Let's Make Claiming Resources for Guilds Actually Matter!

AdmiralSam

Right now the whole "claiming system" is a joke. Claiming a keep gives you little to no benefits, and no one ever bothers to claim resources, rendering this system effectively pointless.

With this in mind, I think there are two viable alternatives regarding the future of this system: a) get rid of it (don't do that thooo) or b) re-work it into something actually meaningful.

Claiming a resource (or keep) in the name of the guild could give the members of the guild a bonus gold/AP over time or an "inspiration boost"-like buff for AP, much like the thing you have when you claim a district for your faction in IC (only for AP this time). Whatever the rewards, they should increase the longer you hold the resource (as the resource gets stronger).

Furthermore, it should be that different resources give varying amounts of the reward. For instance, claiming a simple resource should give you a smaller reward than claiming a keep, while owning resources further away from your alliance home should also steadily increase the reward. So an enemy alliance's "gate keep" should give you a bigger reward than claiming your own faction's "gate keep".

This would not only matter claiming resources matter more, it could also motivate people to spread out more, thus reducing the (apparently non-existent?) lag.

I'd be curious if anyone else thinks this to be a good idea, or if anyone has any reasons why this wouldn't be a good idea.

Rohamad_Ali

I think the problem with this is it doesn't really make sense for cross faction guilds . Also trade guilds may see this as forced PvP . I remember it was brought up a year ago an that's how it fell apart last time .

AdmiralSam

You could make it so that only members of the alliance that owns the keep get the bonus.

As for forced PvP, I don't see it. Just like trials, or other content, you wouldn't have to participate if you don't want to.

I never knew this was brought up before, ty for the info

KenaPKK

How was it called "forced pvp?" I was but a wee quester way back at launch, so I did not see a debate.

What about claiming alliance war objectives being possible forces anyone who doesn't want to pvp to go do so? Guilds wouldn't necessarily have to participate, and most guilds would have pvp members who will go do so anyway.

I figure trade guilds would want pvp members to claim resources and advertise their location in zone or something, and I figure everyone would benefit or at worst be indifferent to a more robust system if they were to rework it.

But even if there were "forced pvp," it's not like there isn't forced pve in the game.

Rohamad_Ali

Yeah it wasn't my opinion . I thought there were very good incentives . The way they took as forced PvP was any buff to the guild from Cyrodiil meant traveling to that zone to get it .theyvwanted an equivalent option in PvE . Then the whole thread unraveled ...

AJ_1988

When I first played I thought depending on the resource the alliance members over time got crafting mats. How disappointed I was lol. It gives the guild a guild store so that's kinda a benefit.

KenaPKK

AJ_1988 wrote: »

When I first played I thought depending on the resource the alliance members over time got crafting mats. How disappointed I was lol. It gives the guild a guild store so that's kinda a benefit.

This is a good idea.

AdmiralSam

I mean to give a PvP-related buff/reward to PvP'ers... that's like saying that the continuous attack buff is forced PvP lol

AJ_1988 wrote: »

When I first played I thought depending on the resource the alliance members over time got crafting mats. How disappointed I was lol. It gives the guild a guild store so that's kinda a benefit.

It may be a benefit, but no one uses it. So let's provide a benefit that PvP folks would actually care about. Mats of value (ie gold mats) would be great too, although I do see that as potentially balance-breaking. And if holding a resource for a certain time would be required to get gold mats, everyone would just camp their own resource 'till the end of times, thus not encouraging PvP.

TooskSG

The system works fine if properly utilized. PvP pots,food, etc. are always in demand in Cyro. Add locked pop queues into the mix, and you can slightly up-charge versus PvE land. If one were to put in the time to make a PvP goods focused trading guild, and keep the front-center home keep claimed for an alliance--moneybags galore and benefits the faction at the same time. Less work, less profitable but still effective= claim keeps for trading guilds.

Resource claims aren't cared about because resources are only important relative to the keep (game mechanics where owning the resources of a keep buffs that keep). That and no one gives a flip about an objective where any solo player can PvE cap it--major reason why the new campaign scoring meta still hasn't been adapted to by many since fighting NPCs for 25 AP and affecting the scoreboard the same as a Keep cap... boring, head in ass mechanic,and contrary to basic tenets of PvP.

