Maintenance for the week of December 23:
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
• NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
Population Balance in PVP
-
Iriidius✭✭✭✭CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »Also nightcapping is an issue. It should be half points gained after midnight and until 06 am.
"Let's punish people that either don't live in the same part of the world as me or work a different shift than I do".
It's an online game with servers that are up 24/7. Nightcapping is inevitable and should not be punished in any way.
Why is it punishment if the players still get the same ap and xp as during primetime. Only the score would increase slower in off hours, but it also is the result of fewer players effort, so the individual influence on the score when playing in off hours would still be equal or higher than when playing in primetime, only not as much higher as it is now. Atm you rather get punished when playing in primetime, because when campaigns are full your personal influence on score is much lower and if you wouldnt play someone else would take your
Should 5 players PvDooring the map at 2 am while other alliances have 0 players online get same score for their alliance as as an alliance taking keeps from 2 other pop locked alliances?
After these 5 players took the whole map and went offline, should the alliance get 280 points every hour for hours even if zero players are Online
until other alliances wake up somewhen in the morning or afternoon?
280 point per evaluation are almost impossible to reach in full Cyrodiil even when one alliance has much better players than others.
Nobody wants to punish players in other timezones because they play at night. I would like it very much if there was competitive pvp at night and I appreciate every player that defends keeps against nightcappers at night, but somehow all these „Australian players“ stack on one faction and take undefended keeps, zerg down defenders, run away from 1v1, use Xv1 builds, try to siege behind your back even if there is only 1 defender or pretend to go offline to make you go offline too insteat of going on a campaign/faction where they can have real pvp.
You are not always a nightcapper by playing at night, only if you use the sleep based absence of other alliances to take undefended keeps. Someone also sugested to make a seperate score for night/morning so offhour players would compete only against other offhour players, but nightcapper defender also complained about this because they want offhour PvP deciding over campaign score and complain about any change to this.
Because a minority of players decide about score and campaign win in off hours majority of players stopped caring about campaign score because they feel it is meaningless. But nightcapping not only impacts the score but also the playing experience from players in primetime. Most players dont enter a campaign when they see their alliance owns nothing, but when they controll most of the map it attracts many players, so the alliance that outnumbered other alliances at night will also outnumber them for most of the day. When you log in and enter campaign althought you are gated and take a ressoursse you usually get zerged because some players took map at night. Players defending nightcapping complain players from other timezones would get prevented from pvping by preventing nightcapping but these nightcappers themselve prevent players from other timezones on other alliances from pvping by zerging them out of Cyrodiil.
You must be allowed to pvdoor at night but only if you play for the right alliance, otherwise you have no right to be in Cyrodiil at night.
1 -
demonology89✭✭✭There is a huge problem with nightcapping on PS NA GH.
My schedule leaves me with most of my free time being late night into the early morning. That is when I can log in and play. But there is no balanced or healthy PvP during this time period in GH. One alliance completely zergs and caps the entire map. And believe me, when you try to make smaller fights happen across the map like flagging a town or keep... It will not be Xing; you will be rolled over. And why should anyone be forced to X at all when not everyone enjoys that playstyle. Sure I can go around taking resources for 3.3k during low pop, but where is the fun in that? PvG(uards)? Or be rolled? Seriously?
It's really disappointing when competition and fun is all but dead in the main campaign. I paid for the game and continue to pay for ESO+ like other players. But because I chose the "wrong alliance" and sleep/work during the more balanced time periods, I'm stuck with a subpar PvP experience. Low pop bonus is not the solution to nightcapping. Nor is buying an alliance change token or having to play BGs or Imp City for any PvP competition.
It feels hopeless. ZoS doesn't even like acknowledging the PvP community over the lag and other issues in GH. Why are they going to care about an unbalanced population at off hours. 😔Edited by demonology89 on 6 April 2023 09:163 -
kadar✭✭✭✭✭
✭
I raid for 2-3 hours during primetime, 2-4x/week, main camp only, for 5+ years now on 2 factions. Plenty of experience to be able to present evidence on the pop cap in cyro, which interestingly is the only thing you have NOT done in this thread -- present evidence on the actual number.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »
Based on what evidence? Earlier I mentioned seeing mid 90s allied players at one keep battle (detected with Miats) and several first hand reports of 90+ AD at an in game funeral recently while my group of 12 was elsewhere PVPing lol. This puts the cap at bare minimum 102 players per faction completely ignoring questers, “solos”, afks, etc.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »There was also a funeral in Cryo for a player who passed away IRL not too long ago. Multiple people reported counts of 90+ players far from the chaos of a large keep battle. My group of 12 was online PVPing elsewhere on the map at that time. The cap is far beyond 80.
