Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
[Idea] Solution for the Scoring Side of the Populatione Imbalance Issue
Sublime
✭✭✭✭
Intuitively the scoring is based on the objectives owned on the map by a certain alliance, but since there are vast differences in player ressources between the competing factions it takes different amounts of efforts to get the same score. Therefore ZOS implemented the "Lowscoring" and "Lowpopulation" boni, unfortunately they are very tricky to understand making objective based PvP very unsatisfying at certain times.
This idea aims to solve the transparency and responsability issues of the current system.
The Idea
Introduce a new "Population Factor" which gets calculated based on the population during the last timeframe (the 50 minutes), which multiplies a factions score to yield the final added points
Calculation of the "Population Factor"
Obviously all Players in Cyrdiil make up 100% of the population, so if all factions have equal member the factor should be 0.3333 for all alliances. If one faction get's more players their factor should be reduced and the one of the others increased. To fix the disparity their numbers have to be scaled to an equal level in terms of scoring.
An Example:
Faction A: 60 Players (50%)
Faction B: 40 Players (33%)
Faction C: 20 Players (17%)
Total: 120: (100%)
Since the balance is at 33% each the following Population Factors can be calculated:
Faction A: 0.666
Faction B: 1
Faction C: 2
This yields the following formula for each respective faction:
((A + B + C) / 3) / X = Population Factor for faction X
((60 + 40 + 20)/ 3) = 40
For A: 40 / 60 = 0.666
For B: 40 / 40 = 1
For C: 40 / 20 = 2
This factor gets applied to the current (unaffected by other boni) score before being added to the scoreboard during each evaluation. Since the population bar can change a lot in 50 minutes it takes the average amount of players during that time.
An Example:
Normal Scores:
A: 268
B: 90
C: 15
Final Scores (same playerbase as in the example above):
268 * 0.666 = 178
90 * 1 = 90
15 * 2 = 30
While the forumal might look ok at first, it is problematic because factions usually don't get outnumbered by a certain factor but rather by a flat number. Meaning, while a 40 player difference only gives a Population Factor of 2-3, which is does not help at all if they get pushed back to the gates. This issue can be fixed by giving larger differences more importance, i.e. multiplying the Population Factor with itself 2,6 times. This power is obviously very sensitive and probably needs a lot of iteration.
New Final Scores (still same playerbase)
268 * 0,666^2,6 = 93
90 * 1^2,6 = 90
15 * 2^2,6 = 91
It might still be quite demoralizing to fight large numbers, but it should minimize the Impact of them on the scoreboard. On the downside there would no longer be the comeback potential provided by the current system. Another problem is the nightcapping of entire maps within a few hours and then leaving the campaign for the rest of the night. My suggestion would not solve this specific issue since during the time the nightcappers log of the populations are equal while the map is close to empty they profit from their action far more than they actually work for. There is a minimum amount of player required to take an objective, which is especially punishing for casual players. Meaning it is more beneficial to have 30 players online for 1 hour than 5 for 6 hours. Also because it is much easier to defend objectives agaisnt small forces.
An idea for a possible soultion would be to have the maximum amount of players have an impact on the score, i.e. giving scores made while a lot of players are online are more representative that those while few are playing (I a 24h cycle since this represents the campaign activity of a whole day):
Score = (current players online / average players online (last 24h)) * Score without consideration of maximum populations
An example (new setting!):
Average total players online over the last 24h: 90
Current players online: 30
Faction A: 15 p, 325
Faction B: 9 p, 15
Faction C: 6 p, 0
Population Factors:
(15 + 9 + 6) / 3 = 10
A: 10 / 15 = 0,666
B: 10 / 9 = 1,111
C: 10 / 6 = 1,667
First Score:
A: 325 * 0,666^2,6 = 113
B: 15 * 1,111^2,6 = 20
C: 0 * 1,667^2,6 = 0
Final Score:
A: 113 * (30 / 90) = 38
B: 20 * (30/90) = 6,7
C: 0 * (30/90) = 0
Yes there still is a score discrepancy but it is no longer able to destroy a campaign while being offline.
Thoughts?
Edited by Sublime on 29 May 2015 09:54 This idea aims to solve the transparency and responsability issues of the current system.
The Idea
Introduce a new "Population Factor" which gets calculated based on the population during the last timeframe (the 50 minutes), which multiplies a factions score to yield the final added points
Calculation of the "Population Factor"
Obviously all Players in Cyrdiil make up 100% of the population, so if all factions have equal member the factor should be 0.3333 for all alliances. If one faction get's more players their factor should be reduced and the one of the others increased. To fix the disparity their numbers have to be scaled to an equal level in terms of scoring.
An Example:
Faction A: 60 Players (50%)
Faction B: 40 Players (33%)
Faction C: 20 Players (17%)
Total: 120: (100%)
Since the balance is at 33% each the following Population Factors can be calculated:
Faction A: 0.666
Faction B: 1
Faction C: 2
This yields the following formula for each respective faction:
((A + B + C) / 3) / X = Population Factor for faction X
((60 + 40 + 20)/ 3) = 40
For A: 40 / 60 = 0.666
For B: 40 / 40 = 1
For C: 40 / 20 = 2
This factor gets applied to the current (unaffected by other boni) score before being added to the scoreboard during each evaluation. Since the population bar can change a lot in 50 minutes it takes the average amount of players during that time.
