honor Guard: Apprentice Set 5pc (Ressource level increases: radius/healing value)
  • Guard: Guard (AvA skill) (Ressource level increases: frequency of projectile interception)
  • Mage Guard: Valkyn Skoria (Ressource level increases: proc chance/damage)
  • Archer Guard: Kyne's Flight Set 5pc (Ressource level increases: speed reduction)
• Reduces the "Under Attack Repairing" percentage of walls and doors to 94/93/92/91/90%

The base values for wall and door HP remain the same but the hitpoints gained from the resources increased a lot. In theory, this should encourage the attacker to take the resources a bit in advance as it makes the siege a lot easier. For that it is key that all resources are on the same level, otherwise everybody will take the one(s) that matter and leave the other one(s) behind. Apart from that, all buffs apply to units on the keep as well as the resources so they are no longer yolo'able. While this might seem overkill, resources are thought for 4-5 players and not as solo content.

There are some perks that might seem pretty useless to you, so I'm going to elaborate on my ideas behind them:

Siege weapon range:
Two thoughts on that, first it should enable to pressure invaders on an allied resources from an outer wall. Yes this does not work everywhere but it will help at some points. Second, the inner keep has very limited space to place down siege engines so having an increased range can help a lot, which in turn gives defenders more reason to go for a stealthy retake of the lumbermill.

Repair Kits Healing Value:
Again, two reason for this, on the one hand it makes it easier to stealth repair an unattended breach, and on the other hand you get more AP for your AP, given you bother to take the corresponding ressource.

Special NPC perks (skills and set boni):
I know this looks like: "WTF? He probably run out of ideas. LOL.", and yes this is true to some point but on the other hand those additions really push the NPC's to the next level, which is key to prevent groups of 3-4 from taking a keep at off-times.

Even though most resources should be taken to launch an assault, it is still possible to make strategic decisions. For example: only taking the Lumbermill allows to set up for a quick take of the keep by burning through the weakened doors.

Regarding the HP of walls and doors, the walls need to have more HP as they are way easier to attack based on the tactical positions. Doors are easier to defend and have therefore less HP. The big overall increase should give defenders more time to take position, push the attackers back or set up their defenses.

Stage 2: Courtyard, Inner Wall and mini POI's

Each keep has 5 (7 for large keeps, main gate included) mini towers distributed on the outer wall. As @ZOS_BrianWheeler pointed out in a previous post, it would be possible to add additional flags to POI's, so adding a flag to each of those towers would create some more things to fight over. However, unlike the two main flags in the inner keep, they don't count towards the keep ownership as such but grand special perks to the defenders, while they are under their control.

The perks would be as follows:
2x 120 Weapon/Spell Damage
2x 4k Armor/Spell Resistance
2x 120 Stamina/Magicka Regeneration (large keeps only)
5k Max HP (main gate)

As the flags are a mini version of the ones inside the keep they can easily be swapped by 2-3 players in 5-10 seconds. The buff gets reapplied every 30s to all player within the area, so it works very similarily to the Continuous Attack buff (which by to way doesn't get granted upon taking a mini-flag as it would encourage swapping). Since invadors cannot get the buff it would mainly be an incentive for the defenders to go offensive and get some buffs. Additionally it gives solo players a place to shine in large keep battles, while still offering counterplay. Beside that it will give attackers something more to look out for.

Stage 3: Inner Keep, Flags

Due to the NPC's and the many opportunities to LOS, this stage is already rather entertaining on live. After adding the buffs NPC's mentioned above, it will be a lot easier to defend against big numbers. However, there is one major problem: while inside a keep numbers get far more important because of the limited space. Adding the following mechanic will help defenders even the odds:

Mini-Siege engines:
During the Flesh Sculpurer fight in the Imperial City Prison players have to use ground targeted synergies to kill zombies. The synergy can be actived while standing on certain green stones. The mini-siege can be placed down like the mercenaries, and activated like the synergy in the Imperial City Prison.