The population cap is not "far beyond 80". You do realize, of course, that the pop cap used to be around 400 players/faction, and now, even by your calculations, it's still less than 100/faction. So even by your calculations, the pop cap is less than 1/4 of what it used to be, yet performance is not better, it's generally worse.
The take home message is that pop caps have been drastically reduced with no increase in performance, regardless of what the exact population cap may be.
IDC what the original cap was, I’m sure you’re right, it used to be way higher.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »There was also a funeral in Cryo for a player who passed away IRL not too long ago. Multiple people reported counts of 90+ players far from the chaos of a large keep battle. My group of 12 was online PVPing elsewhere on the map at that time. The cap is far beyond 80.
The population cap is not "far beyond 80". You do realize, of course, that the pop cap used to be around 400 players/faction, and now, even by your calculations, it's still less than 100/faction. So even by your calculations, the pop cap is less than 1/4 of what it used to be, yet performance is not better, it's generally worse.
The take home message is that pop caps have been drastically reduced with no increase in performance, regardless of what the exact population cap may be.
ZOS has never publicly stated the population cap. Never.
Not the current one, not the original highest one, not at any point after any of the published and stealth pop reduction changes.
One can make an informed estimate, but stop throwing out numbers as if they are fact.
I raid in cyrodiil with raid group every day, literally every day, for a minimum of two hours, and have been for about 8 years now. How much time do you spend in cyrodiil kadar?
If you've been PVPing for 8 years you know that hours played in Cryo means jack ***. Often the top 10 on leaderboards and the people with 17 GOs are unemployed or retired and their PVP experience consists of how to dump oil fast. Hours played doesn't mean anything lol.
We've both departed from the topic of this thread. I only commented to correct some misinformation about the population cap, because I have a good idea of what it is, or at least what it is not. If you have data to suggest I am wrong, you would have presented it by now. I'll leave this convo here because again, this is off topic and repeating myself is ineffective.1 -
Orpheaus✭✭✭People will argue semantics to death but the actual undeniable truth is that pop cap has DECREASED, I think most would agree by at least half of what it used to be (imo it's probably actually 60-70% lower), and performance has not improved. All it's done is reduce the epic feel that cyrodil used to have when we had higher pop caps and still reasonable performance.
[snip]
[edited for bashing]Edited by ZOS_Icy on 9 April 2023 16:374 -
UnabashedlyHonest✭✭✭✭✭
The actual population caps are higher than 80. I have detected as many as 94 players of 1 alliance at a single keep with the Miat's addon, meaning the true population cap is likley well over 100 per alliance once you account for all the people afk and otherwise memeing around the map.SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »The current population caps are just way too low for healthy three way PvP. If 10 daily PvP players swap to a different faction that is enough to determine which faction is going to win the campaign now. The population caps are just way, way to low now. 80 players/faction is just too low for healthy, competitive PvP.
The pop cap in cyrodiil is right around 80 players/faction. Give or take, at most, 20 players. The cap certainly isn't higher than 100/faction. Nobody knows what the actual pop caps are except ZOS. But those who spend the most time in Cyro PvP all agree that the cap is very low and is below 100 players/faction.4 -
Largomets✭✭✭Honestly, a quick fix could be as simple as having dynamic population caps. Instead of 1-3 bars and then locked, simply have it be open or locked. Once one faction reaches 5% population advantage over the other two, they're locked and queue'd until people log onto the other factions and then it re-opens.
Eventually, enough people on the dominant faction will get tired of needing to queue for pvp while the other 2 factions don't and it will balance out.
At the end of the day, any changes to buffs/score etc. will be bandaids at best, because not every player in cyro has the same goal in mind. Not everyone cares about score.
