Cyrodiil Population Recomendation

Agrippa_Invisus

It also doesn't help that we have people getting mad for losing and then taking their entire guild over to the faction who just won the campaign.

This leads to population imbalances and collapses. AD GH NA doesn't need more bodies, it needs fewer atm. EP doesn't need fewer, it needs more as it's kinda in sadsack shape right now.

Without population controls to prevent things like this from happening, I dunno what to say.

It has been suggested and re-suggested for years that dynamic pop locks should be enabled. The most populous faction should only be able to have a handful more players in the map than the least populous.

Get rid of this buggy, broken low pop system and actually tighten controls to make the on field experience more fun and get people playing in the other campaigns while they're in queue..

xFocused

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

It also doesn't help that we have people getting mad for losing and then taking their entire guild over to the faction who just won the campaign.

This leads to population imbalances and collapses. AD GH NA doesn't need more bodies, it needs fewer atm. EP doesn't need fewer, it needs more as it's kinda in sadsack shape right now.

Without population controls to prevent things like this from happening, I dunno what to say.

It has been suggested and re-suggested for years that dynamic pop locks should be enabled. The most populous faction should only be able to have a handful more players in the map than the least populous.

Get rid of this buggy, broken low pop system and actually tighten controls to make the on field experience more fun and get people playing in the other campaigns while they're in queue..

"AD GH NA doesn't need more bodies" Strongly disagree with you on here if you're referring to the PS4/5 Server because AD is always strongly outnumbered in that campaign.

Tiphis

xFocused wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

It also doesn't help that we have people getting mad for losing and then taking their entire guild over to the faction who just won the campaign.

This leads to population imbalances and collapses. AD GH NA doesn't need more bodies, it needs fewer atm. EP doesn't need fewer, it needs more as it's kinda in sadsack shape right now.

Without population controls to prevent things like this from happening, I dunno what to say.

It has been suggested and re-suggested for years that dynamic pop locks should be enabled. The most populous faction should only be able to have a handful more players in the map than the least populous.

Get rid of this buggy, broken low pop system and actually tighten controls to make the on field experience more fun and get people playing in the other campaigns while they're in queue..

"AD GH NA doesn't need more bodies" Strongly disagree with you on here if you're referring to the PS4/5 Server because AD is always strongly outnumbered in that campaign.

Pretty sure they're referring to PC, ad had pretty good pop and recently it exploded. Then with the new camp the ep zerglings swapped to ad so PC NA GH Ad is 3 bars for around 8 hours and poplocked the other 16. Right now we have around 3 times the combined pop of both ep and dc.

I wish I knew because then I would've swapped factions, this is just stupid.

Amottica

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

A better solution would be to scale player damage and mitigation based on the population imbalance.

If all populations are more or less the same, everyone is on equal footing. If one faction massively outnumbers the other two, the players of the overpopulated faction do less damage and take more damage. The underpopulated factions do more damage and take less. It should be a sliding scale based on the magnitude of the imbalance.

I wouldn't expect anything nuanced from people who would perform surgery with an axe.

Scaling a player's damage based on faction populations would require players in lower pop factions to group. It would also put more strain on the servers than the original suggestion in this thread.

How would that require players to group? Whether a faction works together as a team or not is a completely different issue and a different discussion.

I can't imagine it would cost that much more in the way of server resources. They already monitor how many people are in each faction for queues, low pop bonuses, etc. How hard could it be to scale Battle Spirit based on the differences?

The suggestion made in what I quoted was to scale player damage based and mitigation based on the population imbalance.
That is specifically suggesting that players in factions with higher populations have their damage done nerfed and to increase the damage they do.

As such it is obvious that the greater the imbalance the more of a weakling they will become which obviously is a greater problem for solo and small-scale players.

If it does not drive them to group with others or it will drive them from Cyrodiil. I would certainly leave if the game nerfed me just because other alliances lacked players.