• mini-sieges can only be placed in the inner keep
• mini-sieges have a range of 3-25m
• mini-sieges have a smaller target AOE than normal sieges
• mini-sieges deal the same damage and cooldown as normal sieges
• mini-sieges do not count towards the normal siege counter
• you can place a maximum of 10 mini-sieges at a keep
• each type of siege weapon has a mini version
• mini-sieges cannot be directly targeted by players (like normal siege engines)
• only the defender can set up mini-sieges
• you can set up mini-sieges nearby a normal siege, and vice-versa (like mercenaries used to be)

This may not make up for the lack of space for big sieges at stage 2, but it definetely gives defenders a clear edge once the fights transitions into the stronghold of the keep.

Thoughts?

Maim

Keeps wouldn't flip so much if people were forced to stick to a single alliance (ie// certain guilds that ep one day, ad the next, blue the day after - using the still broken mechanic of group q'ing ).

otherwise, good post.

Sublime

Just added the following section, which should make the general intentions behind it clearer:

I guess this seems like a rather random gameplay change, but it is a fundamental part of making keep ownership more important. This will in turn make potential keep upgrades (not the resource ones) more desired by players or guilds, as keeps shouldn't be flipping every 4h anymore. So it's actually a basis for further additions which would make the Alliance War feel more like an actual war with strategic pushes, retreats and long-time sieges instead of constant blitzkrieg.

Maim wrote: »

Keeps wouldn't flip so much if people were forced to stick to a single alliance (ie// certain guilds that ep one day, ad the next, blue the day after - using the still broken mechanic of group q'ing ).

otherwise, good post.

I'm not really sure of that. Yes, players wouln't have to take back half of the map every morning, but on the other hand guild dedicated to a specific campaign tend to go all the way across the map and capture a back keep with 20/20 sieges. So, in my eyes, it's basically a whichever of the two factors has a bigger effect.

Satiar

Maim wrote: »

Keeps wouldn't flip so much if people were forced to stick to a single alliance (ie// certain guilds that ep one day, ad the next, blue the day after - using the still broken mechanic of group q'ing ).

otherwise, good post.

Who does this?

MaximillianDiE

Satiar wrote: »

Maim wrote: »

Keeps wouldn't flip so much if people were forced to stick to a single alliance (ie// certain guilds that ep one day, ad the next, blue the day after - using the still broken mechanic of group q'ing ).

otherwise, good post.

Who does this?

Yeah seriously - never seen it myself and I have played all 3 sides since closed beta (each time I've rerolled though I shelve my other characters and exclusively play the one realm however)? Looks like you need to take your tinfoil hat off...

Rylana

Satiar wrote: »

Maim wrote: »

Keeps wouldn't flip so much if people were forced to stick to a single alliance (ie// certain guilds that ep one day, ad the next, blue the day after - using the still broken mechanic of group q'ing ).

otherwise, good post.

Who does this?

he is basically talking about me and GoS, even though I am pretty much the only member of the guild that openly plays multifaction. (several play alts in lowbie or have old toons they go on from time to time, but as far as i know im the only one that regularly plays all sides on different servers week to week)

Everyone knows i am on my red more than any other character, probably more than all seven of the others combined. I also tend to run solo when I am blue or yellow.

he has it stuck in his head (believe me dude, VE aint the only guild that has zone chat heroes hatin on them, haha) that GoS has a big yellow and a big blue zerg we flip to to feed ourselves AP and dominate leaderboards.

its a conspiracy and I am apparently the ringleader.

Morostyle

Nice Idea's sublime Love it!

And NA people, stop the bullying already, I've seen tons of threads about it already [WE DONT CARE]
Stick to the damn topic..

pjwb16_ESO

but... but... blitzkrieg!

Ghostbane

Rylana wrote: »

Satiar wrote: »

Maim wrote: »

Keeps wouldn't flip so much if people were forced to stick to a single alliance (ie// certain guilds that ep one day, ad the next, blue the day after - using the still broken mechanic of group q'ing ).

otherwise, good post.

Who does this?

he is basically talking about me and GoS, even though I am pretty much the only member of the guild that openly plays multifaction. (several play alts in lowbie or have old toons they go on from time to time, but as far as i know im the only one that regularly plays all sides on different servers week to week)

Everyone knows i am on my red more than any other character, probably more than all seven of the others combined. I also tend to run solo when I am blue or yellow.

he has it stuck in his head (believe me dude, VE aint the only guild that has zone chat heroes hatin on them, haha) that GoS has a big yellow and a big blue zerg we flip to to feed ourselves AP and dominate leaderboards.

its a conspiracy and I am apparently the ringleader.

