Alliance War future plans and update!

Luvsfuzzybunnies

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

A lot of these points should also be mentioned in the new combat threads We are aware of the crashing issues and the team of engineers are working on fixes for them as fast as they can. Also note we have a cap of the amount of players that can influence a flag at 6 players since launch but that could always be adjusted if the rate of capture is seemingly too fast/slow.

We're still collecting data about the populations in each of the campaigns (for the US and EU)and will make the decision to introduce a 6th Campaign or convert a current campaign in the future. This will hopefully go in conjunction with the campaign buffs conversion of only getting the buffs of the Campaign you're physically in while playing in Cyrodiil.

There have been discussions about Forward camps as well and currently we're leaning towards having "guild forward camps" where only guildmates can resurrect at a guild forward camp. This would be a new item entirely to go along with the forward camps already in the game. We're still working on getting this nailed down along with other forward camp issues that have lingered.

@ZOS_BrianWheeler‌ so these guild camps there could be any number of them in the same radius as the for everyone camps?

Mendoze

I played a lot of PVP last weekend, and noticed a lot of non-veteran players in the 7 days campaign I've been playing in ( EU AD side ). Of course that's a great sign that new players are coming to the game, but in the same time it's quite annoying for veteran players, since none of these non-veterans ever seem to have a forward camp, and lets be honest, they die a lot against veterans. So is it possible that non-veterans would only take 0.5 from forward camp's spawn limit, and they couldn't use the last spawn chance, so it wouldn't be so costly to have low level players on your side?

That being said, I do understand that non-veterans don't want to invest 7k for a forward camp, since most of them are still saving for the PVP gear, but it's unfair for veterans to pay the bill all the time, and also on top of that lose sieges because non-veteran uses the last spawn chance from the existing camp. So could you consider this kind of change?

Micanet

I love the idea that was written by couchkyle25_ESO, that inspired me to come up with this kind of solution.

First of all we all hate the "Busses" "Trains" "MegaZergs" and what ever named they are given, but we are on the other hand all forced to make them, to win a fight, it's my opinion that this destroys the game, it also makes everything lag, and crashes.

I want it to importent to own a keep, a resource field and not just something that has to be done to make a safe travel route for the scrolls.

So my thoughts to improve the PVP experience is like this:

As written by couchkyle25_ESO, there should be a techtree for each keep, a techtree that activates as soon as a guild claims the keep. On the techtree we have a Defensive weapon line, a Keep upgrade line and maybe a third line that
could be surroundings line.

As soon as the guild starts a research of lets say Mega Ballista towers, then a caravan starts off from one of the home keeps, at this research, the caravan is ofcause transporting stones, it could very well be to build a Mega ballista tower
you would need 5-10 runs of stones from the homekeep. This transport should be visible on the map, like the Elderscrolls are. And Ocause these transports can be robbed or destroyed by the other fractions.

You should be able to build four mega ballista towers one i each corner of the castle, these mega ballistas ofcause have a longer range, than the ordinary ones and they also makes a bigger explosion, causing more damage. But for the ballistas to be able to fire, they should be manned by 4-5 players this meaning if you have been able to build all four towers and want them all to be able to fire at the same time, you need 16-20 players.

What else could be in the keep upgrade line, well we can all agree that the walls are to weak, so it should be possible to make double walls, iron gates, and there are many other things that can be done to make a keep stronger.

Then we have the Defensive Weapon line, Mega ballistas, mega oilpots, firepots on the walls to make archers set fire on their arrows, and again there are many possibilities. Not to forget again the caravans is needed, a mega ballista is something that should be assembled in a Mega Ballista tower, so could be that it could take 3 runs from the home keep to the given keep.

Now the Surroundings line, well this could be something like, improving the roads to make the caravan travel a bit faster but again it also make anyone else runs faster, palisades around the Resources it could be the possibility of a moat or maybe some other cool stuff.

This should cover the keep, now we have the Lumbermill, Mine and Farm. These places also needs a unique techtree.

Lets say a Lumbermill owned by a guild can produce, transportable Mega ballistas, siegetowers, ladders, moatbridges, better rams that can withstand more oil and being able to destroy the steelgates. these items can't be stacked in your bag, these items have to be transported on the road/terrain and ofcause there is terrain penalty/bonus for transporting these on the roads or the grass areas. But the lumbermill can produce these things to have in a stockhouse, that could be pillaged or maybe even burned down. But again, if someone comes to steal them, then its the same they have to be transported so one player one item, and these items when transported should be visible on the map, so players can attack them.