Giving resources the same importance as keeps is just doubling down on a mistake. The moment ZoS changed campaign scoring so that resources are worth the same as keeps and scrolls was just causing even more PvE in PvP. Resources are rarely defended and it only takes a solo player to cap them, gg no re NPCs. It didn't help the lag whatsoever either.

That is just one of many forced PvE elements in PvP atm: AP buff from delves,cold fire siege from dolmens, forced PvE to be competitive in min/max PvP (Maelstrom weapons and undaunted passives), necessary PvP expenditures are more than the paltry gold income from PvP (forced PvE to stay within budget or scumbag hoarding of AP to make ends meet).

Let's stop the knee-jerk reactions to the symptoms and actually fix the problems. Gold income is still too low in PvP (get rid of the random sets that don't sell for jack from rewards, straight gold is necessary as it has the most stable value--and always will). The AP buff needs to be from capturing objectives (should work like Continuous Attack--if possible add the same mechanic to refresh/apply with defense ticks), cold fire siege needs to either be nerfed to be in line with the rest of siege or available from actual PvP sources, and IC needs to have a separate server and not share population with Cyro campaigns. All this PvE content in PvP hasn't solved any of the lag and has only diluted the PvP experience, period.

AdmiralSam

TooskSG wrote: »

The system works fine if properly utilized. PvP pots,food, etc. are always in demand in Cyro. Add locked pop queues into the mix, and you can slightly up-charge versus PvE land. If one were to put in the time to make a PvP goods focused trading guild, and keep the front-center home keep claimed for an alliance--moneybags galore and benefits the faction at the same time. Less work, less profitable but still effective= claim keeps for trading guilds.

Resource claims aren't cared about because resources are only important relative to the keep (game mechanics where owning the resources of a keep buffs that keep). That and no one gives a flip about an objective where any solo player can PvE cap it--major reason why the new campaign scoring meta still hasn't been adapted to by many since fighting NPCs for 25 AP and affecting the scoreboard the same as a Keep cap... boring, head in ass mechanic,and contrary to basic tenets of PvP.

Giving resources the same importance as keeps is just doubling down on a mistake. The moment ZoS changed campaign scoring so that resources are worth the same as keeps and scrolls was just causing even more PvE in PvP. Resources are rarely defended and it only takes a solo player to cap them, gg no re NPCs. It didn't help the lag whatsoever either.

That is just one of many forced PvE elements in PvP atm: AP buff from delves,cold fire siege from dolmens, forced PvE to be competitive in min/max PvP (Maelstrom weapons and undaunted passives), necessary PvP expenditures are more than the paltry gold income from PvP (forced PvE to stay within budget or scumbag hoarding of AP to make ends meet).

Let's stop the knee-jerk reactions to the symptoms and actually fix the problems. Gold income is still too low in PvP (get rid of the random sets that don't sell for jack from rewards, straight gold is necessary as it has the most stable value--and always will). The AP buff needs to be from capturing objectives (should work like Continuous Attack--if possible add the same mechanic to refresh/apply with defense ticks), cold fire siege needs to either be nerfed to be in line with the rest of siege or available from actual PvP sources, and IC needs to have a separate server and not share population with Cyro campaigns. All this PvE content in PvP hasn't solved any of the lag and has only diluted the PvP experience, period.

I never said that resources should have the same importance as keeps; but to be fair, on certain servers they are the same importance. All I suggested was that an underutilized mechanic should be reworked

KenaPKK

You can't really upsell consumables with people able to just undercut you in zone chat with their inventory stocks. It is not easy to push prices up in this game. I've been able to do it only a few times, and none were with consumables.

Any input on that subject is welcome.

Guild store claims would be successful if they undercut mm prices, though, but then you'd just drive down prices.

Let's start by venturing away from traders for a second. What benefits could claiming an objective offer a pvp guild in pvp that would not be op?

Think of effects that can travel with the guild members as they fight elsewhere on the map.

They could differ between types of resources -- offensive, defensive, mobility, AP gains, etc -- and could create some neat objectives for enemies to go after to weaken the guild.

Guilds could become more prominent fixtures in actual game mechanics.

They could grant you the bonuses only to groups containing only guild members -- not solo players and not mixed groups -- in order to reward organized play. Or meh, they could grant them to all members regardless as well as group members who aren't in guild. Maybe the group receive bonuses of the majority member guild. Or not. It's all ideas.

