Auriel's Bow NA is a dead campaign due to population imbalance

JeffKnight

We still have a month, plus to go before campaign resets and already the AD has been able to totally dominate the map in AB-NA. It is pointless to go into our home campaign and pointless to even try and retake keeps when 100+ AD swarm in on your group of 20 and retake it in under 5 mins. The score is now so far apart, that even if EP or DC could work together and retake parts of the map, we couldn't win.

Something HAS to be done before the next campaign starts, or we will see the exact same things happen again. Campaign population needs to be monitored in real-time. If the population exceeds a certain limit, say if an alliance's population is more than 20 more than the lowest populated alliance, certain things need to happen to the other 2 alliances. The greater the difference, the greater the buffs are. Some ideas:

1) Buff underdog players, NPCs, walls and doors. Simple and effective. The mechanisms are already there with the resource/keep buffs. Just apply them as a population balance conditional. This would also encourage the 2 underpopulated alliances to work together, since the "easier" target would be the overpopulated alliance. I would also base it on who controls what. If an alliance has complete control of the map, there needs to be some serious debuffs - call it "Overextended" or whatever.

2) Add more NPCs to keeps and grounds. Increase patrols around the map. Send "war parties" of strong NPCs from the weaker factions into "occupied" territory, and make Imperials and other NPCs stronger to prevent and disrupt campaign farming. With the buff to players from underdogs, this would equal out so that parties could still quest/dungeon delve, etc.

3) When underdogs take a keep or resource point, make it so that there is a timer that doesn't allow the keep to be retaken until, say 15/30 (even 60, if the population gap is high enough) mins after it is taken. Far too often is an underdog alliance able to get a group together, take an objective and before they can even begin to think about moving on and pressing the enemy, they are under attack again and pushed back into their entrance/exit areas by the dominant alliance. Also, spawn even more NPCs for resources and keeps taken by an underdog offensive. This will help prevent ganking while the underdogs are en route to wherever.

Just some ideas. If anyone else has any others, please post them. I doubt some people will listen, but let's try and keep this thread constructive. If someone does come in and "troll," ignore them.

Better PvP is in ALL our best interests.

Lord_Draevan

Yeah, we (EP) tried recapping Kings and Farragut this weekend, AD was at Low pop when we started. Barely 10 minutes later, AD jumps to High pop and we get swarmed by hundreds of players. It was really pathetic. AD then goes back down to Low pop about an hour after we leave.

Kewljag_66_ESO

JeffKnight wrote: »

We still have a month, plus to go before campaign resets and already the AD has been able to totally dominate the map in AB-NA. It is pointless to go into our home campaign and pointless to even try and retake keeps when 100+ AD swarm in on your group of 20 and retake it in under 5 mins. The score is now so far apart, that even if EP or DC could work together and retake parts of the map, we couldn't win.

Something HAS to be done before the next campaign starts, or we will see the exact same things happen again. Campaign population needs to be monitored in real-time. If the population exceeds a certain limit, say if an alliance's population is more than 20 more than the lowest populated alliance, certain things need to happen to the other 2 alliances. The greater the difference, the greater the buffs are. Some ideas:

1) Buff underdog players, NPCs, walls and doors. Simple and effective. The mechanisms are already there with the resource/keep buffs. Just apply them as a population balance conditional. This would also encourage the 2 underpopulated alliances to work together, since the "easier" target would be the overpopulated alliance. I would also base it on who controls what. If an alliance has complete control of the map, there needs to be some serious debuffs - call it "Overextended" or whatever.

2) Add more NPCs to keeps and grounds. Increase patrols around the map. Send "war parties" of strong NPCs from the weaker factions into "occupied" territory, and make Imperials and other NPCs stronger to prevent and disrupt campaign farming. With the buff to players from underdogs, this would equal out so that parties could still quest/dungeon delve, etc.

