SkaraMinoc wrote: »xylena_lazarow wrote: »They're also making the game unplayable for the lower populations of AD/DC who want to be able to log in during those time zones, so it's not just NA players affected. The game needs to stop rewarding this behavior.
They'll send 20+ players after you for taking a mine, lumbermill, etc.
I’m on AD. I’d like to see a better scoring system put in place to deal with population imbalance during off-peak hours. AD being in first place now does not change my opinion on that.
Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »I've proposed this before plenty of times, even opened my own threads on the subject.
But here we go, once more --
Dynamic population locks.
To explain -- Set the locks on the highest pop faction to only 1-3 more people than the lowest population. If people want to not suffer an absolutely disturbingly long queues in the off hours, they will need to spread out evenly amongst the three factions. It's either that ore likely 1-2 hour long queues for the locked faction. As more people for the lower pop factions log in the the lock on the capped faction relaxes more and more.
I, personally, would feel no sympathy for them. Especially certain guilds that have refused, for years, to split up to spread out during the off peak hours where they typically run the map one color or the other. It's been ten years at this point, we know players will NEVER be able to fix this themselves. Only by forcing the issue will things even out.
Everyone should be able to play with a balanced population and a fair chance at winning a fight, no matter when they log in, be it 3 AM Eastern US time or 3 AM Eastern Australian time. No one should spend their play window getting steam rolled by 3 or more times their numbers just because that's when they happen to be able to log in. This is a 24/7 game (minus maintenance windows) and any time period should be viable.
SkaraMinoc wrote: »The best example is PC NA has out-of-region players that log in every night and PvDoor the entire map for 4-6 hours and run up the score. All of the hard work that regional players invested is not only gone but there's no chance of catching up.
Marronsuisse wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »The best example is PC NA has out-of-region players that log in every night and PvDoor the entire map for 4-6 hours and run up the score. All of the hard work that regional players invested is not only gone but there's no chance of catching up.
PC-NA is called PC-NA because the servers are located in North America, not because it's only meant for North Americans. I'm not sure "out-of-region players" is a term that makes sense for a server meant to be used by a global audience.
Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »SNIP for brevity of posts
SkaraMinoc wrote: »xylena_lazarow wrote: »They're also making the game unplayable for the lower populations of AD/DC who want to be able to log in during those time zones, so it's not just NA players affected. The game needs to stop rewarding this behavior.
They'll send 20+ players after you for taking a mine, lumbermill, etc.
You're talking about AD, right? (if on PC NA)
Marronsuisse wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »The best example is PC NA has out-of-region players that log in every night and PvDoor the entire map for 4-6 hours and run up the score. All of the hard work that regional players invested is not only gone but there's no chance of catching up.
PC-NA is called PC-NA because the servers are located in North America, not because it's only meant for North Americans. I'm not sure "out-of-region players" is a term that makes sense for a server meant to be used by a global audience.
So in actual competitive global scale games with world tournaments one wouldn't be allowed on a NA server if you're not from there because there's loads of science behind why this is bad.
Yes, being that a server is located in North America , one would equate that to only being allowed to play from this region again in games that understand the adverse effects of allowing players from other continents to compete. This is considered regional ping exploitation.
The exact science is astronomical to elaborate here but latency is just one factor. Then you have combo dumping bypassing global server side cooldowns.. there is all kinds of things, Those are just two.
So lets talk latency..
If ,I, lets say "BOB" for the sake of this demonstration have a normal resting ping of say 66 and I encounter someone with a resting ping of 300 . What do you think happens to my ping or "Bob's" incurred latency of the encounter ?
Bob's latency increases to 234 ,mine, goes RED notating Bob's is HIGHER THAN NORMAL this is called "Shared Latency"
"jeff" the guy i'm fighting against his will either stay at 300 or go to 234 but will be WHITE notating that his latency is NORMAL
Meaning all jeff's commands will be going through at the normal rate and effecting Bob much faster than intended. Such as casting faster. Or even the ability to get a skill to actually go off. Even jeff appearing to be moving faster than normal on Bob's side of the connection. .
Now what happens to BOB?
Bob notices that jeffs commands are being balled up and hitting him all at one time. Where as Bob will either not be able to hit jeff, because his skills won't fire or worse jeff's character will not register that he is at that location where bob is firing. Because jeff isn't there at the time of the cast. Jeff on his side of the connection, he is behind bob, where as bob sees jeff Infront of him or be side him; in some worst cases.
Lots of people want to equate it to just crappy servers. These things I have provided for your understanding do not help server performance and actually decrease its functionality to process overall population commands. So eventually the entire server suffers the latency.
enjoy
Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »SNIP for brevity of posts
I'll just sum up my response:
I am not persuaded by your counter argument. Neither the large guilds or faction locks deserve to be preserved in any way. It's the same large guilds that have been told and begged and pleaded with to break up and instead laugh in people's faces. They're part of the problem and them having struggles with new dynamic locks isn't a position that I'm willing to bow to. They can break up or sit in queue and suffer. People can have five guilds in this game. They can still stay together and do other activities.
Faction locks were a mistake from day one, but ZOS will never remove them because they've already monetized the faction swap mechanic. Those are stuck in place moving forward. While I agree they should be removed (they should be removed NOW even without other changes), they never will be. This isn't an argument to even consider.
ZOS is NEVER putting in the resources to rebuild the Cyro map. The last changes we got were destructible gates/bridges and adding 3 new outposts. It took YEARS for them to remove the tree outside Glademist you could use to bounce into the keep with. Backend, behind the scenes code is the best we'll get.
If people don't like having to sit in queue instead of ruin someone else's night, they can suffer. They can play on BR or swap factions. They've spent years destroying the playing experiences of others, they can deal with some inconvenience for once.
Faction locks were a mistake from day one, but ZOS will never remove them because they've already monetized the faction swap mechanic. - Agrippa
YES. This started the problem.
The ONLY thing that will balance the problem is to adapt LOCKED faction populations 15/15/15 ... up to 60/60/60 ... 24/7. If a faction starts logging off, the population LOCKS until the other factions have equal numbers. There should never be a 4/2/3. And I mean precise locks. Numbers there instead of those nebulous bars.
I only recently played during prime time when all the ball groups are stacking. It's not worth my time and I'm not going to play at that time again.
I've been silent because I mostly stopped playing, being on winning side of a dead lopsided camp is no fun either. It was literally 6 months in a row (March-August) of extremely lopsided EP nightcap wins, now out of nowhere we get a lopsided AD win. Wonder if the daytime EP all left because they were sick of being "punished" for the nightcapping.Now that the tide has shifted again in AD’s favor, it’s dead silence from AD’s vocal anti-nightcap camp.
xylena_lazarow wrote: »I've been silent because I mostly stopped playing, being on winning side of a dead lopsided camp is no fun either. It was literally 6 months in a row (March-August) of extremely lopsided EP nightcap wins, now out of nowhere we get a lopsided AD win. Wonder if the daytime EP all left because they were sick of being "punished" for the nightcapping.Now that the tide has shifted again in AD’s favor, it’s dead silence from AD’s vocal anti-nightcap camp.
I'm hesitant to switch factions again if I'm just going to end up locked into the high pop zerg anyway. Faction locks are a disgrace. I'm being forced to stay on the side with an 8k lead, doing what exactly? I would've loved to switch to last place EP mid camp. I have no idea what this next camp will look like so I'm staying AD rather than spending all my clowns, really hope it doesn't turn into 6 months of AD doing what EP did.
Minnesinger wrote: »If there could be Cyrodiil 2.0 they could rid of the scoring altogether and replace it with something different.