Could also be that the Lumbermill was the one that could build a Palisade around the resources, then the mine that could build the uniqe siege weapons and the farm is responsible for the speed, that these things can be build.

If any guild should be able to complete a techtree before the keep/resource is taken by one of the other fractions, then the techtree ofcause goes back to zero, and all reasearch have to start over.

These ideas are spawned in my head, to make it more interesting to be a part of a guild, to make a guild more interested in the PVP section, to make the fractions work better together against each other, to make people use the lovely terrain that this game provides, to make war more fun and to make wars at many other spots than only at the keeps/bridges/gates/resources.

And finally camps, aint needed, it is possible to upgrade the speed on our horses, so let that be the way to travel and not some magically spawncamp.

Remember this is just my ideas after having read what couchkyle25_ESO wrote earlier, and there is alot of polishing to be done if something like this should ever be possible, and no I aint born in any English speaking country, so it's possible that i have made some spelling and grammatic errors.

See you on the battlefield.

ZOS_BrianWheeler

AE Caps are within the combat team's domain to adjust and not the PVP team. They are aware of the concerns and proposals you all have posted and are looking at various options and there will be an update provided when a solution is in place

Nermy

Micanet wrote: »

I love the idea that was written by couchkyle25_ESO, that inspired me to come up with this kind of solution.

First of all we all hate the "Busses" "Trains" "MegaZergs" and what ever named they are given, but we are on the other hand all forced to make them, to win a fight, it's my opinion that this destroys the game, it also makes everything lag, and crashes.

I want it to importent to own a keep, a resource field and not just something that has to be done to make a safe travel route for the scrolls.

So my thoughts to improve the PVP experience is like this:

As written by couchkyle25_ESO, there should be a techtree for each keep, a techtree that activates as soon as a guild claims the keep. On the techtree we have a Defensive weapon line, a Keep upgrade line and maybe a third line that
could be surroundings line.

As soon as the guild starts a research of lets say Mega Ballista towers, then a caravan starts off from one of the home keeps, at this research, the caravan is ofcause transporting stones, it could very well be to build a Mega ballista tower
you would need 5-10 runs of stones from the homekeep. This transport should be visible on the map, like the Elderscrolls are. And Ocause these transports can be robbed or destroyed by the other fractions.

You should be able to build four mega ballista towers one i each corner of the castle, these mega ballistas ofcause have a longer range, than the ordinary ones and they also makes a bigger explosion, causing more damage. But for the ballistas to be able to fire, they should be manned by 4-5 players this meaning if you have been able to build all four towers and want them all to be able to fire at the same time, you need 16-20 players.

What else could be in the keep upgrade line, well we can all agree that the walls are to weak, so it should be possible to make double walls, iron gates, and there are many other things that can be done to make a keep stronger.

Then we have the Defensive Weapon line, Mega ballistas, mega oilpots, firepots on the walls to make archers set fire on their arrows, and again there are many possibilities. Not to forget again the caravans is needed, a mega ballista is something that should be assembled in a Mega Ballista tower, so could be that it could take 3 runs from the home keep to the given keep.

Now the Surroundings line, well this could be something like, improving the roads to make the caravan travel a bit faster but again it also make anyone else runs faster, palisades around the Resources it could be the possibility of a moat or maybe some other cool stuff.

This should cover the keep, now we have the Lumbermill, Mine and Farm. These places also needs a unique techtree.

Lets say a Lumbermill owned by a guild can produce, transportable Mega ballistas, siegetowers, ladders, moatbridges, better rams that can withstand more oil and being able to destroy the steelgates. these items can't be stacked in your bag, these items have to be transported on the road/terrain and ofcause there is terrain penalty/bonus for transporting these on the roads or the grass areas. But the lumbermill can produce these things to have in a stockhouse, that could be pillaged or maybe even burned down. But again, if someone comes to steal them, then its the same they have to be transported so one player one item, and these items when transported should be visible on the map, so players can attack them.

Could also be that the Lumbermill was the one that could build a Palisade around the resources, then the mine that could build the uniqe siege weapons and the farm is responsible for the speed, that these things can be build.

If any guild should be able to complete a techtree before the keep/resource is taken by one of the other fractions, then the techtree ofcause goes back to zero, and all reasearch have to start over.

