Campaign Balancing Discussion!

Avidus · May 2014

Currently we are all experiencing uneven populations in all of the campaigns, one sided dominations from each of the alliances can be seen.
Unfortunately this problem is what is caused by players, and unfortunately is best solved by players.

I do not honestly see that happening, but I would still like to discuss the topic in general as opposed to have a discussion for each campaign regarding this issue.

Personally, by my play times every single campaign is in the lowest bar of population, and only once have I see a full alliance on a campaign.
I personally think that ZoS should close off 1 or 2 campaigns until the population is hitting the higher levels, this way players cannot spread themselves thin, so by default the numbers are more even and more competitive.
At least do this until the campaigns reset, where we have a significant portion of players at higher levels.

Another idea that may not work as well;
Reset the campaigns early! now that the population has matured (not intellectually or emotionally), the numbers flooding into campaigns and guilds looking to seek out early advantages might actually encounter resistance, preventing quick domination of the map.

What do you guys think? What ideas can you put on the table?

Anazasi · May 2014

I concur with you on the reductions of campaigns and actually foresee that happening after the current campaign ends. I would also suggest this. Removing guest campaign option, increasing cost to change campaign and require a 2 or 3 week cool-down on changing campaigns. I think the biggest issue seen on most of the small population campaigns are the weekend zergs when guilds stage guest campaign events.

Cats525 · May 2014

I haven't tried PvP yet in this game, so forgive me if that's already come up or is even already implemented, but if the population in the campaigns is uneven, puting some restrictions on them should help, like for example making it impossible for you to join a campaign in which your alliance already has [put in number here] more people in it than the other alliances. They could then leave one campaign without this restriction, so people can still join one if their alliance dominates all the others.

limeli8 · May 2014

Population means nothing, a hard core pvp guild of like 30-40 vrs can come to campaign that has 1 bar of their pop vs lock of 2 others and turn the tables overnight and in the morning population of the other 2 factions will drop dramatically. I am sure it wont be like that once more people attain high vr rank but for now it is how it is. Also if people are locked into campaigns where they have no hope of winning (other side even with similar numbers has much more skilled players and plays more hours per day or w/e) they'll just ether quit pvp or the game all together.

Diamond_10 · May 2014

Campaigns need to be cut in half, way too many with 1 bar across the board

limeli8 · May 2014

1 bar ones are often the best ones with no huge zergs and actual strategy/tactics involved

casselna_ESO · May 2014

The problem is not population imbalances. This carries weight, mind you, but it really comes down to human nature.

Do you want to join a campaign where you struggle day in and day out and see nothing for your labors? Or do you want to join a campaign that gives you an easy victory?

Most of you *think* you'd choose the latter, but sadly, in reality, you choose the former. If EP has it good on NA goldbrand, many gravitate there. If AD has it good on NA skullcrusher, they will naturally gravitate there.

The problem is, people *want* to win and will go where they will, and no amount of brainstorming will fix this human nature problem.

Another problem you have is: Time zone population imbalances. I know personally that Skullcrusher AD is largely oceanic and takes keeps with no amount of competition at night, vastly skewing the scoring chart scaring off any EP or DC that wish to join (see above reasons).

The problem lies in that competitiveness goes only so far as the first *horde* any one faction encounters. I was almost ruined on PVP when my first experience with it was against a horde of DC sweeping unchallenged and unopposed with 400+ people in skullcrusher, which urged my guild to move on to another campaign...one that was hopefully more balanced. Thankfully, the *horde* moved on and our guild moved back to SC but now, we have AD who is in control of the map 20/7.

The only *solution* I can see to this problem isn't much of one. Someone else already mentioned it, but in all reality, it is the only way to solve this *population imbalancing* issue, and that is to cut the campaigns in half, and wait for them to fill and open new ones as population demands. As new servers open up, a week long guesting period will open up and people can change to the new campaign as their home immediately for the rehoming fee, or guest in the place to check out the scenery (see if crowding might be an issue) and if they remain guested to that campaign for the full week, can opt to choose to that campaign for free at the end of the week. If another week goes by without a response, the guest tag is dropped and you remain in your current home campaign.

jwwputnam_ESO · May 2014

There have been a significant number of discussions and ideas proposed to resolve the issue of the imbalances in AvA/PvP. Ideally, to aid in the discussion, it would be very interesting to see some data from the first 30 days of the Alliance War - things like:
- Alliance Population for each Campaign
- Further definition of Low/Medium/High/Full rankings (exactly the number of players that it takes to change the bar). Asking for actual population counts may be too much.
- Alliance Map Control Percentage
- Overall number of PKs during period with further breakdowns of the classes doing the killing and the number of vampire/werewolf/uncorrupted (non-vamp/non-werewolf) characters.
- Level breakdown by increments of 10 until veteran levels, then increments of 5.