3) When underdogs take a keep or resource point, make it so that there is a timer that doesn't allow the keep to be retaken until, say 15/30 (even 60, if the population gap is high enough) mins after it is taken. Far too often is an underdog alliance able to get a group together, take an objective and before they can even begin to think about moving on and pressing the enemy, they are under attack again and pushed back into their entrance/exit areas by the dominant alliance. Also, spawn even more NPCs for resources and keeps taken by an underdog offensive. This will help prevent ganking while the underdogs are en route to wherever.

Just some ideas. If anyone else has any others, please post them. I doubt some people will listen, but let's try and keep this thread constructive. If someone does come in and "troll," ignore them.

Better PvP is in ALL our best interests.

You need to stop looking at the campaign score as a reason to play. This isnt a wait for reset system like other games. The map never resets, only the score board sand leader board. The campaign score really doesnt mean much, winning the campaign is more of a small bonus. The main reward is controlling territory / scrolls on the map for their current bonuses. These bonuses effect you everywhere in PVP and PVE, character power, gold income, and exp, and progression. You can win on that map at anytime regardless of the campaign score.

Now i do agree with the population balance problems, Zenimax should really cut off guesting and ask to move guilds around at the start of teh next camapign.

JeffKnight

Exact same thing just happened. I led a group that retook Rayles and Warden. We lost both within 10 minutes of taking them to a group of 100+ and high/locked pop on AD with 1 bar for EP/DC.

Avidus

A short while ago my guild and a close partner of ours reclaimed the entire AB map, we took all the resources and keeps, it was easy.
But AB also has an incredibly high oceanic presence, so as soon as a majority of our guilds logged out to sleep, AD came on and reclaimed everything by the next morning.

So even with a force enough to surpass the AD there was no actual PvP because they played at a different time.
As a result our guilds left to another campaign and are currently working on creating an equal balance campaign, actively inviting select people from all alliance to help introduce balance.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

Bah let ad have auriels bow, but we must not allow them to ruin any other campaigns in this manner!

Lord_Draevan

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

Bah let ad have auriels bow, but we must not allow them to ruin any other campaigns in this manner!

Pretty sure most just wanted the map for the Scroll/Emp bonuses. They only log in to defend when we try to recap. Or they log into Wabbajack, see it's not easy pickings, then they go back to whichever campaign they're dominating.
Like last night on Wabbajack, they jumped from Medium to Full for about a half-hour then went back to Medium. I can picture them being like:



I kid, of course, Wabbajack is usually nicely balanced for all 3 factions.

xxslam48xxb14_ESO

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

Bah let ad have auriels bow, but we must not allow them to ruin any other campaigns in this manner!

Pretty sure most just wanted the map for the Scroll/Emp bonuses. They only log in to defend when we try to recap. Or they log into Wabbajack, see it's not easy pickings, then they go back to whichever campaign they're dominating.
Like last night on Wabbajack, they jumped from Medium to Full for about a half-hour then went back to Medium. I can picture them being like:



I kid, of course, Wabbajack is usually nicely balanced for all 3 factions.

Lol it is balanced, but when they start losing I notice wabba ad pop goes down and then auriels bow pop goes up! I need to document this some time, like take screenshots of this happening. They always try to say all wabba ep is bandwagoners, but we know the truth!

Lord_Draevan

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

Lol it is balanced, but when they start losing I notice wabba ad pop goes down and then auriels bow pop goes up! I need to document this some time, like take screenshots of this happening. They always try to say all wabba ep is bandwagoners, but we know the truth!

There are bandwagoners on all 3 sides, though there are a crapton of EP ones. Last night there was a queue of 112 people to get into Wabbajack. 112!

JeffKnight

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

Lol it is balanced, but when they start losing I notice wabba ad pop goes down and then auriels bow pop goes up! I need to document this some time, like take screenshots of this happening. They always try to say all wabba ep is bandwagoners, but we know the truth!

There are bandwagoners on all 3 sides, though there are a crapton of EP ones. Last night there was a queue of 112 people to get into Wabbajack. 112!

