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 Gameplay Side of the Population Imbalance Issue
Sublime
✭✭✭✭
In my first post I described a way to alter the scoring that accounts for different types of populations and player activity. While this improves the development of campaigns in terms of competitiveness, it doesn't really motivate players to go to empty campaigns or provide them with tools to combat a large enemy force.
Yes, the 3-faction system helps dealing with overpopulated alliances, but it doesn't allow underpopulated faction to take an acceptable part of the map, therefore if a faction has vastly less players (on the whole server) it does not have any means to catch up in the big sceme of things. There would be the option to focus on certain campaigns, but this isn't a long-term solution since it leaves the other campaigns as 1v1 battlefields, removing the 1v1v1 security provided by the original PvP setting. This means that should another campaign imbalance occur, at least one campaign will die, resulting in the dominating faction flooding the other campaigns. As a conclusion we see that the AvAvA setting doesn't actually solve the problem of a vastly underpopulated faction, but rather delays it's effects.
This is for a big part about player morale, which needs to be maintained even against large enemy forces. To tackle this issue I'd suggest to implement two new mechanics, first make objectives harder to take the more are owned and second give stat boni to strongly outnumbered factions based on the current campaign population.
Changes to strucures:
In the default state of a map, each faction owns a total of 9 large objectives, the 6 homekeeps, 2 scrolls and an outpost. For my suggestion it doesn't matter if the keeps owned by a faction are homekeeps or not, it's only about the number.
The fact that the perks are calculated based on an average number ensures that scrolls can still be taking without demoralizing a faction. On the other side it becomes extremely difficult to hold large parts of the map, while taking an additional objective is even harder.
Changes to stats:
Structures and NPC's obviously only play a role in siege fights, meaning all other forms of combat stay completely untouched by the changes suggested above. To change that I'd add some boni based on the average population over 25 minutes (twice per cycle).
There are obviously different levels of being outnumbered, therefore the boni need to scale of the population discrepancy. Apart from that ESO features 3 faction PvP, meaning that it is not only about 2 factions that have to be balanced against each other, but rather about 3 sides, which leaves us with 3 ratios instead of one. To circumvent this issue, my suggestion takes the most populated alliance as reference and scales the other two to it.
As noted above the ratios are always in reference to the most populated faction.
A higher level of population imbalance obviously results in higher stat boni.
Those stats might sound like a lot, but you have to consider that they are only applied if a faction is largely outnumbered for an extended period of time, so one can only make use of them while having to deal with a lot of very heavy pushes from enemy factions. Apart from that it is obviously more about the concept and the general idea than the actual numbers, especially since they are very easy to change, but it should give you a general idea what my suggestion might look like in practice.
I also wish to point out that those two threads are only about the player imbalance in a specific campaign/server rather than large groups roaming around a map creating local population supremacy. This is an entirely different problem, which is linked to several other mechanics in Cyrodiil (skills, psychology, map scale, etc.), and would therefore be above the scope of a single thread, especially because it would result in different types of discussions. Meaning I'll try to address this issue in an individual thread, once I feel my ideas and understanding are developed enough to be discussed.
Edited by Sublime on 16 June 2015 13:06 Yes, the 3-faction system helps dealing with overpopulated alliances, but it doesn't allow underpopulated faction to take an acceptable part of the map, therefore if a faction has vastly less players (on the whole server) it does not have any means to catch up in the big sceme of things. There would be the option to focus on certain campaigns, but this isn't a long-term solution since it leaves the other campaigns as 1v1 battlefields, removing the 1v1v1 security provided by the original PvP setting. This means that should another campaign imbalance occur, at least one campaign will die, resulting in the dominating faction flooding the other campaigns. As a conclusion we see that the AvAvA setting doesn't actually solve the problem of a vastly underpopulated faction, but rather delays it's effects.
This is for a big part about player morale, which needs to be maintained even against large enemy forces. To tackle this issue I'd suggest to implement two new mechanics, first make objectives harder to take the more are owned and second give stat boni to strongly outnumbered factions based on the current campaign population.
Changes to strucures:
In the default state of a map, each faction owns a total of 9 large objectives, the 6 homekeeps, 2 scrolls and an outpost. For my suggestion it doesn't matter if the keeps owned by a faction are homekeeps or not, it's only about the number.
- For every additional large objective owned above 9, all structures take 5% (up to a total of 90%) more damage and NPC's have their damage output and HP reduced by 1,4% (up to 25%).
- For every missing large objective below 9, all structures take 12,5% less damage (up to 100% at one remaining) and NPC's deal 2,8% additional damage (up to 25% at 0).
- These boni are calculated based on an average over the last 6 hours.
The fact that the perks are calculated based on an average number ensures that scrolls can still be taking without demoralizing a faction. On the other side it becomes extremely difficult to hold large parts of the map, while taking an additional objective is even harder.
Changes to stats:
Structures and NPC's obviously only play a role in siege fights, meaning all other forms of combat stay completely untouched by the changes suggested above. To change that I'd add some boni based on the average population over 25 minutes (twice per cycle).
There are obviously different levels of being outnumbered, therefore the boni need to scale of the population discrepancy. Apart from that ESO features 3 faction PvP, meaning that it is not only about 2 factions that have to be balanced against each other, but rather about 3 sides, which leaves us with 3 ratios instead of one. To circumvent this issue, my suggestion takes the most populated alliance as reference and scales the other two to it.
As noted above the ratios are always in reference to the most populated faction.
A higher level of population imbalance obviously results in higher stat boni.