For the alliance information, this could be updated every 10 to 15 minutes instead of real-time OR as server population increased the timer would adjust to reduce the impact to the game.

There is most likely more information that could be provided that could lead to a better understanding of the population imbalances AND character imbalances. Continual calls for nerfing skills really comes from the AvA/PvP game-play and not the PvE and changes to the abilities and how they are used against enemies would have to be evaluated through the entire game, unless the changes to powers are strictly confined to the AvA/PvP system.

If such a change was implemented, power limitations/changes could be noted on the actual ability/passive. This could lead to better fine tuning Cyrodiil without affecting the play in PvE.

Finally, seeing some official comments from Zenimax about what they are aware of and looking to address would be very helpful.

Avidus · May 2014

I believe there is currently a system in place where you get more benefits from attacking the leading alliance.
However I do not believe is scales depending on how much of a lead they have.

If a campaign such as SC has scores like AD 170,000 (figures might be off)
and EP I believe is around the 25,000 mark. Then I think the points for EP attacking AD should be scaled accordingly.

However AD points would have to maintain their value from defeating other players.

This way AD does not lose any incentive to win, they get their points as they should.
But DC and EP who are at a major disadvantage and have no motivation, would then gain a reason to use this campaign.
Let me ask you this;
If you had the choice of joining a campaign where you were at a major disadvantage, but gained x3 of the points, would you join it?

And of course a counter argument is that people will just fight endlessly with no intentions of taking a keep, to maintain their point gain. Well simply add a limitation, you can only gain X amount of extra points if you own X amount of your own alliance territory keeps.
And add a bonus to taking back a keep that is in your alliance territory.

Lucardes · May 2014

You all don't get it. They don't care for PvP players they lied to us. You would think we would hear something by now but no nothing is being done. I joined this game for the PvP/AvA and given the circumstances and the current situation and the outlook they posted they are not addressing this issue. So simply I cancelled my sub. I will check back later

Honfold · May 2014

limeli8 wrote: »

1 bar ones are often the best ones with no huge zergs and actual strategy/tactics involved

Very true, I play in a low pop server and when the other factions are actually out there it is a lot of fun. I think to improve the issues with pvp Zenimax should:
1) reduce the number of campaigns to 3 or 4
2) Allow for a mechanic to make it easier to spawn for defenders and attackers.

Many people may not like the idea of spawning quicker but the travel times between keeps is absolutely ridiculous and this problem has just been made even more frustrating for players who are killed by exploiters. This is what I see as the main failure of their PvP system.

Other games have implemented convenient spawning mechanics like planet side
2. Now planet side 2 is obviously a different game entirely but the "Sunderers" in that game have the same concept of the Siege Camps in ESO.

Mishku · May 2014

Bring it down to four or five separate campaigns.
Enforce restrictions on numbers per faction on a campaign. The following example will use random numbers as I don't know the scale of these campaigns:

If AD has 50 players, EP 40 and DC 45, restrict more AD players from joining until both EP and DC have also hit 50. Do the same at intervals of 50 players from there. This way there will never be difference between factions of greater than 50 (be reminded 50 is a random number).

This will absolutely raise queue times but I'm certain most people would rather deal with that or reroll before quitting.

Additionally, raise the amount of time a player must wait to change campaigns significantly. This will make people put far more consideration into switching and, if nothing else, slow any population drains on a specific campaign. A week would be fair, perhaps with one freebie.

This is very, very simple. Other games have done it. People have complained about queues, but they'll switch factions or servers before canceling their subs. And that's exactly what's happening right now.

maholi · May 2014

Creative thinking would be better here imo. Maybe..
Give incentives to play another campaign. IE once population on your home or guest server seems unbalanced in your favor a pop up notification can offer you a bonus point accumulation for playing on another campaign of the games choice. IE it would choose the campaign that needed you the most. You wouldn't have to go of course. Just incentives to play on other campaigns.

A big NO WAY to a queue system.

Mishku · May 2014

maholi wrote: »

Creative thinking would be better here imo. Maybe..
Give incentives to play another campaign. IE once population on your home or guest server seems unbalanced in your favor a pop up notification can offer you a bonus point accumulation for playing on another campaign of the games choice. IE it would choose the campaign that needed you the most. You wouldn't have to go of course. Just incentives to play on other campaigns.

A big NO WAY to a queue system.

So, bonuses for switching campaigns when you're winning? I can tell you EXACTLY how that's gonna work out.

Everybody's gonna switch as soon as they begin winning, coordinate via zone chat which server they're going to flood.

No, there is NO WAY to do this without forcing population balance. People will always choose to roll on the server they know they can win on.

maholi · May 2014

weibsterb14_ESO wrote: »

maholi wrote: »

Creative thinking would be better here imo. Maybe..
Give incentives to play another campaign. IE once population on your home or guest server seems unbalanced in your favor a pop up notification can offer you a bonus point accumulation for playing on another campaign of the games choice. IE it would choose the campaign that needed you the most. You wouldn't have to go of course. Just incentives to play on other campaigns.