But yeah, I agree with others that the current population caps are way too low when all are equal. It's a shame the servers can't handle more and that they haven't been upgraded to accommodate. This game has one of if not the best large-scale pvp systems in gaming history, and it's being wasted in its current state, and therefor, underutilized. Then again, with most pvp servers having a "dominant" faction that is online 24/7 while the other 2 are not, if they increased server pops at the high end without putting dynamic server caps at the interim levels, it'd stay a nightmare.2 -
Minnesinger✭✭✭✭✭
✭There is no balance in PC NA GH. One faction runs over the map as soon as the prime time population starts to be lower. Pop lock faction against the low pop for many hours. The scrores look exactly like that. Only some are eager to swap away from the overpulated faction. Quite the opposite. Fighting gets boring but they have no interest but to take all. If the rumoirs of Cyro turning into a pve zone are true, I hope they create similar zone but without the imbalance issues.
The wind is cold where I live,
The blizzard is my home,
Snow and ice and loaded dice, the Wizard lives alone.1 -
HI all, really appreciate the input and i can see whilst many will be upset, i think that is an indication of the love and the game we have and that we all want a healthy game to play, with balance, amazing fights and fairness. We are all rebelling against the lack of balance, the unfairness and the trolly behaviour of many players. One of the most significants point for me is the absence of commentary or love by the Devs in this space. The sound of their silence is deafening to me.
1) Please put in polution numbers and not bars. ie 79/95 ie 79 in zone of possible 95
2) Campaign to date hours played per faction poluation DC 1030 hours EP 840 AD 930
3) Please get rid of one way gates full stop.
4) Please cite explicit prohibited behaviour ie logging onto alt faction accounts to turn around seize, steal scrolls, weapons and other UNSPORTSMAN like behaviour
5) Ban faction teaming (by that I mean two factions in an opposing keep not fighting each other for example)
6) Expressly prohibit gaming not in the spirt of Game.
Devs lots of players want your positive intervention and commmentary on a range of topics and the way you see the game moving forward.3 -
YandereGirlfriend✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I mean, the servers are literally called NORTH AMERICA and EUROPE so it should be pretty easy to determine which block of hours to consider fully enabled for points scoring and which hours to discount.
Yes, it might make the contributions of the relative handful of players from SEA (or Yakutsk or wherever) less important but we're talking about a "greater good" situation here.
Currently, the small number off-hours players are way more valuable than the large number of prime time players and that is a super backward state of affairs.1 -
Brander12✭✭Pop balance is all about people in a game. If everyone wants AP, not actually pvp - it's not gonna be a pvp. Up 2 u guys
0 -
ujimax✭✭Then there are the scrubs who engage in some truly toxic, and abusive behaviors. These people are also taking up space that could be used by actual people.
This has gotten quite out of hand.
I mean, personally it's been a while since "the magic" happened and there are was a massive, prolonged, long, even fight over a keep which ended satisfying even if you'd be on one of the losing sides. Campaign balance seems to be a thing of the past. Raid leaders splitting up their groups over different alliances (and campaigns) to accommodate a farm fest for themselves also didn't help.
Regarding that memorial service, I took screens, my estimate is definitely not over a hundred people attending concurrently.0 -
and....... no developers comments about the state of play, or an intended changes............. sigh
2 -
disintegr8✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭This is a global game that runs 24 hours a day, any suggestion/s to modify/limit/restrict what anyone can do at certain times is ridiculous. We are not all in the same time zone and we do not all have the same work/wake/sleep times.
I'd happily play on an oceanic server and leave all you northern hemisphere players to sort it out amongst yourselves but I don't have that option.Australian on PS4 NA server.
Everyone's entitled to an opinion.0 -
afkpro✭✭✭well when one side usually wins, it tends to break balance as people faction change (paid or reroll). and when the good groups try to faction change themselves to facilitate competition and start winning for the new faction, the same thing repeats with everyone else following. it's why large scale pvp is cool at first but inevitably fails to sustain balance.
world of warcraft experienced this and rightfully decided to ignore future large scale pvp in favor of small scale pvp that would eventually lead into their esports community. in fact, recent wrath of the lich king classic could not bring back classic wintergrasp cuz players did not want to balance out the two factions.1 -
Necrotech_Master✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭accidentalist wrote: »Population balancing is a huge factor in the game, whether it wants to be admitted or not.
