Should low pop bonus be changed or removed all together?

thegreat_one

I feel it gives wwwaayy to many pts and also encourages people not to play hoping for the bonus.

Dominion_Nightblade

Buff players, not points.

ItsJustHashtag

No it shouldn’t. People who oppose low pop bonus generally don’t want competition. It’s there to encourage players to go to a specific campaign on an alliance. How does low pop bonus really effect you as a opposition faction? The AP doesn’t effect your leaderboards.

Katahdin

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

No it shouldn’t. People who oppose low pop bonus generally don’t want competition. It’s there to encourage players to go to a specific campaign on an alliance. How does low pop bonus really effect you as a opposition faction? The AP doesn’t effect your leaderboards.

When a faction can just log off and get 2nd place and even somtimes first because their eval scores are twice what the other factions are, thats a problem and it should be adjusted. With the locked campaigns, you cant encourage faction hopping to the low pop alliance because faction locks!

Ranger209

People aren't logging off to get 2nd place. They are faction stacking to avoid dying and PvD for fast AP. On PC NA Gray host all 3 factions have received low pop bonus in the last couple campaigns at 1 time or another. All of them, because of the merry go round faction stacking that happens. All stack yellow, now all stack blue, now all stack red. When it really gets bad more of a flip flopping between 2 factions happens, but the last couple campaigns it has been more of the merry go round.

ItsJustHashtag

Katahdin wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

No it shouldn’t. People who oppose low pop bonus generally don’t want competition. It’s there to encourage players to go to a specific campaign on an alliance. How does low pop bonus really effect you as a opposition faction? The AP doesn’t effect your leaderboards.

When a faction can just log off and get 2nd place and even somtimes first because their eval scores are twice what the other factions are, thats a problem and it should be adjusted. With the locked campaigns, you cant encourage faction hopping to the low pop alliance because faction locks!

What does campaign score have to do with low pop? Seems like you’re trying to argue something different.

The_Camper

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

No it shouldn’t. People who oppose low pop bonus generally don’t want competition. It’s there to encourage players to go to a specific campaign on an alliance. How does low pop bonus really effect you as a opposition faction? The AP doesn’t effect your leaderboards.

When a faction can just log off and get 2nd place and even somtimes first because their eval scores are twice what the other factions are, thats a problem and it should be adjusted. With the locked campaigns, you cant encourage faction hopping to the low pop alliance because faction locks!

What does campaign score have to do with low pop? Seems like you’re trying to argue something different.

probably because you get twice the points per hour during low pop bonus?

ItsJustHashtag

The_Camper wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

No it shouldn’t. People who oppose low pop bonus generally don’t want competition. It’s there to encourage players to go to a specific campaign on an alliance. How does low pop bonus really effect you as a opposition faction? The AP doesn’t effect your leaderboards.

When a faction can just log off and get 2nd place and even somtimes first because their eval scores are twice what the other factions are, thats a problem and it should be adjusted. With the locked campaigns, you cant encourage faction hopping to the low pop alliance because faction locks!

What does campaign score have to do with low pop? Seems like you’re trying to argue something different.

probably because you get twice the points per hour during low pop bonus?

It doesn’t effect campaign score tho. How does user123 earning more AP effect the guy who is perma emp and his faction is winning camp by 20k points? Maybe shouldn’t zerg a map down and kill the campaign.

Ackwalan

The low population bonus should apply to personnel AP gain only, not to the campaign score.

Katahdin

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

The_Camper wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

Katahdin wrote: »

ItsJustHashtag wrote: »

No it shouldn’t. People who oppose low pop bonus generally don’t want competition. It’s there to encourage players to go to a specific campaign on an alliance. How does low pop bonus really effect you as a opposition faction? The AP doesn’t effect your leaderboards.

When a faction can just log off and get 2nd place and even somtimes first because their eval scores are twice what the other factions are, thats a problem and it should be adjusted. With the locked campaigns, you cant encourage faction hopping to the low pop alliance because faction locks!

What does campaign score have to do with low pop? Seems like you’re trying to argue something different.

probably because you get twice the points per hour during low pop bonus?

It doesn’t effect campaign score tho. How does user123 earning more AP effect the guy who is perma emp and his faction is winning camp by 20k points? Maybe shouldn’t zerg a map down and kill the campaign.

There is a low pop score bonus which has been an issue the last few campaigns.
There is a 4x score bonus to the population underdog (low pop) faction and a 3x bonus to the score underdog.

Underdog Bonuses
At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus is 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%

Source:
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns

.

ItsJustHashtag

So you want your faction to win the campaign by 30-50k points? Sounds like you don t want competitive pvp environment.

Ranger209

What should happen is that piling on one faction during low pop hours should be discouraged and spreading out equally among the factions at those times encouraged through in game AP mechanisms to the point that the low pop bonus never goes into effect.

dotme

Should be changed.

At no point should an alliance with a "Low Pop" bonus active be allowed to overtake another alliance on scoring.

Not showing up shouldn't move you from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st. In a perfect world, a low pop bonus would maintain the gap, meaning if you're 3rd and 2,000 points behind 2nd, the low pop bonus would simply maintain that 2000 point difference. That way, the campaign remains competitive rather than allowing an alliance with, for example, a high overnight population to run away with it.

I think AP bonus incentives are fine as they are though.

Enkil

make it a poll please

Ranger209

dotme wrote: »

Should be changed.

At no point should an alliance with a "Low Pop" bonus active be allowed to overtake another alliance on scoring.

Not showing up shouldn't move you from 3rd to 2nd, or 2nd to 1st. In a perfect world, a low pop bonus would maintain the gap, meaning if you're 3rd and 2,000 points behind 2nd, the low pop bonus would simply maintain that 2000 point difference. That way, the campaign remains competitive rather than allowing an alliance with, for example, a high overnight population to run away with it.

I think AP bonus incentives are fine as they are though.

It's not that people don''t show up, it's that they all show up on one alliance. The last number of campaigns the people that play at this particular time all showed up for AD. This campaign they are showing up for EP. They always show up and PvDoor the map to gain the most AP possible by PvEing the entire map. It's sad, funny, pathetic, ironic that the outcome of the only large scale PvP game mode is consistently determined by PvE. The only reason the low pop bonus exists is to counter this behavior, and it is not nearly enough. PvE for the win!! Literally!!!

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO

The AP bonus should remain or be buffed higher (maybe 50% extra) but the scoring part should be swapped to a dynamic scoring method based on population ratio. It should affect the frequency of the scoring evaluations.

For example:

Ranger209

Another alternative could be to shrink the field of play based on population. If your alliance has 1 bar of pop the only home keeps and outposts that can be attacked by others are around the emp ring. At 2 bars the towns and their associated keeps and outposts become attackable. At 3 bars Faregyl, Arrius, and Glademist open up to be attacked by the factions they are not home keeps for. Finally at 4 bars the keeps that guard the scroll gates open up. This would in some ways condense the area of play to accommodate population fluctuation bringing smaller crowds together in closer proximity.

Keeps that held an opponents scroll would be exceptions to this, but a faction would not be able to steal a scroll from another faction unless the defending faction was pop locked as they wouldn't be able to open the gates. A faction would always be able to take back a home keep, or a scroll at any time, but couldn't take another faction's home keeps if the population requirement was not met. There would be less to defend when a faction's population is low, and incrementally more as the population grew. Gate camping during low pop would not be possible.