Those stats might sound like a lot, but you have to consider that they are only applied if a faction is largely outnumbered for an extended period of time, so one can only make use of them while having to deal with a lot of very heavy pushes from enemy factions. Apart from that it is obviously more about the concept and the general idea than the actual numbers, especially since they are very easy to change, but it should give you a general idea what my suggestion might look like in practice.
I also wish to point out that those two threads are only about the player imbalance in a specific campaign/server rather than large groups roaming around a map creating local population supremacy. This is an entirely different problem, which is linked to several other mechanics in Cyrodiil (skills, psychology, map scale, etc.), and would therefore be above the scope of a single thread, especially because it would result in different types of discussions. Meaning I'll try to address this issue in an individual thread, once I feel my ideas and understanding are developed enough to be discussed.
EU | For those who want to improve their behaviour: the science behind shaping player bahaviour (presentation)
2
-
Cathexis✭✭✭✭✭
✭Personally Ive always thought they should offer contracts to play for certain factions, varying the gold/ap based on server pop.
Its not at all un-lore friendly when you look at the cadwel extensions of pve.Tome of Alteration Magic I - Reality is an Ancient Dwemer Construct: Everything You Need to Know About FPS
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/520903/tomb-of-fps-alteration-magic-everything-you-need-to-know-about-fps
Tome of Alteration Magic II - The Manual of the Deceiver: A Beginner's Guide to Thieving
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/462509/tome-of-alteration-mastery-ii-the-decievers-manual-thieving-guide-for-new-characters
Ultrawide ESO Adventure Screenshots - 7680 x 1080 Resolution
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/505262/adventures-in-ultra-ultrawide-an-ongoing-series0 -
Sublime✭✭✭✭Personally Ive always thought they should offer contracts to play for certain factions, varying the gold/ap based on server pop.
Its not at all un-lore friendly when you look at the cadwel extensions of pve.
Sounds very interesting, but wouldn't then everybody want to play with the strongest faction?EU | For those who want to improve their behaviour: the science behind shaping player bahaviour (presentation)0 -
dsalter✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Personally Ive always thought they should offer contracts to play for certain factions, varying the gold/ap based on server pop.
Its not at all un-lore friendly when you look at the cadwel extensions of pve.
Sounds very interesting, but wouldn't then everybody want to play with the strongest faction?
weak faction strong pay.PLEASE REPLY TO ME WITH @dsalter otherwise i'm likely to miss the reply if its not my own thread
EU - [Arch Mage Dave] Altmer Sorcerer
Fight back at the crates and boxes, together we can change things.0 -
Sublime✭✭✭✭Personally Ive always thought they should offer contracts to play for certain factions, varying the gold/ap based on server pop.
Its not at all un-lore friendly when you look at the cadwel extensions of pve.
Sounds very interesting, but wouldn't then everybody want to play with the strongest faction?
weak faction strong pay.
Forgot about that.
What type of contract would you suggest specificly?- One gets to be AD for X minutes.
- Take objective X for faction Y in Z minutes.
- etc?
Edited by Sublime on 16 June 2015 02:57EU | For those who want to improve their behaviour: the science behind shaping player bahaviour (presentation)0 -
kendellking_chaosb14_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Sublime Your "idea" would make your Faction far more power then it is on Chilly with the low pop bonus just this week you guys were getting 500~ points for nothing. Now you want free points plus buffs is just ridiculous. On chilly, most AD home here then PvP on a different camp with one or two guild to have a small force there and the whole of AD comes back at the end and try to win after not being there and still coming in second they need to fix the fact that that is a tactic.Chaos Shadow-Scale: Shadow Archer
Chaos Death-Scale: Shadow Knight
Tanks-With-Sap-Essence: Dark Mage
Dark Brotherhood Listener: Blade of Argonia
Chaos Dragon-Scale: Draconic Shield Master
Chaos Light-Scale: Marsh Paladin
Chaos Lightning-Scale: Daedric Master
Hurricane Chaos: Storm Archer
Bask-In-My-Light: Warrior of The Light
Forged-In-Dragon-Fire: Pyro Mage
Guardian of The Hist: Light Mender
Chaos of Black Marsh: Master of The Burning Sword
Star of Chaos: Frost Blade Champion
Chaos-Lightning-Tower: Lightning Shield Master
For the King of Argonia
May Sithis hold back his Void0 -
Sublime✭✭✭✭Changed the updating timer for the low population perks from "average over 2 hours" to "average over 25 minutes".kendellking_chaosb14_ESO wrote: »@Sublime Your "idea" would make your Faction far more power then it is on Chilly with the low pop bonus just this week you guys were getting 500~ points for nothing. Now you want free points plus buffs is just ridiculous. On chilly, most AD home here then PvP on a different camp with one or two guild to have a small force there and the whole of AD comes back at the end and try to win after not being there and still coming in second they need to fix the fact that that is a tactic.
I don't really know what the situation on chillrend is by heart but I assume it's dominated by AD which also gets the lowpop bonus for some unknown reason.
Considering the ~500 points I want to say that my solution proposed in this thread only works if combined with the changes suggested in the following thread:
forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/172841/idea-gathering-looking-for-ideas-to-encourage-balanced-campaigns#latest
Part of the changes in the other thread is the complete removal of low pop and low scoring bonuses, meaning there should no longer be scorings of 500+ without effort. If this does not explain my point, I don't understand where you see "free points" in my suggestion.EU | For those who want to improve their behaviour: the science behind shaping player bahaviour (presentation)0