A big NO WAY to a queue system.

So, bonuses for switching campaigns when you're winning? I can tell you EXACTLY how that's gonna work out.

Everybody's gonna switch as soon as they begin winning, coordinate via zone chat which server they're going to flood.

No, there is NO WAY to do this without forcing population balance. People will always choose to roll on the server they know they can win on.

Of the games choice. That is what I said. Not of the players choice.

Avidus · May 2014

Perhaps if you are auto assigned your first campaign, then you buy a transfer with AP to a server of your choice.
Or alternatively you can join a guild and be assigned to their guild campaign.

This way, auto assign can place people into low pop/unbalanced campaigns, then at the same time motivates people to join guilds.

jwwputnam_ESO · May 2014

Another idea would be to add a Challenge Rating for the campaigns. This could be used to reflect the points earned from the "scoreboard" during the past 8/12/or 24 hours. Using this additional information it would be used to indicate alliance shifts in power and thereby given an idea of which campaigns are challenging for players, and reward them based on that system. (The length of time an emperor remains in control (read: days) would also affect the rating.)

Using an 8 hour period for example, an alliance (i.e.: DC) that owns the majority of the map (earning about 2800 points) would earn the normal level of AP while the other two factions would earn at an increased level based on the points earned during that same period. (Say AD earned 400 points, their AP earn rate would be 7 times the normal rate; if EP earned 100 points, their AP earn rate would be 28 times.)

This increased AP earning would encourage shifts to the higher earning campaigns.

Kolur · May 2014

weibsterb14_ESO wrote: »

Bring it down to four or five separate campaigns.

Enforce restrictions on numbers per faction on a campaign. The following example will use random numbers as I don't know the scale of these campaigns:

If AD has 50 players, EP 40 and DC 45, restrict more AD players from joining until both EP and DC have also hit 50. Do the same at intervals of 50 players from there. This way there will never be difference between factions of greater than 50 (be reminded 50 is a random number).

This will absolutely raise queue times but I'm certain most people would rather deal with that or reroll before quitting.

I know you said 50 was random.
But would like to throw In. My guild Is bringing In like 40-70 ppl.
Then we got 8 other allied guilds PvP'ing with us.
They range from 10 to 150 players.
Only 1 of them has 150 PvP'ers. And likewise only 1 has 10.
While the other 6 are around 20-60.

So all In all on an Average event we need space for 250-300 ppl.
That's the whole campaign.
And that's just for not even all of us In this Alliance.

What about all the other guilds? atleast 10 other guilds on Dawnbreaker alone.
4-5 Campaigns simply can't do it. Since my single Guild alliance wouldn't even fit on 1 campaign.

Not to mention. By capping It to, 50 AD 50 DC 50 EP.
That'd make Levels make up everything.
If we got 50 strong AD against 50 strong EP from us.
Both using tactics. But the 50 AD are all V10's
While we are mixed.
Then we need the 100-200 ppl stuck In que.
To come help us cause If they win us In Average level numbers. Then we need the amount of organized PvP'ers numbers.
(Take notice we are working with the theory both 50 man parties are same level of skill & organization and only difference being Levels & Gear. but everything else Is on equal grounds)

But they won't ever be able to join cause there's usually only 10 DC players ever online during night time for example. So we on my campaign. would always be limited to
50 EP, 50 AD, and never would go up since there's only 10 DC players ever online at night time. (Later on nights max 1-2, while EP maintains 15-60)

ofc, If they limit it down to 4-5 Campaigns. That'll fix up the DC dragging down population cap.
But! servers become laggy and FPS drops to 1-10 ( I actually had to play with 3 fps for 16 straight hours due to *** servers) (Not to mention the time I spent a total 7 hours on loadingscreen throughout the whole day)

But with 4-5 campaigns. It means only 4-5K can ever be PvP'ing....
And as I mentioned. My guild alliance alone, If we take total numbers Not just our average per event. Then we alone got around 1500 players. So we alone need
5 Campaigns If we were to fit all of our members.
(Each campaign Is limited to 300 of each faction)
And again as mentioned. We are only like 5% of the total PvP guilds.
So all In all. We cannot reduce the amount of Campaigns.
Without managing to increase their current caps to withstand atleast 1000 players In each faction online at the same time. But then ofcourse we're back to same problem. We'll have 1K EP instantly. But what about the other factions?
on EP. we usually manage 2 bars population even at 3-7 AM EU timezone.
(Nope, we dont got any Americans. just dedicated PvP'ers. Not that hard to sacrifice a few hours of sleep In order to secure complete and utter domination)

maholi · May 2014

Also capping the populations has never worked well in other games I have played. It encourages people to make alts on the opposing faction and macro afk in a corner somewhere to stay online and horde the positions.