I think it is better to realize Cyrodiil was never intended to be competitive by design. After all, the design not being competitive is why think thread was created. BGs is what they designed for more competitive PvP.

Then open up faction change so that they can move to the undermanned faction. If it's not meant to be competitive; then no need to worry about end campaign results and just provide a sandbox that encourages level fights.

There are campaigns where we can have characters from more than one faction which allows players in those factions to swap to a character in those factions.

However, in the end, that will not balance anything out because Cyrodiil was never designed to be balanced to the point, it could be considered truly competitive PvP. It is just for fun.

What I was referencing was to the incentives to play lesser pop faction. Obviously without that; it would just be what we have available now

Some people have problems playing in a heavily populated campaign. Their PC cannot handle it. Some just prefer a lesser populated campaign because they deal with fewer issues server-side.

Also, even when Cyrodiil has a much healthier population in both terms of people going into Cyrodil and the pop cap was much higher there were still lower population campaigns.

So there is really no reason to eliminate some campaigns and force people to do something they do not want to do. IT serves no real purpose as there is still a very populated campaign.

Duke_Falcon

Eweejy wrote: »

Noticed lately that EP's population compared to DC & AD has significantly risen to the point cyrodiil is no longer competitive (PSna GH).

EP is literally poplocked 24/7 and pvdoors the map until the other factions can muster enough people to do anything during primetime. That being said, recently during prime time DC & AD are dropping down to 1 bar each still fighting a 3 bar pop locked EP. How can you justify a fair competition when EP has literally over 2x the population of the other two factions combined?? Any attempt to retake a keep is met by 40+ thirsty EP zerglings.. sad..

Recomendation: set the population cap to scale based on the lowest pop faction at a given time. Ex: if faction #1 had 1 bar of population, then the max pop at that time would be 2 bars for the other factions. Once faction #1 reached 2 bars, the pop cap would move to 3 bars. This would keep Cyrodiil competitive.

And before people contest this with "dont limit the people who want to play" - well maybe it would be a good way to push people to switch factions and rebalance the game. Too many players on one side makes Cyrodiil awful - make the change.

When I first came to Cyrodiil PvP I experienced the same thing of 50 AD players zerging down 6-8 EP every morning for about 2 years straight!! The only difference being I'd have called the AD the zerglings. 8-P

When ever Cyrodiil populations swing from one alliance to the other it is always tough for the alliance with lower populations.

An idea that I had was to create a 4th faction to place all players into that are waiting for their que, and population lock all normal alliances to the exact same level so the teams have even numbers. When the populations increased for one then you would be automatically pulled out of that 4th alliance and placed on the alliance that your characters are locked too.

I've not yet decided what to do with the 4th Faction, perhaps place them in the imperial city zone, or create another zone on the island outside of Imperial City but inside the Cyrodiil Lake. The Imperial City zone really has no purpose other than fighting and farming telvar. There is no score board or winning/losing purposeful game play to it, just random fighting.

One idea would be to place players in there to just brawl it out with no factions what so ever, meaning you could kill everyone and anyone in the zone. Make it so everyone takes damage from everyone, no one to form zergs with or to zerg down because everyone is solo, and takes damage from everyone else in the zone.

Or, allow people to form groups, but make all other players immune to their damage unless they are in the exact same size group, no more getting zerged down, only fights against groups of the exact same size.

So many people in Cyrodiil don't even care about the score board, they are just in there to fight, not actually play the game. Imagine a basketball game, but one person decides they want to play keep away with the ball instead of make points for their team, its silly to think or say it, but that's what a lot of Cyrodiil is, its just people trying to get clout by showing off their mad ball handling skills, completely ignoring the fact that there's a ball game going on.

Duke_Falcon

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

Faction lock on the main populated campaign and not the dead ones was always a bad idea

The only reason the main campaign isn't dead is because of the alliance lock. If you allow people to swap alliances at will there's no competition, without the challenge of competition it isn't fun so the campaign becomes dead.