In my experience, it's the alliance with three bars of population at 3am until 9am (eastern, central, doesn't matter) while the other alliances are sleeping (and thus effectively zero bars of population). For this context, it's the NA servers.
Yes, we can probably say it might be Australians, or folks in that time zone that are playing (strangely, they seem to only join one alliance only). That doesn't really matter, actually
Essentially it becomes POINTLESS to try to win because which ever alliance has that three bars of population at that time ultimately wins. What is the incentive to try to win, which is what the game pushes you to do? Campaign over campaign of the same thing. Then the 3am to 9am guys might switch alliances, and it's the same thing all over again. It's pointless.
Possible solutions might be:
1) Remove alliance scoring. No, not AP scoring, just the placement of the three alliances as to who "wins." Honestly, if Cyrodiil is just for fun, make it so the scoring doesn't matter. Have the ultimate scoring leaderboard based per player, rather than the alliances themselves.
2) Create a dynamic cap based on the lowest populated alliance at that time (3am until 9am). If most of AD go to bed, and there's 50 people on at 3am, that's the cap - everyone else is capped to that, and no new logins can occur.
3) Low population bonus should be way higher - not double, or triple, but at least five times more than it is now. Right now, the bonus doesn't make a dent of an impact at all.
Anyway, those are just some suggestions, I'm sure there's better ones out there. But I do love playing Cyrodiil, it's just losing its appeal with the same stuff over and over and over again.
for point 1: personally ive never cared about that scoring lol, just seems like numbers that dont mean much to me
for point 2: there are some other games that do something similar, i think planetside 2 has a "faction balance queue" applied to the highest pop faction if they are too overpopped from the other factions, but in ESO this wouldnt work well because of the super low pop caps
for point 3: i would not be opposed to increasing low pop bonus, assuming they could actually fix it to trigger correctly, the low pop bonus always seems to be super behind what the situation actually is, for instance ive seen a faction marked as low pop, then 10 min later they are poplocked and still have low pop bonus for another 40-60 minutes till whenever the bonus is checked again, there is also a low score bonus, but i dont know the trigger conditions for it (both low pop and low score bonuses can stack, so that would be 4x AP if both were active), and just fyi, 5 times more than it is right now would be 10x ap gains, that would be 15000 ap for just capping a resource, which is more than what you would get capping a keep with double ap so i dont think setting the bonus so high would be that good, not like people dont really have much to spend ap on right now anyway besides the gear boxes or whatnotplays PC/NA
handle @Necrotech_Master
active player since april 2014
i have my main house (grand topal hideaway) listed in the housing tours, it has multiple target dummies, scribing altar, and grandmaster stations (in progress being filled out), as well as almost every antiquity furnishing on display to preview them
feel free to stop by and use the facilities0 -
N/A server Grey Host, 19 days to go and 8000 points differnece between first and third. and this is the main server.2
-
TechMaybeHic✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Current points dont mean a heck of a lot right now given they essentially doubled the campaign duration1 -
Delphinia✭✭✭✭✭TechMaybeHic wrote: »Current points dont mean a heck of a lot right now given they essentially doubled the campaign duration
Given the trend, it probably means that there will be more like a 12k-15k difference by the end.
Points may not matter to some players, especially when it comes to the "rewards".
However, the points do matter as a reflection of the overall health of the campaign and is very telling of the lack of population balance and level of engagement across the three factions.
The fact that they extended the time, does not negate the fact that there is already this much of a discrepancy in points.
I do not believe anyone wants to end up with a dead campaign where one or even two of the factions push the lowest population out. I know there have been some players to state they want to remove a particular faction, but at what cost?
A particular faction on N/A GH has already lost many of its players to either other factions, or simply just other games.
If the trend of pushing the "weaker", rather lower population faction continues, the competition will become weaker and weaker leading to a no competition campaign.5 -
maxjapank✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I do not believe anyone wants to end up with a dead campaign where one or even two of the factions push the lowest population out. I know there have been some players to state they want to remove a particular faction, but at what cost?
A particular faction on N/A GH has already lost many of its players to either other factions, or simply just other games.
If the trend of pushing the "weaker", rather lower population faction continues, the competition will become weaker and weaker leading to a no competition campaign.
