Maintenance for the week of December 30:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 30
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – December 30
Dynamic Population!
Firellight
✭✭✭
Every campaign has their winner, but other alliances virtually have no chance to take the winning team down. Lots of people bandwagon onto winning campaigns. Look at Auriel's Bow: they always have a full server and EP/DC had to deal with AD winning since launch. Their numbers are just too high!
What I am about to suggest might not sound pretty to some people, but it needs to be done. I'd say that it should be implemented to 5 campaigns, while the others don't get this feature. The maximum population for the campaign must be the number of the second most-populated. Let's call it Dynamic Population control. This means that the outnumbering team can't outnumber the other teams by a considerable amount.
What do you think?
__________________________
EDIT:
How are these numbers: An alliance can only have up to 100 more players than the second most populated alliance, until the campaign max is reached.
Edited by Firellight on 4 May 2014 23:21 What I am about to suggest might not sound pretty to some people, but it needs to be done. I'd say that it should be implemented to 5 campaigns, while the others don't get this feature. The maximum population for the campaign must be the number of the second most-populated. Let's call it Dynamic Population control. This means that the outnumbering team can't outnumber the other teams by a considerable amount.
What do you think?
__________________________
EDIT:
How are these numbers: An alliance can only have up to 100 more players than the second most populated alliance, until the campaign max is reached.
0
-
Cheapshot✭✭/SIGNED AND AGREED until people start voicing outrage nothing will be done.
Dev's fix for this is STRONGER KEEPS & More EXP this is not a solution this is just bad developing.
think its bad wait till keeps are buffed ><0