Low Population Bonus
Ok, so i get the idea behind this. Its to keep people interested in the campaign whilst their alliance goes through a slow period. Whether this be because of the other alliances being stronger or just a lack of allied players. I get the fact that it keeps the campaign alive for the weaker alliance such that there is still a chance to salvage the campaign should a guild(s) decide to start playing there.
What it shouldn't do is give such a bonus such that one of the two competing alliances fall behind the virtually non-existant faction. Below show a few screenshot of the current situation on Spellbreaker EU.
Now I realise that AP is not a true representation of the activity on the campaign, but its a pretty close estimate. Now how can a faction where the top 100 position requires nearly 7x less ap that that of the other factions be 2nd in the leaderboard. How on earth the "low population" alliance has the right to score more than DC who occupy more than half the map is beyond me.
Dont get me wrong, this is a good idea. There is nothing worse than coming to a 30 campaign to find 1 alliance dominating the scoring, but to the extent shown here is having the opposite effect. Im part of an AD guild in this campaign that has crowned emp twice so far only to have hordes of blues switch to this campaign and take it back (another issue entirely). For us to now be behind is beyond belief. In my opinion the way the bonuses are calculated need looking into. Maybe reduce the impact on the overall score and give players a personal incentive to join the campaign, AP boosts, exp boosts or whatever. Just don't punish those that have stuck with the campaign in order to appease those that haven't.
NB: The fact that there are still a lot of people playing PvP in this game despite its flaws shows how good the underlying premise is. Please, please, please stick with it and get it working seemlessly and this side of the game will go from strength to strength. That is all
Edited by DanTeales_Inferno on December 18, 2015 2:20PM What it shouldn't do is give such a bonus such that one of the two competing alliances fall behind the virtually non-existant faction. Below show a few screenshot of the current situation on Spellbreaker EU.
Now I realise that AP is not a true representation of the activity on the campaign, but its a pretty close estimate. Now how can a faction where the top 100 position requires nearly 7x less ap that that of the other factions be 2nd in the leaderboard. How on earth the "low population" alliance has the right to score more than DC who occupy more than half the map is beyond me.
Dont get me wrong, this is a good idea. There is nothing worse than coming to a 30 campaign to find 1 alliance dominating the scoring, but to the extent shown here is having the opposite effect. Im part of an AD guild in this campaign that has crowned emp twice so far only to have hordes of blues switch to this campaign and take it back (another issue entirely). For us to now be behind is beyond belief. In my opinion the way the bonuses are calculated need looking into. Maybe reduce the impact on the overall score and give players a personal incentive to join the campaign, AP boosts, exp boosts or whatever. Just don't punish those that have stuck with the campaign in order to appease those that haven't.
NB: The fact that there are still a lot of people playing PvP in this game despite its flaws shows how good the underlying premise is. Please, please, please stick with it and get it working seemlessly and this side of the game will go from strength to strength. That is all
Thoros of Leeds - VR14 Templar
1
-
Millerman34n✭✭✭Yea, but dc is still gonna win so does it matter, just gives the other alliances a "chance" to win, not really.0 -
Millerman34n wrote: »Yea, but dc is still gonna win so does it matter, just gives the other alliances a "chance" to win, not really.
If im not mistaken, 2nd place gets higher rewards than third, so we are getting screwed over by this. We aren't winning the campaign purely due to the campaign swapping and the sheer number of DC on EU servers.
The point im trying to make is that why should people stick with one campaign, a premise that ZoS tried to implement and failed, when theyre going to score points anyway. This just encourages players to chase after the AP completely ruining any feeling of campaign development. One day you could be pushing for emp with even resistance, the next you'll be back at your scroll gate with no chance in hell of defending.
This whole system dissuades campaign "loyalty" leading to a whole host of other issues.Thoros of Leeds - VR14 Templar0 -
Nutshotz✭✭✭✭its been like this for the past year whether your on PC or console. zos screwed up big time by allowing groups to travel to 1 player that is homed in that campaign. instead it should of been you choose 1 campaign and you guest 1 campaign for 30 days, and you cant switch. now if you wanna switch that's what other toons are for, hence why you have 8 character slots, but now they have it so 1 person justs homes in that campaign while the rest are homed in there main campaign and wammo. insta win for them. DC have been known to do this or if they are losing they will pull out 3 days prior to the campaign ends so that they get the low pop bonus so that they win the campaign. its a cheesy way, but you cant blame the players blame the company on how many times the F up on fixing things. oh wait they don't they screw more things up than they fix things....0
