Low Population Bonus - Punish the Alliance that Tries

iClustaFlux

This is just a simple objective view regarding the state of, basically all our pvp servers, and effects of the Low Population bonus mechanic.

Case 1, where the bonus breaks the game for one alliance:

Alliance #1

• Consistently pop-locked holds first place through sheer numbers, day or night.

Alliance #2

• Low in numbers, but can coast along happily in second place floating on top of a massive bonus.

Alliance #3

• Marginally greater numbers than #2 and are able to earn a bit more, but there's just no way they can hope to come anywhere other than last place due to the bonus being awarded to #2

Case 2, where the bonus makes sense:

Alliance #1 and #2

• Both have relatively equal numbers on a day to day basis, good pushes back and forth as they fight for the lead.

Alliance #3

• Much lower numbers than #1 and #2, but doesn't get left completely in the dust due to the bonus.

Please discuss.

Rosvira

The reason the alliance that lacks numbers is second is because there's not enough of them to be farmed, so they just leave them be and they get their keeps back more so than alliance #3.

Rylana

Youre talking about Azuras NA, youre talking about EP

EP busts their ass when we are on, but your DC and AD zergs are just zergs that flood the map when primetime ends, especially AD

The low pop bonus exists for EXACTLY THIS PURPOSE.

Like for real, look around you. 20-30 EP exist on this campaign, period, and most of them are in my guild.

EP had almost zero presence until we showed up last week. DC has three or four medium sized guilds and can push 50+ in prime

AD has almost 100, with even overnights pushing 50+ around the map to gatecamp and take everything.

iClustaFlux

Rylana wrote: »

Youre talking about Azuras NA, youre talking about EP

I'm not talking about any single server, and I'm an EU player myself. It appears to happen pretty much across the board on EU servers.

Rylana wrote: »

The low pop bonus exists for EXACTLY THIS PURPOSE.

Are you saying that it's a good thing that a faction can do nothing for the majority of the time, not even bother logging in, yet still hold a solid second place rather than come last?

It just seems like a real slap in the face for the ones that do put the time in.

Astanphaeus

While I'm not inherently opposed to a low pop bonus, I do think the current bonus is far too much.

Randactyl

Rylana wrote: »

EP had almost zero presence until we showed up last week.

K

Can't argue with everything else though.

iClustaFlux

Astanphaeus wrote: »

While I'm not inherently opposed to a low pop bonus, I do think the current bonus is far too much.

Perhaps simply giving the contenders (#3) a cut rate bonus, say 40-50% of the full low pop bonus might balance things out a bit? That way, neither underdog team would be left entirely in the dust.

Rylana

Randactyl wrote: »

Rylana wrote: »

EP had almost zero presence until we showed up last week.

K

Can't argue with everything else though.

In all seriousness, EP had no points really, nor anything on the map for the entirety since TG, hell the blues were clamoring in another thread for a red guild to show up.

So we did. >_>

iClustaFlux

@Rylana I respect you have an interest in balancing, and appreciate that you have taken your guild where needed to help out... but you seem to just be having a little rant on a tangent from the actual topic of the thread.

I have re-jiggled the OP to make things a little clearer.

...not trying to be rude, just, ya'know, topic.

Rylana

iClustaFlux wrote: »

@Rylana I respect you have an interest in balancing, and appreciate that you have taken your guild where needed to help out... but you seem to just be having a little rant on a tangent from the actual topic of the thread.

I have re-jiggled the OP to make things a little clearer.

...not trying to be rude, just, ya'know, topic.

actually I am on topic, from my perspective. I happen to be part of one of those campaign imbalances where i am in the smallest faction numerically, but benefitting from the low pop bonus. (EP on Azuras NA)

If not for that bonus we wouldnt even have a chance, considering AD wipes the map every night. Sucks for DC yeah, but EP has half or a third the numbers in prime of AD anyway, we work hard for what few objectives we manage to hold. DC has more coverage and numbers than we do as well. So i get theres a gripe, but we havent done anything to deserve having our efforts blunted, we do as much as we can with even less than they do. I dont want to see this bonus change.

strikeback1247

Just because an alliance has a low population doesn't mean that they don't try. It's usually the opposite in my experience actually.

