Dynamic population caps are needed.

Agrippa_Invisus

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

1. im NOT going to sit in an hour que
2. im NOT going to re-roll another faction because i dont want to let alone feel the desire to grind several weeks to get another viable pvp toon.
3. im NOT going to PVE because i ONLY play ESO for the pvp.

so.....IF Zenimas "Forces" things the way you suggest i along with many other players would simply migrate to another game that we can enjoy.

Or you could migrate to another campaign, one where your faction does not have long queues. EP isn't overpopulated on all of them.

that statement was in response to Agrippa's "Force" population redistribution comment. In that case a camp jump would not be possible. atm i play in chil where i experience no ques.

Using Chillrend as an example -- with dynamic queuing EP would be just fine. There'd likely never (or super rarely) be a queue for them based on current population balances.

That DC team that flips the map every night though would likely only see a few of their members able to get in. They could then either a) queue and wait or b) go help DC on another server where their is no queue if they insist on pvping.

Sphinx2318

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

1. im NOT going to sit in an hour que
2. im NOT going to re-roll another faction because i dont want to let alone feel the desire to grind several weeks to get another viable pvp toon.
3. im NOT going to PVE because i ONLY play ESO for the pvp.

so.....IF Zenimas "Forces" things the way you suggest i along with many other players would simply migrate to another game that we can enjoy.

Or you could migrate to another campaign, one where your faction does not have long queues. EP isn't overpopulated on all of them.

that statement was in response to Agrippa's "Force" population redistribution comment. In that case a camp jump would not be possible. atm i play in chil where i experience no ques.

Using Chillrend as an example -- with dynamic queuing EP would be just fine. There'd likely never (or super rarely) be a queue for them based on current population balances.

That DC team that flips the map every night though would likely only see a few of their members able to get in. They could then either a) queue and wait or b) go help DC on another server where their is no queue if they insist on pvping.

You know i don't disagree with the overall sentiment of your idea. I'm with ya in chill every day and we fight hard only to lose all to the night caps. It is definitely getting annoying and there is definitely a population issue across PvP servers right now. Things seem to have not balanced out since the Thornblade exodus. Im just not sure what the best direction at the moment is in regards to fixing this. I always caution drastic measures as the first move.

Sharee

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

1. im NOT going to sit in an hour que
2. im NOT going to re-roll another faction because i dont want to let alone feel the desire to grind several weeks to get another viable pvp toon.
3. im NOT going to PVE because i ONLY play ESO for the pvp.

so.....IF Zenimas "Forces" things the way you suggest i along with many other players would simply migrate to another game that we can enjoy.

Or you could migrate to another campaign, one where your faction does not have long queues. EP isn't overpopulated on all of them.

that statement was in response to Agrippa's "Force" population redistribution comment. In that case a camp jump would not be possible. atm i play in chil where i experience no ques.

There is nothing forced about dynamic caps, except forcing you to face long queues if you don't move.

frozywozy

Not sure why people answer when someone post a complain thread not constructive at all regarding a subject, but when I posted it yesterday with alot of details and arguments with possible solutions, I almost got no reply from it. Kinda disappointing. Makes me think that people reply only to complain but not to actually try to work their brain and help ZOS fix the problem.

Anyway if you want to see and post your ideas, I invite you to read my own thread about it : link

Sharee

frozywozy wrote: »

Not sure why people answer when someone post a complain thread not constructive at all regarding a subject, but when I posted it yesterday with as many details and arguments possible with possible solutions, I almost got no reply from it. Kinda disappointing. Makes me think that people reply only to complain but not to actually try to work their brain and help ZOS fix the problem.

