What do you think of adding a one minute timer to re-spawning at a keep?

Flame_of_Hades

I feel like when groups fight between keeps, it ends up being a never ending battle, until one faction brings 3-4 times the numbers of the enemy. This is mainly because when one faction (faction A) pushes to an enemy keep (faction , faction A can't put down siege because faction B overwhelms them, not because they just simply beat them in a fight, but because no matter how many times you kill an enemy, they are right back in the fight 5 seconds later, making death meaningless.

VaranisArano

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

You get a free respawn as long as the keep isn't flagged. Thats incentive to get out and fight, preventing the enemy from flagging your keep. Its also incentive for the enemy to set siege and flag the keep and defend that siege.

There's already a 5 minute timer on respawning at a rez camp.

If you cant manage to set down and defend enough siege to flag a keep, you either need more reinforcements or you need to fight better.

Flame_of_Hades

Yes - add the delay.

VaranisArano wrote: »

You get a free respawn as long as the keep isn't flagged. Thats incentive to get out and fight, preventing the enemy from flagging your keep. Its also incentive for the enemy to set siege and flag the keep and defend that siege.

There's already a 5 minute timer on respawning at a rez camp.

If you cant manage to set down and defend enough siege to flag a keep, you either need more reinforcements or you need to fight better.

and that's my point. 15 people, if they have killed the 10 defenders 3+ times, should be able to flag a keep, but they cant, because every time they stop to place a siege weapon the same person they just killed is on them again.

unless you are dying almost as fast as you walk out the door, one minute shouldn't stop you from re-spawning when you die. What it does do is prevent people from just throwing themselves at an enemy group until it works.

VaranisArano

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Flame_of_Hades wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

You get a free respawn as long as the keep isn't flagged. Thats incentive to get out and fight, preventing the enemy from flagging your keep. Its also incentive for the enemy to set siege and flag the keep and defend that siege.

There's already a 5 minute timer on respawning at a rez camp.

If you cant manage to set down and defend enough siege to flag a keep, you either need more reinforcements or you need to fight better.

and that's my point. 15 people, if they have killed the 10 defenders 3+ times, should be able to flag a keep, but they cant, because every time they stop to place a siege weapon the same person they just killed is on them again.

unless you are dying almost as fast as you walk out the door, one minute shouldn't stop you from re-spawning when you die. What it does do is prevent people from just throwing themselves at an enemy group until it works.

Its Cyrodiil. If your group of 15 can't manage to siege and fight 10 people, call for reinforcements. Or accept that you've lost that siege. Regroup, try again later.

Look, I'm well familiar with EP's habit of potatoing up to Bleakers or Alessia, focusing on killing players, setting down a paltry handful or siege and then utterly failing to defend that siege long enough to flag the keep and stop the unending stream of AD or DC coming out to fight.

Who's fault is that? Its the fault of EP. We potatoed. We focused on killing, not doing the one thing that would make a difference -sieging the darned keep til it flags.

Don't be a potato. We don't need a 1 min timer that penalizes agressive defenders and incentivizes attackers potatoing around killing the same players again and again instead of seiging and defending your siege line to capture the objective.

NBrookus

It's hard enough getting people off the walls to fight when the keep isn't flagged.

MLRPZ

there's no point in adding a one minute CD.
between the moment you respawn, get out of Loading Screen of doom and hax and got back to the fight, one minute has passed anyway

Ramber

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

So.... ad a waiting time for the people that literally have to ride for 2-5 minutes to get back to a fight? ensuring they not only miss the end of the fight but the rewards too? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard here in the forums. PvP needs to be sped up not slowed down, its already painfully slow to get back to a fight when camps are not an option which happens most of the time.

Ramber

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Ramber wrote: »

So.... ad a waiting time for the people that literally have to ride for 2-5 minutes to get back to a fight? ensuring they not only miss the end of the fight but the rewards too? That's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard here in the forums. PvP needs to be sped up not slowed down, its already painfully slow to get back to a fight when camps are not an option which happens most of the time.

forgot to ask if that 1 minute is added to the 5 minute load screens or somehow just part of them?

esotoon

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Flame_of_Hades wrote: »

I feel like when groups fight between keeps, it ends up being a never ending battle, until one faction brings 3-4 times the numbers of the enemy. This is mainly because when one faction (faction A) pushes to an enemy keep (faction , faction A can't put down siege because faction B overwhelms them, not because they just simply beat them in a fight, but because no matter how many times you kill an enemy, they are right back in the fight 5 seconds later, making death meaningless.

This depends very much upon how many people are in both groups. Group of 12 come to take a keep from one player and that 1 min timer means that player has no chance to respawn before the keep is flagged.

The system as is, gives the defenders an advantage for 50% of the time until the Keep is flagged, when they are then at a disadvantage to the attackers. The system you are proposing would swing the advantage in the attackers favour greatly which doesn't make sense. When it comes to seige warfare, defenders should always start off with the advantage. Otherwise what's the point of building Keeps? If they put you at a disadvantage you may as well fight in the open.

dotme

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Flame_of_Hades wrote: »

15 people, if they have killed the 10 defenders 3+ times, should be able to flag a keep, but they cant, because every time they stop to place a siege weapon the same person they just killed is on them again.

Drop a ram, man it with a mix of 6 tanks and healers, use siege shield above them, and the other 7 people are free to fight the to defenders - the keep will flag. Clearly this scenario changes with numbers, but there's enough keep turnover in Cyrodill to hint that in the majority of cases, respawn timers probably aren't needed.

Gilvoth

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

oh my, i do need more time to T-Bag these enemies i kill, but, im not so sure this would be good overall health of pvp.

Eclipse0990

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

No

p00tx

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

We already have that vis-a-vis server lag...