Yes, there are campaigns in which all 3 of the alliances are the dominant alliance. They ALL need fixed. Period. End of story. Unless they literally want to institute hard caps where only the same number of each alliance can be in a campaign, then there needs to be some sort of system of buffs/debuffs to make sure that gameplay remains balanced, even if numbers are not.

joshisanonymous

I think you mean "due to extremely cheap home campaign transfers." I've never played Auriel's Bow, but from early access up until recently, I've always seen all three alliances either locked or close to locked there. The campaign seemed pretty balanced for population, except during Oceanic times apparently. That wouldn't have been a problem if the people who were already there weren't able to easily move because the prospect of recruiting Oceanic players to the campaign would've arguably been better than having whole guilds and such save the AP for a transfer. Instead, people just jump ship in the face of even slight adversity, essentially spiraling campaigns into ghost towns. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Wabbajack experiences the same thing unless enough people start finishing leveling and begin focusing on PvP to fill in the rest of the campaigns soon.

Zxaxz

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

xxslam48xxb14_ESO wrote: »

Bah let ad have auriels bow, but we must not allow them to ruin any other campaigns in this manner!

Pretty sure most just wanted the map for the Scroll/Emp bonuses. They only log in to defend when we try to recap. Or they log into Wabbajack, see it's not easy pickings, then they go back to whichever campaign they're dominating.
Like last night on Wabbajack, they jumped from Medium to Full for about a half-hour then went back to Medium. I can picture them being like:



I kid, of course, Wabbajack is usually nicely balanced for all 3 factions.

ROFL - Smoke more my friend - Wabba is now all the quiters who left AB for 15k ally points; Ganging up on the old leaders, AD in a balanced Campaign on Wabajack, to being outnumbered 2/1 and ganged up on by the xfer's from AB on both sides.

So now all of the AB quiters have done the same to Wabbajack (Which used to be really nicely balanced) except it's in both their favors now. And, then we have 2000 other low pop servers ~crickets~

Kind of a failed server rule set for xfers/guesting and the number of servers or Population limit of both.

2c

Lord_Draevan

Zxaxz wrote: »

ROFL - Smoke more my friend - Wabba is now all the quiters who left AB for 15k ally points; Ganging up on the old leaders, AD in a balanced Campaign on Wabajack, to being outnumbered 2/1 and ganged up on by the xfer's from AB on both sides.

So now all of the AB quiters have done the same to Wabbajack (Which used to be really nicely balanced) except it's in both their favors now. And, then we have 2000 other low pop servers ~crickets~

Kind of a failed server rule set for xfers/guesting and the number of servers or Population limit of both.

2c

By balanced, I mean has an even number of players most of the day, which Wabbajack does.

sagitter

AD are dominating also EU server, they always have best zerg numbers and all the scrolls, second place EP and last underpopulated expecially night time, DC. we were 3 vs zerg defending the only scroll we had. Never saw 6 Scroll owned by DC since start. There should be some sort of buff during these situation like gaining more points etc. for the underpop realm of the time. It's so sad , why ppl don t like DC? in the other hand i have more enemy to find in pvp.

Tintinabula

changing campaigns will cost 100k ap soon enough... nothing to sneeze at but i feel it still needs to be more for higher pvp ranks..also a 2 day waiting period between each transfer

heng14rwb17_ESO

We love our queen.
We must protect our queen.

Kwas

EU Auriels is full of AD mainly because most of us have no clue how to leave Cyrodiil, and thus are stuck there :-)

Majority of us would love to go back to PvE, we just don't know how :-(

Laura

the ad don't want a balanced campaign. they throw there overwhelming numbers around on every campaign.

They just want to emp swap and lock down campaigns for buffs.

JeffKnight

Laura wrote: »

the ad don't want a balanced campaign. they throw there overwhelming numbers around on every campaign.

They just want to emp swap and lock down campaigns for buffs.