I remember arguments when they were first implementing the idea of alliance lock, that the campaign that was alliance locked would be the dead one, and that the campaigns where people were allowed to swap alliances at will would be completely packed.

I said then that's not going to be the case, and what I said happened. No one wants to play in a game where people with characters on all alliances can swap at a moments notice to manipulate outcomes of battles on the map, its not a fair game. That's why they are dead.

Duke_Falcon

auz wrote: »

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Other campaigns are dead because there is no alliance lock. There used to be another 30 day campaign you could swap alliances on, but it quickly because the dead campaign and the alliance locked one became the popular one. People want a fair game not one that the out come can be manipulated by switching teams on.

Syrusthevirus187

Duke_Falcon wrote: »

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

Faction lock on the main populated campaign and not the dead ones was always a bad idea

The only reason the main campaign isn't dead is because of the alliance lock. If you allow people to swap alliances at will there's no competition, without the challenge of competition it isn't fun so the campaign becomes dead.

I remember arguments when they were first implementing the idea of alliance lock, that the campaign that was alliance locked would be the dead one, and that the campaigns where people were allowed to swap alliances at will would be completely packed.

I said then that's not going to be the case, and what I said happened. No one wants to play in a game where people with characters on all alliances can swap at a moments notice to manipulate outcomes of battles on the map, its not a fair game. That's why they are dead.

No. The reason the main campaign isn't dead is because it's the main campaign.
But in saying that I'm from NZ and it is always dead in my evening playtime.
And I disagree that cyrodil players want the challenge of competition. Seems to me they all just want to dominate and gate.
Or troll and gank.

auz

Duke_Falcon wrote: »

auz wrote: »

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Other campaigns are dead because there is no alliance lock. There used to be another 30 day campaign you could swap alliances on, but it quickly because the dead campaign and the alliance locked one became the popular one. People want a fair game not one that the out come can be manipulated by switching teams on.

The other campaigns are empty because there isn't the population to support them. I would gladly play in blackreach if there were people in there at my times. Usually it's 1large group flipping an empty map.

BazOfWar

Alchimiste1 wrote: »

I really think they need to remove faction lock for a bit, at least until population recovers more.
I and some friends swapped to AD because they had the lowest pop last campaign, now they have the most whenever we play (guess I lot of people had the same idea).

I wish that was the case on Ravenswatch!

We have been having maximum 3 bars in peak time and constantly getting double teamed by pop locked purple ball groups. Honestly cyrodiil pvp is becoming so stale and boring with the same ball groups and the same cheesy tactics. The other night the blue faction had both red scrolls and one of AD's and yet red faction still focussed AD as did blue...instead of hitting blue side to recover their own scrolls.

xDeusEJRx

.

Duke_Falcon wrote: »

auz wrote: »

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Other campaigns are dead because there is no alliance lock. There used to be another 30 day campaign you could swap alliances on, but it quickly because the dead campaign and the alliance locked one became the popular one. People want a fair game not one that the out come can be manipulated by switching teams on.

That's false. The main campaign, "Gray host" is more active because it's always been the most active. Before concept of alliance lock or anything it was always pop locked in early cyro days and people just gravitated there because it was always active. It just never stopped being active.

The other campaigns aren't inactive because of no alliance lock, it's because everyone wants to play where most people are (Gray host) because it's never stopped being populated outside of chapter releases when the next op mythic comes out. It has nothing to do with faction lock or no faction lock that's a falsehood.

If that were the case, no one would ever queue into new side campaigns during Midyear Mayhem ever because no faction lock would ruin side campaigns(at least from your perspective). And you'd see 2k+ queue for gray host only. But that's not true at all, Blackreach poplocks just as much as GH during midyear.

Most campaigns are inactive because pvp is bad and devs continually make it worse, don't try to twist it into some false narrative.