Marcus684

VaranisArano wrote: »

Flame_of_Hades wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

You get a free respawn as long as the keep isn't flagged. Thats incentive to get out and fight, preventing the enemy from flagging your keep. Its also incentive for the enemy to set siege and flag the keep and defend that siege.

There's already a 5 minute timer on respawning at a rez camp.

If you cant manage to set down and defend enough siege to flag a keep, you either need more reinforcements or you need to fight better.

and that's my point. 15 people, if they have killed the 10 defenders 3+ times, should be able to flag a keep, but they cant, because every time they stop to place a siege weapon the same person they just killed is on them again.

unless you are dying almost as fast as you walk out the door, one minute shouldn't stop you from re-spawning when you die. What it does do is prevent people from just throwing themselves at an enemy group until it works.

Its Cyrodiil. If your group of 15 can't manage to siege and fight 10 people, call for reinforcements. Or accept that you've lost that siege. Regroup, try again later.

Look, I'm well familiar with EP's habit of potatoing up to Bleakers or Alessia, focusing on killing players, setting down a paltry handful or siege and then utterly failing to defend that siege long enough to flag the keep and stop the unending stream of AD or DC coming out to fight.

Who's fault is that? Its the fault of EP. We potatoed. We focused on killing, not doing the one thing that would make a difference -sieging the darned keep til it flags.

Don't be a potato. We don't need a 1 min timer that penalizes agressive defenders and incentivizes attackers potatoing around killing the same players again and again instead of seiging and defending your siege line to capture the objective.

DC does the same *** thing at Chalman and Nikel, 30 fighters and 2 siege. Potatoing shouldn’t be rewarded. No more respawn timers. At least with the FC cooldown you can rez at the nearest keep and ride back. Making people lay there dead waiting for a timer would be asinine.

StamWhipCultist

We have that already, in form of loading screens. Issue is that most of the time its way over 1 minute.

Biro123

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

The best fights are those running battles between keeps.. Are you saying that you'd rather replace them with more sieges?

Plus how many times, while waiting for that timer, would I go make some coffee to come back and find I've been logged out to inactivity and now face a 50+ queue..?

SugaComa

How about no respawn, once you're dead no more cyrodil till the campaign resets

esotoon

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

SugaComa wrote: »

How about no respawn, once you're dead no more cyrodil till the campaign resets

Sounds like a good idea. They could then also make the boundaries of Cyrodiil get smaller and smaller as time goes on. So that, as the population gets less, people are forced closer to each other to make sure the action never gets boring.

They could call the campaign Forts & Knights or something similar.

VaranisArano

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

SugaComa wrote: »

How about no respawn, once you're dead no more cyrodil till the campaign resets

Lets make Deathmatch in Battlegrounds work the same way. You die, you can't respawn, and the last man standing wins it for their team.

/s

Runs

VaranisArano wrote: »

SugaComa wrote: »

How about no respawn, once you're dead no more cyrodil till the campaign resets

Lets make Deathmatch in Battlegrounds work the same way. You die, you can't respawn, and the last man standing wins it for their team.

/s

I know you put the sarcasm tag up... But a Last Man Standing BG mode... sounds fun and fast.

VaranisArano

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Runs wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

SugaComa wrote: »

How about no respawn, once you're dead no more cyrodil till the campaign resets

Lets make Deathmatch in Battlegrounds work the same way. You die, you can't respawn, and the last man standing wins it for their team.

/s

I know you put the sarcasm tag up... But a Last Man Standing BG mode... sounds fun and fast.

It would definitely be fast! At least until the meta shifted to stealthing out and waiting for everyone else to die...

Cogo

Yes - add the delay.

I wouldnt mind a longer spawn time when you die, but not for the reasons the OP says.

Dying should be something you avoid with everything you've got. Most pvpers seams not to care if they die.

RaddlemanNumber7

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

That would discourage me from playing Cyrodiil.

JamieAubrey

Its called a load screen

MerlinPendragon

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Leave resurrection mechanics as is.

idk

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

We have a mechanism to bring a halt to spawning at a keep. Burst it and they have to travel from another keep.

There is nothing wrong with this mechanic.

geonsocal

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

esotoon wrote: »

SugaComa wrote: »

How about no respawn, once you're dead no more cyrodil till the campaign resets

Sounds like a good idea. They could then also make the boundaries of Cyrodiil get smaller and smaller as time goes on. So that, as the population gets less, people are forced closer to each other to make sure the action never gets boring.

They could call the campaign Forts & Knights or something similar.

dance redguard > orange justice

rfennell_ESO

Yes - add the delay.

Flame_of_Hades wrote: »

I feel like when groups fight between keeps, it ends up being a never ending battle, until one faction brings 3-4 times the numbers of the enemy. This is mainly because when one faction (faction A) pushes to an enemy keep (faction , faction A can't put down siege because faction B overwhelms them, not because they just simply beat them in a fight, but because no matter how many times you kill an enemy, they are right back in the fight 5 seconds later, making death meaningless.

There should be some delay, not the first rez but it should ramp up some from there.

1st rez instant, 2nd one 15 seconds, 3rd 30 seconds, 4th you get the idea.

nryerson1025

i prefer the idea of "resurrection sickness" a small penalty, maybe, to weapon and spell dmg for a short period of time after resurrecting. this has been successfully implemented in past mmos

DUTCH_REAPER

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

#iwanttobuynodisconnects

Cheers

RedRook

No - that would slow down pvp far to much.

Cogo wrote: »

I wouldnt mind a longer spawn time when you die, but not for the reasons the OP says.

Dying should be something you avoid with everything you've got. Most pvpers seams not to care if they die.

They won't even come down off the wall of their unflagged keep until they outnumber us at least two to one. I wish people took dying less seriously, it would make for better fights.