Agreed. That is the only reason I have to explain why any time DC or EP try and make a push we get spawn camped. They want those whole-map buffs. The quick fix to that is that those buffs should only apply in the home campaign, not guest, and NEVER in PvE areas.

Laura

JeffKnight wrote: »

Laura wrote: »

the ad don't want a balanced campaign. they throw there overwhelming numbers around on every campaign.

They just want to emp swap and lock down campaigns for buffs.

Agreed. That is the only reason I have to explain why any time DC or EP try and make a push we get spawn camped. They want those whole-map buffs. The quick fix to that is that those buffs should only apply in the home campaign, not guest, and NEVER in PvE areas.

I absolutely agree. I wouldn't care so much except that we do competitive trial runs and that 8% crit is insane.

Its poor design the buffs should apply only in the campaign you are actually in and maybe in solo areas but never groups and raids.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO

DC & EP complaing about Auriel's Bow. lolol.

I am on the Dawnbreaker EU (AD), and EP & DC field superior numbers (100+ each) and instead of fight each other, they hit the 40 AD that are in the area.

Of course the AD players, will go to Auriel's bow, or on the other campaigns that have more AD population.

The same thing you do actually by moving from DC & EP areas at Auriel Bow to the Dawnbreaker.

And lets not forget, Auriel Bow EU is usually locked for all three factions most of the time. So the numbers are there.

I hope there are going to be less campaigns to choose, so numbers will go up for all of us.

Yam_of_the_Center

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

DC & EP complaing about Auriel's Bow. lolol.

I am on the Dawnbreaker EU (AD)...

And lets not forget, Auriel Bow EU is usually locked for all three factions most of the time. So the numbers are there.

This was about Auriel's Bow N.A. (and I say 'was' since the bulk of the thread was posted a month ago), as it says in the thread title. I see sagitter the thread necromancer mentioned E.U., but the rest were talking about N.A., which did indeed become a Gate-camped ghost town.

mjspnrb18_ESO

Avidus wrote: »

A short while ago my guild and a close partner of ours reclaimed the entire AB map, we took all the resources and keeps, it was easy.
But AB also has an incredibly high oceanic presence, so as soon as a majority of our guilds logged out to sleep, AD came on and reclaimed everything by the next morning.

So even with a force enough to surpass the AD there was no actual PvP because they played at a different time.
As a result our guilds left to another campaign and are currently working on creating an equal balance campaign, actively inviting select people from all alliance to help introduce balance.

These same guilds worked together again today to throne their friend as emperor on AB, proof it can be done, just no one to hold it

bruceb14_ESO5

JeffKnight wrote: »

Laura wrote: »

the ad don't want a balanced campaign. they throw there overwhelming numbers around on every campaign.

They just want to emp swap and lock down campaigns for buffs.

Agreed. That is the only reason I have to explain why any time DC or EP try and make a push we get spawn camped. They want those whole-map buffs. The quick fix to that is that those buffs should only apply in the home campaign, not guest, and NEVER in PvE areas.

Have you considered that retaking keeps and resources is a challenge and goal not just for buffs? When bored from having the whole map and minimal resistance, it is a pleasure to have something to do.

p_tsakirisb16_ESO

Yam_of_the_Center wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

DC & EP complaing about Auriel's Bow. lolol.

I am on the Dawnbreaker EU (AD)...

And lets not forget, Auriel Bow EU is usually locked for all three factions most of the time. So the numbers are there.

This was about Auriel's Bow N.A. (and I say 'was' since the bulk of the thread was posted a month ago), as it says in the thread title. I see sagitter the thread necromancer mentioned E.U., but the rest were talking about N.A., which did indeed become a Gate-camped ghost town.

Hold on mate. Why you quote my message? I am not the one who revived the thread, nor the one who posted first about the EU.

Read first, post later.

Yam_of_the_Center

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

Yam_of_the_Center wrote: »

p_tsakirisb16_ESO wrote: »

DC & EP complaing about Auriel's Bow. lolol.