These ideas are spawned in my head, to make it more interesting to be a part of a guild, to make a guild more interested in the PVP section, to make the fractions work better together against each other, to make people use the lovely terrain that this game provides, to make war more fun and to make wars at many other spots than only at the keeps/bridges/gates/resources.

And finally camps, aint needed, it is possible to upgrade the speed on our horses, so let that be the way to travel and not some magically spawncamp.

Remember this is just my ideas after having read what couchkyle25_ESO wrote earlier, and there is alot of polishing to be done if something like this should ever be possible, and no I aint born in any English speaking country, so it's possible that i have made some spelling and grammatic errors.

See you on the battlefield.

I'd say you have a completely new game there... I'd give it a name and trademark it!

(Good ideas...)

FENGRUSH

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AE Caps are within the combat team's domain to adjust and not the PVP team. They are aware of the concerns and proposals you all have posted and are looking at various options and there will be an updated provided when a solution is in place

Who can we actually reach out to or discuss anything with on the combat team on the forums? They just recently added a combat + skills section on forum. This seems like a dumping ground for complaints that you want deflected.

Its nice theres something planned, the current model isnt working. But communication is helpful and might prevent more subs from slipping.

synnerman

Where are the Devs on this forum who are part of that combat team Brian. Just read the patch notes and nothing to stop this farce. Pls inform them that we want some communication from them.

sirjohndeluxeb16_ESO

i don't like today's 1.4 pts patch notes in terms of pvp gameplay.
i want to know: how long do i have to wait until...

... nightblade's cloak will work.
... zergballs won't cause server lags & rollbacks.
... batswarmers will be as good/bad as human characters.
... medium/heavy armor specs will be viable.
... etc etc

people are discussing a few big issues in a few big threads and none of those issues will be adressed. please make an announcement already!

frwinters_ESO

With snipe becoming even more powerful, my medium armor stamina spec will be even more powerful muhahahahaha! One shot snips while marked, best be prepared.

trimsic_ESO

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

With snipe becoming even more powerful, my medium armor stamina spec will be even more powerful muhahahahaha! One shot snips while marked, best be prepared.

True, but once again this is not going to the right direction. This is enforcing one more time the ranged attacks, while the actual issue is melee attacks done with dual wields and 2 handed weapons.

I'd like to understand the rationale that drives these decisions...
- ranged attacks > melee attacks
- stamina for dodge, block, sprint, interrupt, CC break, ... with no enough stamina left for melee attacks

This is making no sense.

Sarousse

Why the hell would I go in melee range with a 2h (or DW) to die in a few seconds and deal very low damage because of EVERYONE IS EQUIPPED WITH A SHIELD AND BLOCKING WHILE CASTING (add batswarms if they're vampire) when I can just spam 1.1k bolts from safe distance ?

So ZoS PvP Leaders ? Why would I ?

Lilarna

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

Guest Pass/Jump-to-Player – Being that ESO is an MMO, adding limits to when/where I can play with friends is a key issue we’re aware. That’s why the Jump-to-Player option is currently allowed to enter Cyrodiil. It’s our belief that allowing players to group up and play together is one of the most important aspects of an MMO, and removing the capability to jump to your friends or use a guest pass would be detrimental. That being said, with the Campaign Home Buffs being adjusted to Local Campaigns only in the future as well as introducing more campaigns options, this will hopefully cut down on the Jump-to-Player/Guest Pass abuse.

Hello there !

If I may, the fact that you use the term "hopefully" reveals the flaw in this position somehow. Doesn't it seem that hope alone that can make believe that this "abuse" will end ? People don't stop abusing something when they can do it, daily, repeatedly, with no sanction whatsoever.

I guess I don't need to get into a lengthy explanation of how this issue totally unbalances a campaign. People can come out of nowhere and zerg over a place where they never spend time in usually. It seems like this is truly ruining pvp for a lot of people, as for example for underdogs who try to fight with much effort and are invested in their campaign, and see it ruined daily by this Jump-to-Player/Guest Pass abuse...

Xsorus

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AE Caps are within the combat team's domain to adjust and not the PVP team. They are aware of the concerns and proposals you all have posted and are looking at various options and there will be an updated provided when a solution is in place

That actually explains a lot.