Anyway if you want to see and post your ideas, I invite you to read my own thread about it : link

As for the thread not being constructive - you probably are not aware, but dynamic caps are not a new concept. They already were debated at length in the past, even the devs are aware of it. Thus the OP did not elaborate yet again, just reminded ZOS that the problem still exists.

frozywozy

Sharee wrote: »

frozywozy wrote: »

Not sure why people answer when someone post a complain thread not constructive at all regarding a subject, but when I posted it yesterday with as many details and arguments possible with possible solutions, I almost got no reply from it. Kinda disappointing. Makes me think that people reply only to complain but not to actually try to work their brain and help ZOS fix the problem.

Anyway if you want to see and post your ideas, I invite you to read my own thread about it : link

As for the thread not being constructive - you probably are not aware, but dynamic caps are not a new concept. They already were debated at length in the past, even the devs are aware of it. Thus the OP did not elaborate yet again, just reminded ZOS that the problem still exists.

There are several other options without necessary going for dynamic caps. Read my thread if you want to know more about it. But yes I agree that sometimes ZOS need a reminder and it is exactly why I posted a constructive thread about the same exact subject yesterday.

Nahz

Psilent wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Psilent wrote: »

Dynamic population locks will cause more problems than they solve.

They cannot possibly cause a bigger problem than this:

EIGHTS wrote: »

If this status continue, everyone will leave Cyrodiil.

---

Psilent wrote: »

If you want competition, go to another campaign.

You mean the one that is completely blue?

This is a global problem.

They need to open up a experimental 14 day dynamic population campaign. Keep the others the way they are currently. See how it works.

I agree with this idea; I don't see any reason to not test out this feature. I would definitely encourage my PVP guild to participate in the experiment.

I would recommend adding 30 day and 7 day test campaigns (or even just multiple 14 day campaigns) as well. My concern with having only one test campaign is that if many players flock to that campaign, it may skew the results. By adding more than one test campaign, players could spread out; similar to how they currently spread out among the 30-day, 14-day, 7-day, and non-vet campaigns.

Now you could argue that multiple test campaigns could open the door for each alliance to dominate one particular campaign ("test buff servers" if you will). Wouldn't that be exactly what we want to see, though? It would be a great opportunity to see if dynamic populations would indeed counter population imbalances.

This would also give us a little something to do while waiting for console release.

Mr. @ZOS_BrianWheeler, what are your thoughts?

Sphinx2318

Sharee wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

Sphinx2318 wrote: »

1. im NOT going to sit in an hour que
2. im NOT going to re-roll another faction because i dont want to let alone feel the desire to grind several weeks to get another viable pvp toon.
3. im NOT going to PVE because i ONLY play ESO for the pvp.

so.....IF Zenimas "Forces" things the way you suggest i along with many other players would simply migrate to another game that we can enjoy.

Or you could migrate to another campaign, one where your faction does not have long queues. EP isn't overpopulated on all of them.

that statement was in response to Agrippa's "Force" population redistribution comment. In that case a camp jump would not be possible. atm i play in chil where i experience no ques.

There is nothing forced about dynamic caps, except forcing you to face long queues if you don't move.

just LOL you cuz you're not getting it

Hypertionb14_ESO

Steps.


1. Add mutliple New Campaigns
2. Add a teir Lock system, keeping the numbers within 24 players equality (a full raid) after the first 48

this will prevent this sort of massive overpopulating of one side, but it will also mean that a guild can effectively monopolize a campaign easier.

the end result is either even massive numbers, or campaigns where just a few guilds have it out at each other.. more variety in the PvP.

Agrippa_Invisus

Hypertionb14_ESO wrote: »

Steps.


1. Add mutliple New Campaigns
2. Add a teir Lock system, keeping the numbers within 24 players equality (a full raid) after the first 48

this will prevent this sort of massive overpopulating of one side, but it will also mean that a guild can effectively monopolize a campaign easier.

the end result is either even massive numbers, or campaigns where just a few guilds have it out at each other.. more variety in the PvP.

I was thinking more along the lines of 5-10 players as the differential. Not enough to cause major disruption.

Kelleton

EIGHTS wrote: »

Same at Azura's Star NA.