Oh yeah! You guys stand about in Auridon complaining about not having enough numbers every Tues and Thurs! Good times.

</tinfoil>

Turelus

Sublime for Dev. Great ideas, might need some time and through going through all the real pros and cons but good starting points for thought.

*Edit

FFS people stop poop slinging at each other in EVERY. DAMN. THREAD! If you want better PvP then start debating the topics/mechanics, not who has a bigger epeen.

Lava_Croft

Turelus wrote: »

Sublime for Dev.

Random player comes up with more interesting ideas for PvP than developers in nearly 2 years.

MLRPZ

Sublime wrote: »

During the Flesh Sculpurer fight in the Imperial City Prison players have to use ground targeted synergies to kill zombies. The synergy can be actived while standing on certain green stones.

PVE scrub spotted xD

Great idea Sub, tho I'm not a fan of the mini-siege thingy as you can already place normal ones

Enodoc

Nice ideas! I particularly like the increased relevance of resources. I'm not sure about the numbers though. 40 seconds seems a very short time for such a large increase in defensive capability (what is it at the moment, about 10 minutes per level?), and 5 minutes seems quite a long time before the benefits of taking the resource when attacking actually surface. I think enemy control should downgrade a keep faster than friendly control upgrades it, so that there is always a push for resource control (and also because destruction is generally faster than construction). You also have Lumbermill up there twice; I assume one of those should be Farm.

I like the suggestions for control of mini-towers. Would they give any bonuses at all to the attackers if they were to take them? (Attackers do like to cluster in those towers.) What would anyone think of mini-tower control providing a limited attacker respawn point? If they use up all the respawns, they could lose their control on the tower. Alternatively, when forward camps are re-introduced, what would you think of control of mini-towers being required in order for an attacker to put one in there? That would be the only place within a keep that the attackers would be able to set one up.

You may also be interested in my concept for Active Flag Capture, which I haven't finished yet but will link here when I do.

Sublime

First: thanks for the feedback.

Enodoc wrote: »

You also have Lumbermill up there twice; I assume one of those should be Farm.

Thanks and fixed.

Enodoc wrote: »

I'm not sure about the numbers though. 40 seconds seems a very short time for such a large increase in defensive capability (what is it at the moment, about 10 minutes per level?), and 5 minutes seems quite a long time before the benefits of taking the resource when attacking actually surface. I think enemy control should downgrade a keep faster than friendly control upgrades it, so that there is always a push for resource control (and also because destruction is generally faster than construction).

The main reason for upgrade timers being so low, is that if you are defending it probably doen'y help you much if you take a resource and have to wait 10mins to get the good perks. But I think an increase to 90/100s would certainly be worth considering.

As for the downgrade timers, it was mainly intended as an onstacle for fast keep flipping, that should also be considered an indicator for incoming attacks. Again, a reduction to 180/150 might be more suited for the desired effects, since it wouldn't require guilds to plan ahead that far while still leaving a reasonable amoumt of time for the defenders to answer.

Regarding upgrade vs downgrade timers I think upgrade should be faster, because otherwise it could become very difficult to take resources when facing high amounts of enemies. I understand the argument of the endresult being a push against the keep, but I think in the end it comes down to how difficult you want to make it.

The current idea doesn't provide the attacker with any benefits for taking the miniflags. I was a bit reluctant to add boni for invaders as the idea is to empower the defenders, but I can see offensive perks being implemented if the balancing is done properly. The worst case scenario would be that attackers get all the boni (flags) and the defenders get nothing, resulting in an undesired power balance.

MLRPZ wrote: »

PVE scrub spotted xD

I gave up on scathimg by now, grind is way too long. Apqrt from that you were the one who.carried that fight. :P

MLRPZ wrote: »

I'm not a fan of the mini-siege thingy as you can already place normal ones

True, but I feel like it can be very difficult to put up normal siege when being outnumbered. And firing a siege usually takes 3-4 seconds, which can easily kill you.