ThyIronFist

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AE Caps are within the combat team's domain to adjust and not the PVP team. They are aware of the concerns and proposals you all have posted and are looking at various options and there will be an update provided when a solution is in place

You said almost the exact same thing 3 weeks ago. Must be some very long discussions that the Combat Team is having then... Sorry to be this blunt, but apparently adding new vanity pets is more important than trying to fix a game that is already suffering.

frwinters_ESO

trimsic_ESO wrote: »

frwinters_ESO wrote: »

With snipe becoming even more powerful, my medium armor stamina spec will be even more powerful muhahahahaha! One shot snips while marked, best be prepared.

True, but once again this is not going to the right direction. This is enforcing one more time the ranged attacks, while the actual issue is melee attacks done with dual wields and 2 handed weapons.

I'd like to understand the rationale that drives these decisions...
- ranged attacks > melee attacks
- stamina for dodge, block, sprint, interrupt, CC break, ... with no enough stamina left for melee attacks

This is making no sense.

You make sense. the majority of the most devastating abilities out there are Aoe's. If i see a suspected Dragonknight, I'm staying away cause I know he wants to get into melee to drop that standard. Then with the impulse waves im nto getting anywhere near that mess. I usually hate ranged combat, but with all these AoE abilities melee is tough..

Rune_Relic

ThyIronFist wrote: »

ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »

AE Caps are within the combat team's domain to adjust and not the PVP team. They are aware of the concerns and proposals you all have posted and are looking at various options and there will be an update provided when a solution is in place

You said almost the exact same thing 3 weeks ago. Must be some very long discussions that the Combat Team is having then... Sorry to be this blunt, but apparently adding new vanity pets is more important than trying to fix a game that is already suffering.

Or it might mean major changes need to take places so are having a long and thought out debate.
Will it solve the issues completely ?
If not is the pain worth the gain ?
Can a bodge work just as well or simply cant cut it ?
What happens to the characters people have invested 1000s of hours in if they completely change the system ?
Whats the most painless way to move to this new system ?

All of this is tied up with Champion system, and update 5 combat mechanics IMHO.
So yes....it is bloody annoying we dont know what the hell is going on and being kept in the dark...but perhaps its because massive changes require that until final decisions are made....all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed.

Krinaman

If you don't fix the population imbalances it's not going to matter. You won't have anyone left playing. Players are only going to log into PvP so many times to see that a certain faction night capped everything taking all 6 scrolls so many times before they say screw it.

Mumyo

Hey Wheels,
I don't believe that anything will happen in near future. Why is that?

Keron

Can we think about changing from Low Pop Bonus to High Pop Malus? Instead of granting the lower pop faction a bonus (which will do nothing for night capping), reduce the amount of points gained by a faction with significantly higher pop. Don't do that only if "the faction has significantly higher pop for a longer period", do it immediately.

As soon as one faction has more than 10% more players than the average of the two other factions, start reducing the faction points. If one faction has more than 100% more players than the average of the two other factions (has same pop as other two combined), faction point generation is zero. Make the in-between follow an exponential behaviour.

And completely get rid of the low pop bonus for faction points - it's useless anyways. What we see now is that the timer for bonus gets reset every evening at prime time (Thornblade EU talking here) because all factions are pop capped. Only us (EP) have a night crew running, so EP leads by some 50k faction points. Ridiculous.

Yes, with the high pop malus you can still nightcap, yes you can still have emp for the most time, yes you can still farm individual APs. But you can't take your faction to a double points lead on faction points.

demonlkojipub19_ESO

Evarwyn wrote: »

"We’re also looking to add more Alliance-specific gear to give more options for individual identity to the Aldmeri, Ebonheart and Daggerfall communities."

Does this mean more PvP specific gear?

PvP/PvE specific gear only creates a divide between the content and the community, as this type of gear becomes more prevalent in the game. I disagree with this move.

Everything else sounds great though. Keep up the great work and thank you!

Would be better if they create alliance motifs so people can craft or transform gear (like imp edition can to imp style) in the style.

Rune_Relic

Keron wrote: »

Can we think about changing from Low Pop Bonus to High Pop Malus? Instead of granting the lower pop faction a bonus (which will do nothing for night capping), reduce the amount of points gained by a faction with significantly higher pop. Don't do that only if "the faction has significantly higher pop for a longer period", do it immediately.

As soon as one faction has more than 10% more players than the average of the two other factions, start reducing the faction points. If one faction has more than 100% more players than the average of the two other factions (has same pop as other two combined), faction point generation is zero. Make the in-between follow an exponential behaviour.