DrSlaughtr

Duke_Falcon wrote: »

auz wrote: »

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Other campaigns are dead because there is no alliance lock. There used to be another 30 day campaign you could swap alliances on, but it quickly because the dead campaign and the alliance locked one became the popular one. People want a fair game not one that the out come can be manipulated by switching teams on.

I used to think this too. But I've come to realize that isn't the case.

GH (just like the previous iterations) is more popular because it's the main campaign and people want action. They put up with lag because combat is usually pretty even. It's rare to log in to GH and see a map completely dominated by one faction.

Also there are plenty of shenanigans that go on in GH. Scrolls get poached. Hammers stolen. All it takes is one person who is fed up with their faction or has friends on another color.

Like I said, I used to think that way. I used to think players switching alliances in a camp is a bad thing. But the longer I've played, the more I've changed my mind on that. GH often suffers from stagnation. There's not a lot of parody. People being able to play what they want with who they want has stopped one faction owning BR endlessly more than once.

Ranger209

Maybe it's time they spun up a faction locked, no cp, no proc campaign right along side Ravenwatch. Give it 3-6 months to gain some traction and see what people actually gravitate towards. I also like the dynamic population lock idea as a way of reducing imbalances at times when population is not already locked.

TechMaybeHic

Ranger209 wrote: »

Maybe it's time they spun up a faction locked, no cp, no proc campaign right along side Ravenwatch. Give it 3-6 months to gain some traction and see what people actually gravitate towards. I also like the dynamic population lock idea as a way of reducing imbalances at times when population is not already locked.

It will just be another emp flip server. So many things wrong with no proc campaigns. If anything, they should do a regular no CP but with procs to figure out if they can just kill 1 of those or both and do yet another CP campaign as prime time weekends both get pretty full

Duke_Falcon

auz wrote: »

Duke_Falcon wrote: »

auz wrote: »

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Other campaigns are dead because there is no alliance lock. There used to be another 30 day campaign you could swap alliances on, but it quickly because the dead campaign and the alliance locked one became the popular one. People want a fair game not one that the out come can be manipulated by switching teams on.

The other campaigns are empty because there isn't the population to support them. I would gladly play in blackreach if there were people in there at my times. Usually it's 1large group flipping an empty map.

As long as its not a fair game, people won't go there and it will always have a low pop. Faction lock is the way to go because it makes a fair game, otherwise the scoreboard is easily manipulated by switching alliances. The problem is balancing populations, and the solutions will need to be something other than allowing faction swapping.

Duke_Falcon

ninjagank wrote: »

Duke_Falcon wrote: »

auz wrote: »

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Other campaigns are dead because there is no alliance lock. There used to be another 30 day campaign you could swap alliances on, but it quickly because the dead campaign and the alliance locked one became the popular one. People want a fair game not one that the out come can be manipulated by switching teams on.

I used to think this too. But I've come to realize that isn't the case.

GH (just like the previous iterations) is more popular because it's the main campaign and people want action. They put up with lag because combat is usually pretty even. It's rare to log in to GH and see a map completely dominated by one faction.

Also there are plenty of shenanigans that go on in GH. Scrolls get poached. Hammers stolen. All it takes is one person who is fed up with their faction or has friends on another color.

Like I said, I used to think that way. I used to think players switching alliances in a camp is a bad thing. But the longer I've played, the more I've changed my mind on that. GH often suffers from stagnation. There's not a lot of parody. People being able to play what they want with who they want has stopped one faction owning BR endlessly more than once.

No that's actually not the case there were literally two different 30 day campaigns that were exactly the same with the only difference being one was alliance locked and one was not. The one that was alliance locked became the popular one that people wanted to be in, because the score was not easily manipulated by just a large guild or group swapping alliances.

There was also 2 differenct 7 day ones as well. In fact the types of campaigns has changed twice since then, and the current rendition is what we have.