Tower and Keep Runners

PhxOldGamer68 · January 9

Keeps should be like Temples. Once it’s clear, any enemies inside should start to get damaged until they die. These warden runners that run around the keep walls and towers are a nuisance. Or have more NPCs roaming who are unkillable once the keep is not flagged. Let them chase the coward runners and kill them.

MincMincMinc · January 9

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

Vulkunne · January 14

Yeah, honestly, I'd just ignore them. Be mindful that they're out there but not much can be done to stop them. If something isn't worth doing in PvP, I don't do it.

Thumbless_Bot · January 14

MincMincMinc wrote: »

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

No. Pvp is allowed in eso. This is why they introduced that card game... whatever it is called... i an sure there is a real pvp aspect to it... or so i gather. Never played it.

El_Borracho · January 20

MincMincMinc wrote: »

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

MincMincMinc · January 20

El_Borracho wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

Again so playing solo is now considered griefing? Should we be banning solo players? Its a rather slippery slope there.

So if I can 1vX pug groups at resources and solo seige to get attention, should I be banned? Just saying because this happens all the time and has happened since beta.

The OP's original suggestion basically undermines the majority of solo/outnumbered gameplay because they are too lazy to chase people out of a keep.

ShutUpitsRed · January 21

El_Borracho wrote: »

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

...what? Cyrodiil is about map strategy, and soloists lighting something up on the opposite side of the map gives the sweats something to do other than chase the zerg :P

smallhammer · January 21

We should be able to bring down res towers, like it was back in the day.

El_Borracho · January 21

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

...what? Cyrodiil is about map strategy, and soloists lighting something up on the opposite side of the map gives the sweats something to do other than chase the zerg :P

If it is a strategy, fine. Sometimes it is in conjunction with someone running a scroll or attacking a nearby keep. And once that is accomplished, the "siege" is over. But that's not what anyone here is talking about.

99% of the time it is a griefer. I play on PS-NA and EVERYONE knows who I am talking about from EP. Players like that have no intent on taking the keep they are "solo sieging." Nobody is coming to help them. Nobody is attacking anything nearby, let alone a another keep in either rival zone. When they are killed, they immediately go back to "sieging" the same keep in the same manner.

If you like griefing, fine. To each their own. But don't try to equate it with a "strategy" or "solo PVP play."

opethmaniac · January 22

A first step would be, for example, removing the crates from the keeps, which are being misused to break the line of sight. And the tower guards could also receive more health, more damage, and a form of crowd control, such as a stun like city guards chasing a criminal.

hoangdz · January 31

El_Borracho wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

A player running around a keep isn't going to flag it unless a wall is already below 50%. Most of the time, that player is kiting as a means of survival. The troll tanks you are talking about don't kite around because they are tanky enough to stand still and block. Players who kite need to do so because they can't do what a troll tank does. These two are not the same, so you can't really group them together as trolling/griefing.

hoangdz · January 31

El_Borracho wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

...what? Cyrodiil is about map strategy, and soloists lighting something up on the opposite side of the map gives the sweats something to do other than chase the zerg :P

If it is a strategy, fine. Sometimes it is in conjunction with someone running a scroll or attacking a nearby keep. And once that is accomplished, the "siege" is over. But that's not what anyone here is talking about.

99% of the time it is a griefer. I play on PS-NA and EVERYONE knows who I am talking about from EP. Players like that have no intent on taking the keep they are "solo sieging." Nobody is coming to help them. Nobody is attacking anything nearby, let alone a another keep in either rival zone. When they are killed, they immediately go back to "sieging" the same keep in the same manner.

If you like griefing, fine. To each their own. But don't try to equate it with a "strategy" or "solo PVP play."

It's not "griefing". Its a way to create fights by getting attention from the defending faction, which eventually may or may not respond by sending help. Solo players usually take resources to create their own PvP, and if that doesn't work then they start sieging keeps.

Even if these players don't fight at all, why should that constitute "griefing"? They aren't following you around and purposely targeting you, nor are they harrassing you via DMs or whatever. Yet, you are using a negative term and labeling it on a very normal activity in Cyrodiil that does not harm your ESO experience in anyway.

Attorneyatlawl · January 31

opethmaniac wrote: »

A first step would be, for example, removing the crates from the keeps, which are being misused to break the line of sight. And the tower guards could also receive more health, more damage, and a form of crowd control, such as a stun like city guards chasing a criminal.

Breaking line of sight is a basic pvp combat skill. Why would you want to remove things that allow for skill expression?

fullheartcontainer · February 2

Posters here think pvp should work like its the napoleonic war. Everyone is going to meet outside the keeps at a specific time with your army. Get in lines and we'll attack each other in turns. After that we'll declare a victor and go back into our keeps for supper.

Avran_Sylt · February 2

MincMincMinc wrote: »

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

Is it truly PvP if nothing actually happens?

I recall a lot of PvP players saying how wonderful it is that the stalemate meta got axed with the availability of so much layered burst.

Why can't we now axe the mobility/sustain meta too.