Sorry, phone battery getting low, will post more later. (approx 10pm cet+1)

Enodoc

Sublime wrote: »

Enodoc wrote: »

I'm not sure about the numbers though. 40 seconds seems a very short time for such a large increase in defensive capability (what is it at the moment, about 10 minutes per level?), and 5 minutes seems quite a long time before the benefits of taking the resource when attacking actually surface. I think enemy control should downgrade a keep faster than friendly control upgrades it, so that there is always a push for resource control (and also because destruction is generally faster than construction).

The main reason for upgrade timers being so low, is that if you are defending it probably doen'y help you much if you take a resource and have to wait 10mins to get the good perks. But I think an increase to 90/100s would certainly be worth considering.
As for the downgrade timers, it was mainly intended as an onstacle for fast keep flipping, that should also be considered an indicator for incoming attacks. Again, a reduction to 180/150 might be more suited for the desired effects, since it wouldn't require guilds to plan ahead that far while still leaving a reasonable amoumt of time for the defenders to answer.
Regarding upgrade vs downgrade timers I think upgrade should be faster, because otherwise it could become very difficult to take resources when facing high amounts of enemies. I understand the argument of the endresult being a push against the keep, but I think in the end it comes down to how difficult you want to make it.

Yeah that makes sense. I was thinking that the main reason to re-capture a resource when the enemy takes it would be to prevent further downgrading, rather than promote upgrading, based on the fact that when you are under attack and in a defensive position you are working to minimise loss rather than maximise gain. In my view, upgrading isn't for active defence, its for pre-battle preparation and initial defensive power. This is also the reason why I thought downgrading should be faster.

Kutsuu

How will the divers contend with slaughterfish, though?

tinythinker

Interesting ideas.

I've explored the issues of PvDoor, zerging strongholds, etc. along similar lines. For example, making taking and holding resources necessary to taking strongholds, buffing up walls and NPCs, etc. Nice touch on the mini-towers, not sure if that's a little over-complicated or not without testing it in-game. I've also got some stuff for specialized NPCs/NPC behavior and stronghold behavior that go beyond fighting over flags and involve map domination. I like your ideas for extra siege options. I've suggested adding a siege skill line for the Alliance War, and that could fit nicely. Anyway, just some things to consider/rummage through for extra parts to work with.

Addressing map domination/PvDoor and adding a bit more strategy to the conquest of Cyrodiil:

- have tougher stronghold walls/gates and more orstronger NPCs guards at all times. Make the "quick cap" something truly extraordinary to pull off and give defenders more time to arrive/slow down PvDoor. Make it worth capping resources prior to sieging rather than going straight to attacking the walls or gate. See the next spoiler for details on changes to taking strongholds No really, it needed a separate section but it helps this section make more sense.

- have something like a low pop bonus for stronghold defense, but unlike the old version of a low pop for campaign scoring bonus don't make it so exploitable or too-late-able. How this would manifest in game mechanics I leave open for discussion, but it might include: bonuses to PCs, bonuses to keep wall/gate strength, bonuses to NPC strength or abilities, bonuses to repairs, etc. My own preference is that these bonuses be tied to how many strongholds (castles, keeps, forts) remain under your Alliance's control rather than to how many players are on during a given interval. This would still benefit a low pop Alliance without the delay of counting heads every so often. If you control all of your starting strongholds, no bonus. For each one you lose, you get a bonus/the bonus increases automatically.

- have a domination penalty. Yes, you still get the fighting and AP/gold bonuses for controlling home and enemy strongholds to encourage taking more of them (and I recommend buffing them!!) but also new weaknesses to holding most or all of them at once, like the inverse of the last bullet point (weaker walls/gate strength, penalties to NPC strength or abilities, penalties to repairs, etc). After all, soldiers and resources can begin to tire and be stretched thin.

- have additional domination penalties on a timer. Related to the last bullet point, what about uprisings, insurrections, sabotage, or espionage? For every X hours you hold an enemy stronghold, the greater the chance that one of these events will happen. These events could in fact explain some of the domination penalties from the previous bullet or could be added on top of those. Weakening of a random section of a wall at a rate that gets faster over time that (will or could eventually) lead to a breach, having NPC guards patrolling outside the stronghold go missing/turn up dead (and not be replaced/no respawn), having new Nightblade-based NPCs that are placed outside of strongholds in (undetectable) stealth that are ready to ambush unwary PCs that are riding into/out of the stronghold, etc.