The faction suffering the most right now on PCNA GH is AD. Especially outside of prime time. I have whispered two individuals on the DC faction, one a well-known pug gatherer and the second a leader of a guild group. Both of them said they had no control over what their faction did, and laughed it off. And while this is true, they do have control over where they are. And when they are part of a full pop-locked faction, it really doesn't do much for the health of the campaign to be pressuring AD which is only 1-2 bars.
There was a time when players and guilds would switch factions in order to balance the campaign. I did this with one of my past guilds. It was never a popular decision, and guilds would lose members over it. But overall, the population of the Oceanic time zone worked out evenly.
I don't know what to say about these two individuals. I had some respect for them at first. But there's zero remaining now.
2 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭By design, there will be a population imbalance when there are not enough players to max out the pop caps. AvA is not intended to be a genuinely competitive PvP experience and never will be. It is designed to be more fun. Granted, there are designs that could make it feel more competitive but those designs just hide the imbalance.
1 -
It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.4
-
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
2 -
maxjapank✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
Well…as I said. It wasn’t always unbalanced, even in off hours. So you can’t really say that there is always an imbalance. But it does take players, and most notably, guilds, who care about a healthy campaign to maintain balance. Unfortunately, those types of players seem to be gone as of late.
4 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
Well…as I said. It wasn’t always unbalanced, even in off hours. So you can’t really say that there is always an imbalance. But it does take players, and most notably, guilds, who care about a healthy campaign to maintain balance. Unfortunately, those types of players seem to be gone as of late.
AvA has never been balanced except when all three alliances are pop capped. There is no mechanism to force a balance outside of all three alliances being pop capped. So I can say there has always been an imbalance.
Below is an article from 2015 discussing changes that were about to occur to Cyrodiil. A middle bullet point notes that the low-pop bonus was about to be added to help a low-pop alliance. This demonstrates that population imbalances have been happening all along. So again, I can really say there has always been an imbalance outside of when all three alliances are pop capped.
http://tamrieljournal.com/upcoming-cyrodiil-pvp-update-in-eso/#:~:text=Low Population Campaigns/Underscoring Alliances,for, instead of 10%.
added link
Edited by Amottica on 13 June 2023 16:560 -
maxjapank✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
Well…as I said. It wasn’t always unbalanced, even in off hours. So you can’t really say that there is always an imbalance. But it does take players, and most notably, guilds, who care about a healthy campaign to maintain balance. Unfortunately, those types of players seem to be gone as of late.
AvA has never been balanced except when all three alliances are pop capped. There is no mechanism to force a balance outside of all three alliances being pop capped. So I can say there has always been an imbalance.
Below is an article from 2015 discussing changes that were about to occur to Cyrodiil. A middle bullet point notes that the low-pop bonus was about to be added to help a low-pop alliance. This demonstrates that population imbalances have been happening all along. So again, I can really say there has always been an imbalance outside of when all three alliances are pop capped.
http://tamrieljournal.com/upcoming-cyrodiil-pvp-update-in-eso/#:~:text=Low Population Campaigns/Underscoring Alliances,for, instead of 10%.
added link
I don’t think you’ve ever played during the Oceanic time zone. So you just don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about. Sometimes it’s good to listen to those with experience.
5 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
Well…as I said. It wasn’t always unbalanced, even in off hours. So you can’t really say that there is always an imbalance. But it does take players, and most notably, guilds, who care about a healthy campaign to maintain balance. Unfortunately, those types of players seem to be gone as of late.
AvA has never been balanced except when all three alliances are pop capped. There is no mechanism to force a balance outside of all three alliances being pop capped. So I can say there has always been an imbalance.
Below is an article from 2015 discussing changes that were about to occur to Cyrodiil. A middle bullet point notes that the low-pop bonus was about to be added to help a low-pop alliance. This demonstrates that population imbalances have been happening all along. So again, I can really say there has always been an imbalance outside of when all three alliances are pop capped.
http://tamrieljournal.com/upcoming-cyrodiil-pvp-update-in-eso/#:~:text=Low Population Campaigns/Underscoring Alliances,for, instead of 10%.
added link
I don’t think you’ve ever played during the Oceanic time zone. So you just don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about. Sometimes it’s good to listen to those with experience.
I have gaming friends from all over. I’ve gotten up early to run with friends from the other side of this rock. I’ve also had to work evening for awhile so was playing during the wee hours of my morning. Essentially I’ve seen oceanic prime time. Then and morning hours (my time) is when things are the most imbalanced.