And completely get rid of the low pop bonus for faction points - it's useless anyways. What we see now is that the timer for bonus gets reset every evening at prime time (Thornblade EU talking here) because all factions are pop capped. Only us (EP) have a night crew running, so EP leads by some 50k faction points. Ridiculous.

Yes, with the high pop malus you can still nightcap, yes you can still have emp for the most time, yes you can still farm individual APs. But you can't take your faction to a double points lead on faction points.

Actually sound like a brilliant idea to me. So population is....
EP = 2000
DC = 1200
AD = 850

EP points = x (( (2000+1200+850)/3) / 2000) = 0.675x AP
DC points = x (( (2000+1200+850)/3) / 1200) = 1.125x AP
AD points = x (( (2000+1200+850)/3) / 850) = 1.588x AP

That way the AD would get double the Alliance Points of EP because there population is so crippled.
eg. 850/2000 x 1.588 = 0.675

Might be better to have a slight change on the cap though.
Instead of alliance cap....you'd need zone cap.
That way the average population and AP multiplier remains consistent.
You would also need to factor in the error when under populated.


..of course if the alliance cap is 2000 you could say Zone cap is 6000 and just deal with it that way. Defo doable IMHO anyway. In its most simple form then..
eg. alliance cap (2000) / faction population = AP multiplier.
EP = 2000/2000 = 1x AP
DC = 2000/1200 = 1.67x AP
AD = 2000/850 = 2.35x AP

Keron

@Rune_Relic
I woudn't use the low pop bonus from your calc example. a bonus can always be exploited somehow. Limit it to reduction for higher pop and only apply to the faction with highest pop. The two other factions generate points normally without any modification.

Also one of the central points I tried to make is that magnitude of deduction should not be linear progression, because that would penalise short term fluctuations too severely. Make it

Points received = 100%-(percentage over 
   [average of both low pop factions] to the power of 2)

That gives a nice curve with the right tendency. You only got a few peeps more - almost no deduction. You got plenty peeps more - baaaaam, half as efficient. You got double pop? zero points.

Fiddling with the power coefficient of above formula allows you to adjust at what point and with which progression the deduction applies. With 2, you have no deduction up to ~10% over average, 50% deduction if you are at 80% over average, and 100% deduction if you are at 100% over average. For sure that would need some further tuning, but I think the intention is clear.

Rune_Relic

Keron wrote: »

@Rune_Relic
I woudn't use the low pop bonus from your calc example. a bonus can always be exploited somehow. Limit it to reduction for higher pop and only apply to the faction with highest pop. The two other factions generate points normally without any modification.

Also one of the central points I tried to make is that magnitude of deduction should not be linear progression, because that would penalise short term fluctuations too severely. Make it

Points received = 100%-(percentage over 
   [average of both low pop factions] to the power of 2)

That gives a nice curve with the right tendency. You only got a few peeps more - almost no deduction. You got plenty peeps more - baaaaam, half as efficient. You got double pop? zero points.

Fiddling with the power coefficient of above formula allows you to adjust at what point and with which progression the deduction applies. With 2, you have no deduction up to ~10% over average, 50% deduction if you are at 80% over average, and 100% deduction if you are at 100% over average. For sure that would need some further tuning, but I think the intention is clear.

So you want to penalise high populations rather than enhance lower populations ? I think that's what you mean by exploiting potential.
Probably make a good debate that one.

Should faction A with half the population of faction B get double the AP ?
I would say yes....but then you can get some seriously rapid PVP levelling going on. Do we want pople levelling at double the rate or more ? What happens if the ratio is 10:1 ?

So yeah ..exploit wise you could only do it by separating character progression from leaderboard and war points. You can only do that with two point systems.
One for war tables and one for character progression.

Keron

Rune_Relic wrote: »

So you want to penalise high populations rather than enhance lower populations ? I think that's what you mean by exploiting potential.

Exactly.

But I think of it rather in Faction Points than in individual player Alliance Points. Maybe combine the two.

Enhance individual points for faster player rank progression for low pop factions but retain normal faction point generation. Penalize faction point generation for high pop factions but retain normal player AP generation.

That could actually work out fine. Just have to limit the individual rank point bonus to maybe 20% more than normal while the high pop faction "faction point" penalty would be 100%.

EDIT: Also, I'd strongly discourage from thinking of a two-faction-situation as a basis. The faction point penalty should apply to the one faction which has a higher pop than the average of the two lower pop factions. The individual AP bonus should apply to both lower pop factions, but magnitude needs to be based on the difference between high pop faction and the average of the two low pop factions for both of them.