DC play so hard and be destroyed by EP everyday.
Because DC don't have enough people to defend what they have.

If this status continue, everyone will leave Cyrodiil.

Erm...DC gets pop locked every night primetime PST on AS NA

EIGHTS

Xael wrote: »

That's because the majority of DC (including it's pros) are on Chillrend.

I go to Chillrend today.
It's not better then Azura's star. XD

DC seems always in low population.
I rarely see 20+ DC in a same place.

I guess the population meter is broken!

Kelleton wrote: »

Erm...DC gets pop locked every night primetime PST on AS NA

EP always destroy everything when DC has no one.

j3crow

This issue needs to be addressed.

The bottom line is that things won't get better until ZoS addresses the disparity in population. One way or another. If people want to reroll, they reroll, but there needs to be floating population caps to achieve balance

Cody

Originally, AD did this, now its EP.

isn't PvP just a grand experience?

Kater_Murr

...

Trikki

LonePirate wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Sadly the pop lock doesn't actually reflect the PVE/PVP ratio.
I think the 1st thing should be a 'flag for PVE' on the campaign you choose.
Setting the flag enables quests and delve entry but stops you attacking enemies.
At least then we know who is fighting and who is lollygagging
Those flagged for PVE do not add toward the pop lock.

..and no I don't really like it at all. Just trying to think of a fix.

Hmmm... Let's try a scenario here. blah blah blah

Mate your scenario is stupid and a waste of everyone's time because you just set it so that once you're flagged PVE you can't unflag until you leave the campaign...

Dynamic queues are the only way to solve this.

Personally I think it should be Highest Pop can have max 10-20% more people than the second highest pop, once you reach the threshold, the queue kicks in. if you don't like a queue, go to another campaign. Simple.

Of course the way lockouts etc work would have to change with that.

And for those saying they want "compensation". LOL. i don't get why so many gamers seem to have this belief that if something is changed they deserve something in return. Grow up, omg.

Rune_Relic

LonePirate wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

LonePirate wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Sadly the pop lock doesn't actually reflect the PVE/PVP ratio.
I think the 1st thing should be a 'flag for PVE' on the campaign you choose.
Setting the flag enables quests and delve entry but stops you attacking enemies.
At least then we know who is fighting and who is lollygagging
Those flagged for PVE do not add toward the pop lock.

..and no I don't really like it at all. Just trying to think of a fix.

Hmmm... Let's try a scenario here. Let's say the pop caps are 100 for each faction with each bar representing 25. Now let's say 80 EP log in and set the PVE flag. They all ride down to Faregyl and hide in stealth. These 80 are no longer included in the pop count so another 80 EP log in and set the PVE flag before riding off to Faregyl as well. Now 80 more EP log in who do not set the PVE flag. They all attack Faregyl. The ones who die immediately set the PVE flag and some members of the 160 hidden EP immediately turn off the PVE flag to continue the assault on Faregyl as if nothing happened. How many of these waves can AD endure while defending Faregyl? If you thought camps were bad, this system is even worse.

If you want to weed out PVE players from population counts, you need to set up a PVE only truce campaign in Cyrodiil with no PVP enabled. The vast majority of PVE players will flock to that campaign thus freeing up space on the actual PVP campaigns for real PVP. Of course, that solution would enrage those gankers who prey on the PVE crowd. But who cares about them anyway?

I highlighted the relevant part
I didnt say you couldnt attack "them"
It was a key to unlock PVE content..and obviously you wouldnt be able to change it while in the campaign

Who in their right mind would set a flag which prevents you from attacking other players but doesn't prevent other players from attacking you? Nobody would ever choose an option that removes any hope of self-defense. Even if ZOS found a way to prevent exploits like the one I mentioned, no one would ever choose your option if they could not fight back when another player attacked them.

You have good intentions; however your proposal is an impractical one.

Only those who actually were solely there for PVE and sneaked to where they wanted to be
No switch....no PVE.
I said at the beginning I never considered it to be a good idea....just an idea to provoke some thought.