- make strongholds worth more points on the campaign scoreboard/worth more AP if captured or defended the longer they are held. This idea was intentionally suggested for helping to spread out players in a campaign but it also further incentivizes action against a dominant Alliance. If one Alliance has been controlling most or all of a map for days for weeks on a particular campaign, AP farmers/seekers will see that as a gold mine and a bonus to the campaign scoreboard for the capture helps get the other Alliances back into the competition.

-add unique crafting stations to the far-out strongholds (Dragonclaw, Drakelowe, and Brindle). Can't find the comment or post where I originally suggested this, but, each stronghold would have a unique set that could only be crafted there. The idea seemed to be part of the districts of IC but since you can't capture districts it doesn't have the same effect.

- make it a little easier to take back your own strongholds. The other things in this list would still be in play, but everything would be a bit (20% maybe?) easier for recapping your own stuff.

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."

Bringing Specialists to the battlefield:

I'm still working on this one, but I wanted to get the basic concept out in case other people wanted to share their spin on it. I'm sure I will think of more/better ideas later, but here goes...

- limit each character to one Alliance War skill line at a time. If you want to run Support, fine, but you can't pick anything from the Assault tree. You can always respec, of course, to change specializations. Maybe something at one of the Gates? Get your skill point from the Alliance War skill line back and be free to choose another. For a modest fee, of course, perhaps using AP?

- Modify the existing Alliance War skill lines to reflect specialization. For those upset about the 50% Battle Spirit Nerf, how about one of the passives (maybe Battle Frenzy?) add in something that makes it 40% instead. It can be done/worded various ways, but the idea is still there. Or maybe add it to Continuous Attack? Who knows? Maybe add a new passive? This would be balanced by a similar change under Support. Effectively, those who choose Assault have their healing nerfed at present (or even slightly higher levels), and those who choose Support see mirror results. Other changes could be made to make different specialists valuable to any group (might update later with some examples). There could also be changes that that would limit how often things like Barrier and Purge could be cast/the effects received, or, see the next bullet...

- Add a new Alliance War skill line. My preference would be for something like an Engineer type. Deploy/retrieve siege faster than at present (and have others do so slower), do more damage with siege equipment/have additional or boosted effects, etc. For example, an active or passive skill at the bottom of the list (high rank) where (at least some) siege effects cannot be purged/cleansed. Partially mitigated by such abilities? Maybe. But not always entirely erased for all effects. There could be some some fun and creative skills thought up for this that are not immediately obvious as well, so put on your thinking caps. Should be at least one that is useful for open-field play that would be powerful and something you'd want to have for your group.

- Add new mechanics/deployable equipment/personal gear to take advantage of specialization. We see this with a couple of gear sets added in 2.1 but more would be needed to take advantage of the new specialist roles, especially for Engineers in the field. Maybe some kind of fast arming trap? Or a mobile defense structure? Again, get creative!

The idea here, again, is to spice things up and let people of varying levels of skill make meaningful contributions/be desirable for groups without "nerfing" how other, more skilled players who would want to jump on the revised "Assault" skill line like to play. Tired of playing Support or Engineer and want to play Assault? OK, but you need to practice, gain experience with combat, use the right gear, etc. And make sure things are not only useful from each specialization but challenging to play as well in their own ways. Again, skill line, gear, and equipment would need to be designed with this in mind.

Add "moving flags" for small group objectives:

There was a thread about supply lines a good while back, but it was more about capping stronghold resources. What if there were supply convoys, like a wagon, that acted like a moving "flag" to be defended or capped, no new quest needed. They would periodically leave from one stronghold or town to a destination with a contingent of NPC guards. You could choose to escort or not at any time, either because you planned to or just ran across one of them. They would stop moving when attacked, and you would get an O-tick for capturing the wagon or a D-tick for defending it, just like a stronghold or outpost.

There are already NPC guards who escort captured NPC prisoners in Cyrodiil, so that could be added as another type of "moving flag".

Capping these moving flags could have benefits beyond AP, such as loot. But capping and defending them could also have additional effects, either on resources, strongholds, or the players involved in he fight. Buffs, debuffs, etc.