I am on the Dawnbreaker EU (AD)...

And lets not forget, Auriel Bow EU is usually locked for all three factions most of the time. So the numbers are there.

This was about Auriel's Bow N.A. (and I say 'was' since the bulk of the thread was posted a month ago), as it says in the thread title. I see sagitter the thread necromancer mentioned E.U., but the rest were talking about N.A., which did indeed become a Gate-camped ghost town.

Hold on mate. Why you quote my message? I am not the one who revived the thread, nor the one who posted first about the EU.

Read first, post later.

The irony.

I know you weren't, I said quite clearly who revived the thread (named him, even). All I was saying is that all the rest were talking about N.A. is all. You didn't quote anyone, and though I figured you meant sagitter with your post, he's apparently E.U. Covenant Auriel's Bow but the Pact posters from a month ago were N.A. Auriel's Bow. So that's all, just that there aren't both Covenant and Pact complaining about E.U. Auriel's Bow, there was one E.U Covenant talking about it.

So no worries, I was just pointing out the thread was really about N.A. Auriel's Bow (or it was originally), I don't know anything about what's shakin' over there on the E.U. one. N.A. Auriel's Bow became pretty pointless basically for everyone, though.

JeffKnight

bruceb14_ESO5 wrote: »

JeffKnight wrote: »

Laura wrote: »

the ad don't want a balanced campaign. they throw there overwhelming numbers around on every campaign.

They just want to emp swap and lock down campaigns for buffs.

Agreed. That is the only reason I have to explain why any time DC or EP try and make a push we get spawn camped. They want those whole-map buffs. The quick fix to that is that those buffs should only apply in the home campaign, not guest, and NEVER in PvE areas.

Have you considered that retaking keeps and resources is a challenge and goal not just for buffs? When bored from having the whole map and minimal resistance, it is a pleasure to have something to do.

So, why not let DC and EP control a bit of their own territory instead of being spawn-camped 24/7? It'd surely make for more interesting fights among the Imperial Keeps than constantly camping us in to the High Rock Gates.

bruceb14_ESO5

@JeffKnight, home campaign, protect your home...keeps, resources, whole map if possible. If it is too much of a pain to protect the whole thing, because of opposition, then different goals that are attainable. Point is that it is not solely about buffs.

Lord_Draevan

Why would you even bother on Auriel's? The second a few EP or DC show up, AD jumps up to high population and gate-camp you into quitting. It's impossible to make any headway due to being massively outnumbered, and no one from your faction wants to join due to the imbalance.
AD clearly doesn't want competition on that server. Let them have it, go elsewhere.

Rylana

Lord_Draevan wrote: »

AD clearly doesn't want competition on that server. Let them have it, go elsewhere.

Yet there was AD last night on Bloodthorn working completely uphill vs superior DC numbers for six hours to finally capture the home triangle.

This is the reason AB is how it is, the moment people started losing or getting outnumbered they left the server.

I dont get it.

- Complain the servers are dead
- Only go on servers that are completely in your factions pocket

?????

Lord_Draevan

Rylana wrote: »

Yet there was AD last night on Bloodthorn working completely uphill vs superior DC numbers for six hours to finally capture the home triangle.

This is the reason AB is how it is, the moment people started losing or getting outnumbered they left the server.

I dont get it.

- Complain the servers are dead
- Only go on servers that are completely in your factions pocket

?????

EP and DC on Auriel's are at Low while AD is at High/Full. EP and DC on Bloodthorn are at High while AD is at Medium. Much more balanced.
DC also doesn't gate-camp on Bloodthorn, or if they do it's only a few people. They let you come out and recap keeps, they want a fight. Whereas on Auriel's, the moment anyone shows up it's practically instant gate-camping by hundreds of players against less than a dozen.
Entirely different situations.
As to why we left, I stayed until it got to the point where EP could barely scrape together 30 players while AD was at Full pop (600 back then). I don't mind being outnumbered, but 20 to 1 is a bit much.