Both mechanisms should have a grace range, where there IS a slight imbalance but which does not yet result in penalty/bonus (like 10% of the average pop of the two low pop factions).

And all should be done based on actual pop numbers in real time. The calculation is pretty basic, so it should not put a significant load on the server hardware.

Sharee

Mendoze wrote: »

I played a lot of PVP last weekend, and noticed a lot of non-veteran players in the 7 days campaign I've been playing in ( EU AD side ). Of course that's a great sign that new players are coming to the game, but in the same time it's quite annoying for veteran players, since none of these non-veterans ever seem to have a forward camp, and lets be honest, they die a lot against veterans. So is it possible that non-veterans would only take 0.5 from forward camp's spawn limit, and they couldn't use the last spawn chance, so it wouldn't be so costly to have low level players on your side?

That being said, I do understand that non-veterans don't want to invest 7k for a forward camp, since most of them are still saving for the PVP gear, but it's unfair for veterans to pay the bill all the time, and also on top of that lose sieges because non-veteran uses the last spawn chance from the existing camp. So could you consider this kind of change?

Either this, or make spawning at a forward camp only use up a charge if the player spawning there is above a certain pvp level (for example sergeant and above)

Merlight

Keron wrote: »

@Rune_Relic
I woudn't use the low pop bonus from your calc example. a bonus can always be exploited somehow. Limit it to reduction for higher pop and only apply to the faction with highest pop. The two other factions generate points normally without any modification.

There's a pathological case lurking in your scheme. If one faction is practically absent, and the other two have similar pop, the higher would be penalized greatly for no reason. Not very likely, but still not fair.

What do you think about weighting all factions' point gains based on population ratio?

DC multiplier = ((AD + EP) / (AD + EP + DC * Z + Y)) ** X

You can shape the curve by choosing sensible values for X, Y and Z.

Keron

Merlight wrote: »

There's a pathological case lurking in your scheme. If one faction is practically absent, and the other two have similar pop, the higher would be penalized greatly for no reason. Not very likely, but still not fair.

I see your point. Maybe include a sanity check to prevent it.

Step one: Check whether the difference between absolute pop of (highest pop faction) and average pop of (the two highest pop factions) deviates by less than 10% of the (average pop of the two high pop factions). If yes, don't apply deduction. If no, proceed to step two.

Step two: Check whether the difference between absolute pop of (medium pop faction) and average pop of (the two lowest pop factions) deviates by more than 50% of the (absolute pop of the lowest pop faction). If yes, calculate deduction for (highest pop faction) based on the difference between (absolute pop of highest pop) and (average pop of the two highest pop factions). If no, proceed to step three.

Step three: As described before, check whether the difference between absolute pop of (highest pop faction) and the average of (the two lowest pop factions) deviates by more than 10% of the (average pop of the two lowest pop factions). If yes, calculate the deduction for highest pop faction based on difference between absolute pop of (highest pop faction) and average pop of (the two lowest pop factions). If no, back to no deduction.

Woah, baby, it's getting complicated. @Merlight, give me some time to think about your formula. But generally, I would tend to only penalize the highest pop faction and not modify the two "underdogs".

That is also @Rune_Relic, after some additional thought I would not include any kind of bonus for low pop factions in any case, personal or faction wise. Too much room for exploitation - imagine a coordinated 20-man train getting into a campaign that has their faction severly underpopulated and then just going for AP farming at a ressource tower... a behaviour that shouldn't be supported in any way.

Rune_Relic

Keron wrote: »

That is also @Rune_Relic, after some additional thought I would not include any kind of bonus for low pop factions in any case, personal or faction wise. Too much room for exploitation - imagine a coordinated 20-man train getting into a campaign that has their faction severly underpopulated and then just going for AP farming at a ressource tower... a behaviour that shouldn't be supported in any way.

Yep...could be a big problem for AP farming zerg balls...unless you wiped them out with the superior numbers. Shouldn't take it for granted with the current state of play though.

demonlkojipub19_ESO

Ok I think the whole way the population counter in cyrodil is the major part of the spreading out problem. It only shows who is in cyrodil at the time, but there are no reins on how many can even be assigned to a cyrodil server.

The servers, and population meter, need to be changed to an assignment based population lock, Limiting how many people can set the place as their home or guest server.