AllPlayAndNoWork

I also think that to spread the play out and still keep the "grand armies" feel maybe If you recap a resource back while the enemy are taking the flags then the enemy never capture a keep. To cap a keep you need ALL resources and both flags, atm it is still too easy for groups take no resources, siege & to run to nave / apse and cap both flags quickly as they are so close together.

Another idea is to have flags further apart. Or not being able to begin your siege until all the resources are capped.
Another I had is that outposts becoming a bigger part of it all. Maybe saying that each alliances outpost (Bleakers DC - Sej EP - Nikel AD) must be under enemy control or you cannot siege enemy home keeps. This keeps PvP spread out and keeps everyone involved all over the map.

I like your multiple (4-5) flag idea, maybe randomise two of the flags that have to be capped to take a keep. I want it to be a spread out affair as I can still see the zerg mentality winning.

But great post and concentrates more on constructive feedback rather than peeps moaning all the time.

Enodoc

Here's that link to my idea for Active Flag Capture:
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/233903/active-flag-capture-concept/p1

contact.opiumb16_ESO

Sublime wrote: »

In one of his recent posts, Brian pointed out that they were looking into ways to make the switching of keeps less frequent. And since I like figuring out new game mechanics and applying them to ESO, I gave it a shot:

First off before people start complaining, this approach assumes that there are only active, populated campaigns and is not tailored to solve the buff campaign problem. For this watch my other threads.

I guess this seems like a rather random gameplay change, but it is a fundamental part of making keep ownership more important. This will in turn make potential keep upgrades (not the resource ones) more desired by players or guilds, as keeps shouldn't be flipping every 4h anymore. So it's actually a basis for further additions which would make the Alliance War feel more like an actual war with strategic pushes, retreats and long-time sieges instead of constant blitzkrieg.

Basically each keep battle has three stages. First, (sometimes) taking the resources and besiegeing the outer wall, second besiegeing the inner wall, and third taking the flags inside the keep. As you can see this is pretty straight-forward and doesn't allow for much gameplay diversity, so I decided to give boring parts (especially stage 1 and 2) some new flavour.

While reading this post, please keep in mind that giving the defender some significant streangth is intended. As a result I designed the attacking pattern to be about denying perks from the defender by taking certain objectives. Meaning invaders do not get any actual buffs from taking an intermediate objective, but equalize the power level between the two alliances by weakening the defenders.

Currently NPC's are rather a decoration than actual combatants, giving them battle leveling should solve this problem.

Stage 1: Resources and Outer Wall
While besiegeing can be interesting at times, it gets rather boring at some point, so I decided to shift the focus more on the resources and actual player-to-player combat.

The changes in numbers:

• Once an attacker takes a ressource the keep downgrades once every 5min
• Once a defender takes a ressource the keep upgrades once every 40s
• Each resource yields specific boni

Lumbermill:

• Increases the range of siege engines by 4/8/12/16/20%
• Increases the damage dealt by NPC's by 6/12/18/24/30%
• Increases the HP of doors by 50k/100k/150k/200k/250k (400k total health at level 5)
• Increases the healing value of door repair kits by 20/40/60/80/100%

Mine:

• Increases the defensive values of NPC's by 6/12/18/24/30%
• Increases the HP of walls by 70k/140k/210k/280k/350k (550k total health at level 5)
• Increases the healing value of wall repair kits by 20/40/60/80/100%

Farm:

• Increases the damage of siege engines by 20/40/60/100%
• Grants NPC's modified versions of skills or 5pc set boni
• • Mender: Remembrance (Ressource level increases: healing value/duration/radius)
  • Honor Guard: Apprentice Set 5pc (Ressource level increases: radius/healing value)
  • Guard: Guard (AvA skill) (Ressource level increases: frequency of projectile interception)
  • Mage Guard: Valkyn Skoria (Ressource level increases: proc chance/damage)
  • Archer Guard: Kyne's Flight Set 5pc (Ressource level increases: speed reduction)
• Reduces the "Under Attack Repairing" percentage of walls and doors to 94/93/92/91/90%

The base values for wall and door HP remain the same but the hitpoints gained from the resources increased a lot. In theory, this should encourage the attacker to take the resources a bit in advance as it makes the siege a lot easier. For that it is key that all resources are on the same level, otherwise everybody will take the one(s) that matter and leave the other one(s) behind. Apart from that, all buffs apply to units on the keep as well as the resources so they are no longer yolo'able. While this might seem overkill, resources are thought for 4-5 players and not as solo content.

