ZOS make faction campaign score to be time-lead-held based

shacklebreaker

As long as faction has the lead, they get 3 points every evaluation. Second place faction gets 2 points. Faction in third gets 1 point. You can play with the values here, but this will reflect more which faction was stronger during any given campaign window. ALSO will prevent team green/purple/orange to having big impact during the last days of a campaign.

Grayhost PC NA was strongly influenced by that kind of cooperation in the past and, as a result, the final score and placement doesn't reflect who held the lead for longest. Meaning only two last days of a campaign matter, and not 28 days before that. This has to change.

biminirwb17_ESO

Unless every single player on all factions play to win the campaign, the score is irrelevant.

When one group plays for itself and not the faction they come from the entire score is irrelevant.

Cyrodiil is more enjoyable without campaign rewards.

SaffronCitrusflower

shacklebreaker wrote: »

As long as faction has the lead, they get 3 points every evaluation. Second place faction gets 2 points. Faction in third gets 1 point. You can play with the values here, but this will reflect more which faction was stronger during any given campaign window. ALSO will prevent team green/purple/orange to having big impact during the last days of a campaign.

Grayhost PC NA was strongly influenced by that kind of cooperation in the past and, as a result, the final score and placement doesn't reflect who held the lead for longest. Meaning only two last days of a campaign matter, and not 28 days before that. This has to change.

No thank you. There are much better ways to balance the score in the campaign. Your suggestion is to just make the score even more unbalanced than it already is.

Amottica

biminirwb17_ESO wrote: »

Unless every single player on all factions play to win the campaign, the score is irrelevant.

When one group plays for itself and not the faction they come from the entire score is irrelevant.

Cyrodiil is more enjoyable without campaign rewards.

Even then the score is secondary. It is secondary because Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP since at point and time the alliances are not balanced in any manner. Heck, most of the time they will not be balanced. Only when all there are pop-locked are they balanced.

Cyrodiil was designed to be enjoyable, not competitive. Anyone interested in competitive PvP in ESO will be in BGs.

SaffronCitrusflower

Amottica wrote: »

biminirwb17_ESO wrote: »

Unless every single player on all factions play to win the campaign, the score is irrelevant.

When one group plays for itself and not the faction they come from the entire score is irrelevant.

Cyrodiil is more enjoyable without campaign rewards.

Even then the score is secondary. It is secondary because Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP since at point and time the alliances are not balanced in any manner. Heck, most of the time they will not be balanced. Only when all there are pop-locked are they balanced.

Cyrodiil was designed to be enjoyable, not competitive. Anyone interested in competitive PvP in ESO will be in BGs.

I couldn't disagree more.

When pop caps were 200+ players/faction competition was very good and consistent. Now pop caps are about 80/faction. That's the problem. When they started lowering the pop caps over and over and over again is when the imbalance started showing up consistently.

Very few PvP players engage in BG's. Cyrodiil is where the real PvP happens.

Amottica

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

biminirwb17_ESO wrote: »

Unless every single player on all factions play to win the campaign, the score is irrelevant.

When one group plays for itself and not the faction they come from the entire score is irrelevant.

Cyrodiil is more enjoyable without campaign rewards.

Even then the score is secondary. It is secondary because Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP since at point and time the alliances are not balanced in any manner. Heck, most of the time they will not be balanced. Only when all there are pop-locked are they balanced.

Cyrodiil was designed to be enjoyable, not competitive. Anyone interested in competitive PvP in ESO will be in BGs.

I couldn't disagree more.

When pop caps were 200+ players/faction competition was very good and consistent. Now pop caps are about 80/faction. That's the problem. When they started lowering the pop caps over and over and over again is when the imbalance started showing up consistently.

Very few PvP players engage in BG's. Cyrodiil is where the real PvP happens.

Oh, I agree that the campaigns can feel competitive but that does not make it so. The very fact that one alliance at any given time can have more players than another means it is not truly competitive by definition.

SaffronCitrusflower

Amottica wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

biminirwb17_ESO wrote: »

Unless every single player on all factions play to win the campaign, the score is irrelevant.

When one group plays for itself and not the faction they come from the entire score is irrelevant.

Cyrodiil is more enjoyable without campaign rewards.

Even then the score is secondary. It is secondary because Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP since at point and time the alliances are not balanced in any manner. Heck, most of the time they will not be balanced. Only when all there are pop-locked are they balanced.

Cyrodiil was designed to be enjoyable, not competitive. Anyone interested in competitive PvP in ESO will be in BGs.

I couldn't disagree more.

When pop caps were 200+ players/faction competition was very good and consistent. Now pop caps are about 80/faction. That's the problem. When they started lowering the pop caps over and over and over again is when the imbalance started showing up consistently.

Very few PvP players engage in BG's. Cyrodiil is where the real PvP happens.

Oh, I agree that the campaigns can feel competitive but that does not make it so. The very fact that one alliance at any given time can have more players than another means it is not truly competitive by definition.

Sometimes competition plays out over a longer period of time than second to second, or minute to minute, or hour to hour. Some competitions even take more than years to play out. That does not mean no competition is taking place.

Amottica

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

biminirwb17_ESO wrote: »

Unless every single player on all factions play to win the campaign, the score is irrelevant.

When one group plays for itself and not the faction they come from the entire score is irrelevant.

Cyrodiil is more enjoyable without campaign rewards.

Even then the score is secondary. It is secondary because Cyrodiil is not designed to be competitive PvP since at point and time the alliances are not balanced in any manner. Heck, most of the time they will not be balanced. Only when all there are pop-locked are they balanced.

Cyrodiil was designed to be enjoyable, not competitive. Anyone interested in competitive PvP in ESO will be in BGs.

I couldn't disagree more.

When pop caps were 200+ players/faction competition was very good and consistent. Now pop caps are about 80/faction. That's the problem. When they started lowering the pop caps over and over and over again is when the imbalance started showing up consistently.

Very few PvP players engage in BG's. Cyrodiil is where the real PvP happens.

Oh, I agree that the campaigns can feel competitive but that does not make it so. The very fact that one alliance at any given time can have more players than another means it is not truly competitive by definition.

Sometimes competition plays out over a longer period of time than second to second, or minute to minute, or hour to hour. Some competitions even take more than years to play out. That does not mean no competition is taking place.

Sure, it can feel competitive as there is a score for each alliance. I get what you are saying. I understand many really get into that alliance scoring even though it is easily manipulated via legitimate means. And yes, it is fun which is exactly the point I think you are attempting to make.

amadeus001

I think there should only be two factions and that would stop all of the imbalance, unless of course the losing playings swap factions and we all end up on the one faction. LOL what would zos do to balnace the factions? I think ZOS should publish totaol population, hours played by faction at the end of campaign to openly display the mechancis to the population balance.