For a normal server, there current lock limit should = the assignment limit, and add a limit of 50 guests. This will allow people to see the true number of each alliance trying to play on that server as well. There can be 2 population meters, one for showing how many are assigned and one the current one for showing how many are there right now.

There should come back new servers that have lower limits. These ones would also have less keep guards or reduced keep guard strength/hp, have their limits set to 70 Home, 20 Guest, and possibly have 1 less central keep/fort/castle in each alliance area. It would serve as a smaller scale cyrodil war for those who want to avoid the giant 200 player zerg trains that occur on the big servers.

People who set a server as their home or guest will at no time be unable to enter the server they choose, while things will spread out more.

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Keron wrote: »

Can we think about changing from Low Pop Bonus to High Pop Malus? Instead of granting the lower pop faction a bonus (which will do nothing for night capping), reduce the amount of points gained by a faction with significantly higher pop. Don't do that only if "the faction has significantly higher pop for a longer period", do it immediately.

As soon as one faction has more than 10% more players than the average of the two other factions, start reducing the faction points. If one faction has more than 100% more players than the average of the two other factions (has same pop as other two combined), faction point generation is zero. Make the in-between follow an exponential behaviour.

And completely get rid of the low pop bonus for faction points - it's useless anyways. What we see now is that the timer for bonus gets reset every evening at prime time (Thornblade EU talking here) because all factions are pop capped. Only us (EP) have a night crew running, so EP leads by some 50k faction points. Ridiculous.

Yes, with the high pop malus you can still nightcap, yes you can still have emp for the most time, yes you can still farm individual APs. But you can't take your faction to a double points lead on faction points.

Actually sound like a brilliant idea to me. So population is....
EP = 2000
DC = 1200
AD = 850

EP points = x (( (2000+1200+850)/3) / 2000) = 0.675x AP
DC points = x (( (2000+1200+850)/3) / 1200) = 1.125x AP
AD points = x (( (2000+1200+850)/3) / 850) = 1.588x AP

That way the AD would get double the Alliance Points of EP because there population is so crippled.
eg. 850/2000 x 1.588 = 0.675

Might be better to have a slight change on the cap though.
Instead of alliance cap....you'd need zone cap.
That way the average population and AP multiplier remains consistent.
You would also need to factor in the error when under populated.


..of course if the alliance cap is 2000 you could say Zone cap is 6000 and just deal with it that way. Defo doable IMHO anyway. In its most simple form then..
eg. alliance cap (2000) / faction population = AP multiplier.
EP = 2000/2000 = 1x AP
DC = 2000/1200 = 1.67x AP
AD = 2000/850 = 2.35x AP

This is a more mathematically in-depth description of something I posted. This is exactly what I was talking about. Except, the weakness of it is it doesn't help much if your alliance is outnumbered more than 2 to 1. Would still have great trouble getting those alliance points if the zerg mows you down. It would just slow down their AP gains for stacking is all.

They should still have an alliance cap rather than zone cap, or else 5000 of one alliance could join the server, leaving only 3000 split between the other 2, with little hope of getting the numbers you need. I think the alliance cap should have been how many people selected it as their Home server, not how many people are currently there. That will also give home setters priority over guesters, namely ones guesting from any empty servers all buffed up.


On another note, I came here to say I think they should also Increase the amount of AP earned towards buying siege equipment and such, especially for successfully capturing an objective, but without raising the points earned on the scoreboard. AP for buying and AP for scoreboard should be separated if they already aren't, but I haven't noticed any separation.

Mainly because many people will either be selfish and use their AP on boxes for equipment, or buy vital siege equipment like Forward camps. and there simply aren't enough people buying the siege equipment. I still see a lot of Flame ballistas and fire trebuchet used for hitting walls and posterns when they should be plain ballistas and stone trebuchet, because those ones have the option to cost gold instead of AP. And normal ballistas for some reason cost 600 more than other ballistas, when you need those for sieging the most.

They should increase the current kill AP by 50%, and the objective capture AP by 150%, but have the scoreboard gains by those unaffected.

DaisyK

IcyDeadPeople wrote: »

you can level to VR12 through PVE in less than a week.

I have been playing since the beginning and i still have no clue how people level up so fast in pve


About the population issue.. wouldn't it be possible to have a handicap system, if you're outnumbered by one or two bars, a temporary buff could be given to the entire underdog faction to level the field.. and as soon as you reach the same population that buff would disapear.