There are some perks that might seem pretty useless to you, so I'm going to elaborate on my ideas behind them:

Siege weapon range:
Two thoughts on that, first it should enable to pressure invaders on an allied resources from an outer wall. Yes this does not work everywhere but it will help at some points. Second, the inner keep has very limited space to place down siege engines so having an increased range can help a lot, which in turn gives defenders more reason to go for a stealthy retake of the lumbermill.

Repair Kits Healing Value:
Again, two reason for this, on the one hand it makes it easier to stealth repair an unattended breach, and on the other hand you get more AP for your AP, given you bother to take the corresponding ressource.

Special NPC perks (skills and set boni):
I know this looks like: "WTF? He probably run out of ideas. LOL.", and yes this is true to some point but on the other hand those additions really push the NPC's to the next level, which is key to prevent groups of 3-4 from taking a keep at off-times.

Even though most resources should be taken to launch an assault, it is still possible to make strategic decisions. For example: only taking the Lumbermill allows to set up for a quick take of the keep by burning through the weakened doors.

Regarding the HP of walls and doors, the walls need to have more HP as they are way easier to attack based on the tactical positions. Doors are easier to defend and have therefore less HP. The big overall increase should give defenders more time to take position, push the attackers back or set up their defenses.

Stage 2: Courtyard, Inner Wall and mini POI's

Each keep has 5 (7 for large keeps, main gate included) mini towers distributed on the outer wall. As @ZOS_BrianWheeler pointed out in a previous post, it would be possible to add additional flags to POI's, so adding a flag to each of those towers would create some more things to fight over. However, unlike the two main flags in the inner keep, they don't count towards the keep ownership as such but grand special perks to the defenders, while they are under their control.

The perks would be as follows:
2x 120 Weapon/Spell Damage
2x 4k Armor/Spell Resistance
2x 120 Stamina/Magicka Regeneration (large keeps only)
5k Max HP (main gate)

As the flags are a mini version of the ones inside the keep they can easily be swapped by 2-3 players in 5-10 seconds. The buff gets reapplied every 30s to all player within the area, so it works very similarily to the Continuous Attack buff (which by to way doesn't get granted upon taking a mini-flag as it would encourage swapping). Since invadors cannot get the buff it would mainly be an incentive for the defenders to go offensive and get some buffs. Additionally it gives solo players a place to shine in large keep battles, while still offering counterplay. Beside that it will give attackers something more to look out for.

Stage 3: Inner Keep, Flags

Due to the NPC's and the many opportunities to LOS, this stage is already rather entertaining on live. After adding the buffs NPC's mentioned above, it will be a lot easier to defend against big numbers. However, there is one major problem: while inside a keep numbers get far more important because of the limited space. Adding the following mechanic will help defenders even the odds:

Mini-Siege engines:
During the Flesh Sculpurer fight in the Imperial City Prison players have to use ground targeted synergies to kill zombies. The synergy can be actived while standing on certain green stones. The mini-siege can be placed down like the mercenaries, and activated like the synergy in the Imperial City Prison.

• mini-sieges can only be placed in the inner keep
• mini-sieges have a range of 3-25m
• mini-sieges have a smaller target AOE than normal sieges
• mini-sieges deal the same damage and cooldown as normal sieges
• mini-sieges do not count towards the normal siege counter
• you can place a maximum of 10 mini-sieges at a keep
• each type of siege weapon has a mini version
• mini-sieges cannot be directly targeted by players (like normal siege engines)
• only the defender can set up mini-sieges
• you can set up mini-sieges nearby a normal siege, and vice-versa (like mercenaries used to be)

This may not make up for the lack of space for big sieges at stage 2, but it definetely gives defenders a clear edge once the fights transitions into the stronghold of the keep.

Thoughts?

AKA Dynamic siege strategy, love it

AverageJo3Gam3r

Also, add to the list increased AP gains for taking/defending resources.