Rune_Relic

..anyway.. On Topic...

I do see an issue with dynamic pop caps.

Let say...
DC 8pm-12pm
AD 8pm-12pm
EP 4pm-8pm

DC and AD are logged out when EP play...so EP can never have a population to take on anyone or take resources as they don't play in those times (could be nightcapping...could be simply a playerbase in different timezones).

Alternatively two factions could deliberately exploit a campaign to wreck an alliance when it has its strongest population.
eg.
I know DC have all there players on between 9-10pm and will take the map and wipe everyone as they are too strong to boot 1v1 at that's the time when their best guilds logon.
So EP and AD decide they will all log off that campaign between 9-10pm.....meaning DC cant even play.

Discrimination....positive or negative...is still discrimination with the same issues.

Cody

Kater_Murr wrote: »

Cody wrote: »

Originally, AD did this, now its EP

And when exactly AD did this on EU server?

Im talkin about NA

Kater_Murr

...

Rune_Relic

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/165989/a-fix-for-overpopulation-and-campaign-balance#latest

I will add this here as its related but not completely on/off topic and the pros cons of each should be treated separately.

ryanmjmcevoy_ESO

I made a post suggesting dynamic pop caps a while ago. Make it so one alliance can only have some % more than the sum of the other two populations together or something, starting at a minimum before increasing to some maximum. One faction dominating the map becomes significantly more difficult this way.

Sharee

Rune_Relic wrote: »

..anyway.. On Topic...

I do see an issue with dynamic pop caps.

Let say...
DC 8pm-12pm
AD 8pm-12pm
EP 4pm-8pm

The 4-8 people are spread over all factions, not grouped exclusively in EP. All factions have all kinds of people. So the issue you mention is very unlikely to happen.

So why is EP outnumbering DC at 4-8 when all factions have the same % of 4-8 people?
Because all of EP piled onto the same campaign(the one they are winning in) so even at night time, they have a large number of people queueing, while DC did the same in another campaign.

Basically both forces are avoiding each other for easy 'wins'. Dynamic caps would put an end to that.

PikkonMG

We don't need dynamic population caps. What is needed is performance/lag issues with Cyrodiil fixed, less campaigns. One 30 day campaign, one 14 day campaign, and one non-vet campaign, then raise campaign population cap back up.

Domander

I think the pop cap should equal the sum of the other 2 alliances.

Cody

Kater_Murr wrote: »

Cody wrote: »

Im talkin about NA

Excellent, but OP, me and other people in this thread - about EU. So, what was your point again?

that i was talkin about NA:/

carry on then, im not in the right thread

Anethum

Up, still nothing done to balance the populations of alliances in campagns.

Kybotica

Talk about a Necro...
Imbalance always happens, because different groups get on at different times. Has always been this way, probaby always will be.

MerlinPendragon

Every faction in every campaign has ups and downs. ZOS should not over regulate, as that will likely create a bigger problem.

Thunderknuckles

EIGHTS wrote: »

Same at Azura's Star NA.

DC play so hard and be destroyed by EP everyday.
Because DC don't have enough people to defend what they have.

If this status continue, everyone will leave Cyrodiil.

OR...everyone will just eventually make toons on the same faction as everyone else so that there's almost no pvp to be had at all. I can just imagine someone with Ebonheart Pact saying in zone, "Where the frick are the DC and AD players??" and someone saying back, "They're all EP now". Or going all AD or whatever. You get the point. I play DC on PC/NA and a lot of them seem to genuinely enjoy the challenge of a good fight, so they stay.

It does, however, become monumentally tedious when, for hours on end, you can't even get Ash back because AD outnumbers you 20 to 1. No matter where you go, 40 or 50 AD show up. Trying to take Brindle lumber mill with 3 team mates? 40+ AD show up to reduce the 4 of you to piles of smouldering ashes. It just gets wearisome is all.