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

...what? Cyrodiil is about map strategy, and soloists lighting something up on the opposite side of the map gives the sweats something to do other than chase the zerg :P

If the replies on this thread are to be taken at face value, the sweats wouldn't bother with them at all until it actually affected things like transistus shrines.

smallhammer wrote: »

We should be able to bring down res towers, like it was back in the day.

Yep, if they're being strategic about leveraging LoS and chokepoints, let other players be strategic and remove them from play.

hoangdz wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

So the only gameplay allowed is now whoever has the largest group and can sit on a flag? Everyone else has to just pve?

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

A player running around a keep isn't going to flag it unless a wall is already below 50%. Most of the time, that player is kiting as a means of survival. The troll tanks you are talking about don't kite around because they are tanky enough to stand still and block. Players who kite need to do so because they can't do what a troll tank does. These two are not the same, so you can't really group them together as trolling/griefing.

If they're not addressed they can simple start flagging the keeps/resources until they get the attention they want. It's quite literally harassing the enemy, usually to get some easy kills from people not geared to meet your loadout.

fullheartcontainer wrote: »

Posters here think pvp should work like its the napoleonic war. Everyone is going to meet outside the keeps at a specific time with your army. Get in lines and we'll attack each other in turns. After that we'll declare a victor and go back into our keeps for supper.

I'd wager most of the people that make posts like this are just not aware of now disparate certain builds are from one to the other, and that you can't really "play your way" in Cyrodiil. There are builds that just get stat-checked regardless of player skill.

SeaGtGruff · February 2

El_Borracho wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

...what? Cyrodiil is about map strategy, and soloists lighting something up on the opposite side of the map gives the sweats something to do other than chase the zerg :P

If it is a strategy, fine. Sometimes it is in conjunction with someone running a scroll or attacking a nearby keep. And once that is accomplished, the "siege" is over. But that's not what anyone here is talking about.

99% of the time it is a griefer. I play on PS-NA and EVERYONE knows who I am talking about from EP. Players like that have no intent on taking the keep they are "solo sieging." Nobody is coming to help them. Nobody is attacking anything nearby, let alone a another keep in either rival zone. When they are killed, they immediately go back to "sieging" the same keep in the same manner.

If you like griefing, fine. To each their own. But don't try to equate it with a "strategy" or "solo PVP play."

I think at least some of the time it might be intended to cut off that keep from the transitus shrine network, thereby removing the ability to use the transitus shrines at the home bases to travel to keeps which are some distance away, such as in central Cyrodiil or beyond. That isn't always the case, but if the keeps along the borders of the map (Dragonclaw, Brindle, and Drakelowe) aren't friendly or are otherwise cut off, then flagging one of the "linchpin" keeps (Glademist, Arrius, and Faregyl) can be a strategic way to curtail an alliance's ability to reach other keeps quickly to attack or defend them.

El_Borracho · February 2

SeaGtGruff wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

ShutUpitsRed wrote: »

El_Borracho wrote: »

I think the nuisance OP is referring to is they can keep a keep "under attack" for purposes of fast travel when the keep really is not "under attack." Much like the cheese tanks who can launch solo sieges from resource towers. Its trolling/griefing more than PVPing

...what? Cyrodiil is about map strategy, and soloists lighting something up on the opposite side of the map gives the sweats something to do other than chase the zerg :P

If it is a strategy, fine. Sometimes it is in conjunction with someone running a scroll or attacking a nearby keep. And once that is accomplished, the "siege" is over. But that's not what anyone here is talking about.

99% of the time it is a griefer. I play on PS-NA and EVERYONE knows who I am talking about from EP. Players like that have no intent on taking the keep they are "solo sieging." Nobody is coming to help them. Nobody is attacking anything nearby, let alone a another keep in either rival zone. When they are killed, they immediately go back to "sieging" the same keep in the same manner.

If you like griefing, fine. To each their own. But don't try to equate it with a "strategy" or "solo PVP play."

I think at least some of the time it might be intended to cut off that keep from the transitus shrine network, thereby removing the ability to use the transitus shrines at the home bases to travel to keeps which are some distance away, such as in central Cyrodiil or beyond. That isn't always the case, but if the keeps along the borders of the map (Dragonclaw, Brindle, and Drakelowe) aren't friendly or are otherwise cut off, then flagging one of the "linchpin" keeps (Glademist, Arrius, and Faregyl) can be a strategic way to curtail an alliance's ability to reach other keeps quickly to attack or defend them.

What you are describing is a valid and often-used strategy. As are distraction strategies to put one keep under siege when the real main force attack is on another keep. What I am talking about is none of those things.

The example I gave is the player is constantly sieging Bloodmayne. It is not after Black Boot has fallen or is under attack, so there is no benefit to cutting AD players off in the transitus network. It doesn't matter what position the 3 factions are in, whether AD is dominating or losing. It has everything to do with the geography as there is a resource tower you can launch siege weapons from that can hit the outer walls of BM then use line of sight and a cheese tank healbot build, which puts out zero DPS, when a player is suckered in. Which is the only point.

Again, griefing, trolling, whatever you want to call it, its not a "strategy" or "solo play" and should not be equated to either, especially when the best strategy is "ignore it."