I'm sleepy, so this post is an unproofread rambling train of thought of ideas. Time to get a conversation started here though. I'll come back with fresh and specific ideas tomorrow and compile all of this into a more organized comment. nighty night everyone.

TooskSG

KenaPKK wrote: »

You can't really upsell consumables with people able to just undercut you in zone chat with their inventory stocks. It is not easy to push prices up in this game. I've been able to do it only a few times, and none were with consumables.

Those inventory sellers are not always around and convenience always wins in MMOs. If there were an option to press a keybind to pull up a menu to buy potions at a 10% markup, we all know how many people would use it. The same lazy ones in everyone MMO that pay real money to get simple in-game things done.

AdmiralSam wrote: »

I never said that resources should have the same importance as keeps; but to be fair, on certain servers they are the same importance. All I suggested was that an underutilized mechanic should be reworked

I know you never suggested that resources should have the same importance as keeps. I was stating how resources have already become almost equal, if not equal to keep ownership in many aspects (points/eval,buffing said keep, FC placement, etc).

As for claiming objectives, the only way I can think of balancing your idea is to give a minimal AP boost while members of that guild are within range of that resource. However, this would give rise to more guilds stacking raids on resources to farm. It would also annoy other members of the faction due to competition for farm spots.

Not to mention that enemy gate keeps giving a bigger ap buff would only exacerbate the issue of factions nightcap blobbing and camping gates. The idea that the incentive to claim resources isn't there and needs to be there is valid, but I don't see the proposed buff as being beneficial to the health of PvP. If I think of anything worthwhile as an alternative, I'll be back

Elsir

My immediate reaction to an AP boost, akin to that of the one you get from killing a boss in a Cyrodiil delve, for guild members at a resource that has a claim on that resource is that it's just one more reason for AP farming guilds to "tower farm". Larger boost the further from your home you are? They'll make that trip and sit in those towers all damn day. I'd prefer NOT adding to ways for AP farmers to get up the leaderboards for minimal effort. There are always, always, always going to be lemmings who will flock to it thinking it's actually a move against that alliance's home keeps. Likewise as many who will ignore "Don't cap the flag" requests so people can siege the tower down. I'm sure you know how well that usually works out.

While I agree, claiming a keep or resource for a guild should be more enticing (especially resources which get no guild claim love), what that enticing thing is needs to be considered carefully and absolutely not anywhere near boosts to AP.

-Perhaps the guards and resource workers could be up to 150% stronger based on member count (so that people who create a guild JUST to claim something don't get any benefit worthwhile in doing so with just them as the only member).
-Perhaps a guild owning a resource could hasten the speed at which the keep's defences are improved to level 5.
-Perhaps the guild that owns a keep could purchase reinforced equipment to "barricade" doors or reinforce the concrete of walls for up to 50% more health and it is that guild's responsibility alone to ensure that keep is maintained in such a way.

Sublime

The whole thing behind the forced PvP, was that a portion of the campain/Emperor boni carried over to PvE, so that in order for guilds to stay competitive (i.e. have all buffs) they needed to make sure the campaign was going in their favor. Obviously they didn't enjoy PvP as much and therefore the whole "forced PvP" discussion.

I don't think gold is something that should be considered for this since it has a direct impact on the rest of the game. But I think that AP is a good way to reward players since it has a way smaller influence and is usually only desired by PvP players. I think 3% per ressource level would be a good starting point. In order to prevent buff campaigns, the buff should only apply while guild members play in the respective campaign and you can only benefit from ressources that

Some restrictions/rules that should apply:

• In order to prevent buff campaigns, the buff should only apply while guild members play in the respective campaign
• a player can only benefit if the character is of the same alliance one that claimed the ressource (each guild has a faction and can only claim ressources for that faction)
• a player can only benefit from one ressoruce at a time (guild prioritization would be a different discussion)

Something similar might be interesting for keeps, but I feel like it would cause too much faction intern drama, since everybody would want to own a keep. On the other side it would give PvP guilds an actual role, which sounds very intriguing. Also because it would be possible to screw over specific enemy guilds by speedcapping their keep, which, unfortunately, would be a huge encouragement for nightcapping. (This isn't as bad with ressoruces since they are way easier to flip & level up)