Even then, I am speaking to the specific design of Cyrodiil and the fact of populations work regardless of the time of day.
So I’ve seen it all and being experienced in multiple world vs world designs I am keenly aware of how it works.
0 -
maxjapank✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
Well…as I said. It wasn’t always unbalanced, even in off hours. So you can’t really say that there is always an imbalance. But it does take players, and most notably, guilds, who care about a healthy campaign to maintain balance. Unfortunately, those types of players seem to be gone as of late.
AvA has never been balanced except when all three alliances are pop capped. There is no mechanism to force a balance outside of all three alliances being pop capped. So I can say there has always been an imbalance.
Below is an article from 2015 discussing changes that were about to occur to Cyrodiil. A middle bullet point notes that the low-pop bonus was about to be added to help a low-pop alliance. This demonstrates that population imbalances have been happening all along. So again, I can really say there has always been an imbalance outside of when all three alliances are pop capped.
http://tamrieljournal.com/upcoming-cyrodiil-pvp-update-in-eso/#:~:text=Low Population Campaigns/Underscoring Alliances,for, instead of 10%.
added link
I don’t think you’ve ever played during the Oceanic time zone. So you just don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about. Sometimes it’s good to listen to those with experience.
I have gaming friends from all over. I’ve gotten up early to run with friends from the other side of this rock. I’ve also had to work evening for awhile so was playing during the wee hours of my morning. Essentially I’ve seen oceanic prime time. Then and morning hours (my time) is when things are the most imbalanced.
Even then, I am speaking to the specific design of Cyrodiil and the fact of populations work regardless of the time of day.
So I’ve seen it all and being experienced in multiple world vs world designs I am keenly aware of how it works.
Name me two guilds in Oceanic time that have switched factions to maintain a faction balance.Edited by maxjapank on 14 June 2023 01:084 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭amadeus001 wrote: »It is not so much the points, but the fairness of play. We are now at 10000 difference in first and last. To be like that, imagine the fights and being outnumbered for a campaign like this. Close campaigns actually means balanced fights. This can't be fun for anyone, unless you enjoy rolling a group merely by numbers.
You suggest it is not about the points but the example is emphasizing the points. Even when the scoring is close the balance is extremely lopsided most of the time. It is only during prime time, and then only the busiest campaign, that the sides will be balanced. The rest of the time it can, and often will be, extremely lopsided.
There will always be an imbalance in this type of PvP.
Want balance then choose a PvP that defines the number of players on each team such as BGs.
Well…as I said. It wasn’t always unbalanced, even in off hours. So you can’t really say that there is always an imbalance. But it does take players, and most notably, guilds, who care about a healthy campaign to maintain balance. Unfortunately, those types of players seem to be gone as of late.
AvA has never been balanced except when all three alliances are pop capped. There is no mechanism to force a balance outside of all three alliances being pop capped. So I can say there has always been an imbalance.
Below is an article from 2015 discussing changes that were about to occur to Cyrodiil. A middle bullet point notes that the low-pop bonus was about to be added to help a low-pop alliance. This demonstrates that population imbalances have been happening all along. So again, I can really say there has always been an imbalance outside of when all three alliances are pop capped.
http://tamrieljournal.com/upcoming-cyrodiil-pvp-update-in-eso/#:~:text=Low Population Campaigns/Underscoring Alliances,for, instead of 10%.
added link
I don’t think you’ve ever played during the Oceanic time zone. So you just don’t seem to understand what I’m talking about. Sometimes it’s good to listen to those with experience.
I have gaming friends from all over. I’ve gotten up early to run with friends from the other side of this rock. I’ve also had to work evening for awhile so was playing during the wee hours of my morning. Essentially I’ve seen oceanic prime time. Then and morning hours (my time) is when things are the most imbalanced.
Even then, I am speaking to the specific design of Cyrodiil and the fact of populations work regardless of the time of day.
So I’ve seen it all and being experienced in multiple world vs world designs I am keenly aware of how it works.
Name me two guilds in Oceanic time that have switched factions to maintain a faction balance.
I fail to see the point as I have not said guilds from any area of the world have switched factions at all, let alone for a reason and it is not relevant to the OP or anything I have said.
Have a good day.
0