An Example:
Normal Scores:
A: 268
B: 90
C: 15
Final Scores (same playerbase as in the example above):
268 * 0.666 = 178
90 * 1 = 90
15 * 2 = 30
While the forumal might look ok at first, it is problematic because factions usually don't get outnumbered by a certain factor but rather by a flat number. Meaning, while a 40 player difference only gives a Population Factor of 2-3, which is does not help at all if they get pushed back to the gates. This issue can be fixed by giving larger differences more importance, i.e. multiplying the Population Factor with itself 2,6 times. This power is obviously very sensitive and probably needs a lot of iteration.
New Final Scores (still same playerbase)
268 * 0,666^2,6 = 93
90 * 1^2,6 = 90
15 * 2^2,6 = 91
It might still be quite demoralizing to fight large numbers, but it should minimize the Impact of them on the scoreboard. On the downside there would no longer be the comeback potential provided by the current system. Another problem is the nightcapping of entire maps within a few hours and then leaving the campaign for the rest of the night. My suggestion would not solve this specific issue since during the time the nightcappers log of the populations are equal while the map is close to empty they profit from their action far more than they actually work for. There is a minimum amount of player required to take an objective, which is especially punishing for casual players. Meaning it is more beneficial to have 30 players online for 1 hour than 5 for 6 hours. Also because it is much easier to defend objectives agaisnt small forces.
An idea for a possible soultion would be to have the maximum amount of players have an impact on the score, i.e. giving scores made while a lot of players are online are more representative that those while few are playing (I a 24h cycle since this represents the campaign activity of a whole day):
Score = (current players online / average players online (last 24h)) * Score without consideration of maximum populations
An example (new setting!):
Average total players online over the last 24h: 90
Current players online: 30
Faction A: 15 p, 325
Faction B: 9 p, 15
Faction C: 6 p, 0
Population Factors:
(15 + 9 + 6) / 3 = 10
A: 10 / 15 = 0,666
B: 10 / 9 = 1,111
C: 10 / 6 = 1,667
First Score:
A: 325 * 0,666^2,6 = 113
B: 15 * 1,111^2,6 = 20
C: 0 * 1,667^2,6 = 0
Final Score:
A: 113 * (30 / 90) = 38
B: 20 * (30/90) = 6,7
C: 0 * (30/90) = 0
Yes there still is a score discrepancy but it is no longer able to destroy a campaign while being offline.
Thoughts?
EU | For those who want to improve their behaviour: the science behind shaping player bahaviour (presentation)
3
-
Sensesfail13✭✭✭✭Nah just havoc really, EP as a whole isnt bad at all, they are just rolling on the gravy train of worthlessness that is zerging.
And excellent post @Sublime , I agree something with the scoring does need to be changed, it is also somewhat odd that most of the time AD will be maxxed and EP/DC will not be and yet you will see maybe 5 ad at a keep and 40+ of the other factions. Not sure if this is miscalculation error from server side or if AD just bogs down their own population without making any effort to control the map or pvp at all.Edited by Sensesfail13 on 29 May 2015 15:40Wisherr, Dragonknight, Haderus, NA Server.
Wisher of Naught, Nightblade, Haderus, NA Server.
Guild officer: Abandoned Legion0 -
Germtrocity✭✭✭✭Sensesfail13 wrote: »Nah just havoc really, EP as a whole isnt bad at all, they are just rolling on the gravy train of worthlessness that is zerging.
At this point I just think it is a joke how EP rolls usually. Every day in zone chat there are people asking about where a zerg group is, or if they can get into one. It is honestly at the point where our EP pugs just think zerging is the norm for PvP, and don't really know what to do without a zerg.
This is just one example of it, but if I were to save everything the pugs say in EP zone chat about forming zergs, or joining zergs, I would have to open a whole new thread.
1 -
k2blader✭✭✭✭✭Germtrocity wrote: »Sensesfail13 wrote: »Nah just havoc really, EP as a whole isnt bad at all, they are just rolling on the gravy train of worthlessness that is zerging.
At this point I just think it is a joke how EP rolls usually. Every day in zone chat there are people asking about where a zerg group is, or if they can get into one. It is honestly at the point where our EP pugs just think zerging is the norm for PvP, and don't really know what to do without a zerg.
This is just one example of it, but if I were to save everything the pugs say in EP zone chat about forming zergs, or joining zergs, I would have to open a whole new thread.
Wow that's sad, tho' it doesn't really surprise. Defending a keep with 3 or 4 other AD and looking over the ramparts at the descending, ever-present swarm of red ants does make me wonder.
@ OP, I like the idea, don't think it'd hurt. Tho' admittedly I don't really care about campaign scoring. I care about population imbalances; but I notice the majority of people will take the easy way out and hop to the campaign dominated by their own faction, sometimes under the guise of "too much lag." I think under-populated faction players should directly receive more AP and gold; it shouldn't be connected to campaign score.
Edited by k2blader on 29 May 2015 21:28Disabling the grass may improve performance.0