RDMyers65b14_ESO

I just wish the powers that be would fix the population imbalance. There would be no reason to have the bonus if the populations were equaled. It would help if the population of the IC was not included in the scoring or the population of Cyrodil. As it is, there is not an accurate number for Cyrodil. You can be at three bars and not have anyone actually up in Cyrodil. It is very frustrating to see the map taken when it seems like your small group is the only one on the surface of the campaign and it shows that you are pop locked. People who are grinding in IC do not have an impact on the alliance war score, yet they are included in the population cap number. How many times have we had an Emp crowned when the Emp has not left the sewers. I can count several back when IC first dropped. That Emp did nothing for the alliance. Granted, these days, not many people are running IC so that the AP gained in the sewers is limited.

Although I have not checked the EP, I know for a fact that the AD has four times as many people as the DC in the campaign that my guild runs. How to check? Easy. Take two characters that have not been in the campaign from two different factions. Repair 1 wall. Wait for the update tick. Then hit L. DC character was 238 and the AD character was 1045. I would suspect that the AD has a long queue for PVP during prime time. With these types of imbalances, it is no wonder that the map turns yellow. Turning the map one color day after day will result in the other factions leaving. There was a screen shot here on the forums of Axe's scores. AD had the only score and DC and EP were both at 0. See what happened to that campaign? The bad part is that many of the players don't seem to care if they are killing the campaign. Congrats, you get 20 rocks and have driven off all of the AP. You have just made Cyrodil into PVE land.

To bring this back to the original post, yes the low pop bonus often seems to be out scoring the second place faction. That is not fair to the second place faction. I have to wonder what the difference in player number is to score the low pop bonus because technically, if faction A is 200 people and faction B is 199, faction B is the lowest population. Is there a percentage or has to be x player difference? I don't have an answer on how to fix this problem. I will say that the 50 points per tick for the low population is perhaps too high, especially on a resource campaign.

I have no sympathy for the AD players stuck in the queue waiting to PVP when I know that they chose that faction. (Sorry, Rylana I have never seen the EP at a lower population than the DC. I will take your word for it, but the EP always seems to be double the DC on the campaign I play.) Yes, I understand that guilds will be on one campaign, so why are the guilds stacking in certain campaigns? Right now, I would like to say that it is the CP that is making the difference on where the guilds play. Guilds with a lot of maximized CP players are not likely going to be on the non CP campaign. But it is possible that the AD has enough PVP players that they can population dominate every campaign. A 'lock' that would say no more AD characters in PVP until the EP and the DC are equally populated would just drive the players from the game.

There is no easy answer.

Toast_STS

Getting 2nd place is still losing. What's it matter?

RDMyers65b14_ESO

tony.augeb14_ESO wrote: »

Getting 2nd place is still losing. What's it matter?

Not quite. If you know the first place faction is 4 times your number, just getting points is a win. It's all relative.

iClustaFlux

strikeback1247 wrote: »

Just because an alliance has a low population doesn't mean that they don't try. It's usually the opposite in my experience actually.

Agreed. My initial statement isn't entirely fair.

Any players on a low population going up against a locked population should be, in all fairness considered to be making an effort.

But this further backs up the issue that still stands that in the majority of circumstances, the lowest numbered pop are still able to keep ahead of the guys in the middle, who can be making just as much of an effort.

I think there are certainly cases where the bonus makes sense, clearly if two faction are evenly matched and the third is a quarter or less of the numbers - this is where the bonus makes sense. And I believe this is more the situation that @Rylana is
defending.

But in the case I laid out in OP, where both underdog factions are massively lacking the numbers of the leader, the team that has slightly higher numbers get locked out just for having a fraction more people logged on. This is where it really doesn't work.

With the information and insight coming in so far I am going to adjust the OP slightly. I was trying to be unbiased in writing it but I was clearly too tired at the time.

tony.augeb14_ESO wrote: »

Getting 2nd place is still losing. What's it matter?

Many people just enjoy the fight. There's still a great sense of satisfaction to be had holding your ground over superior numbers - just winning your fights where you can, even if it doesn't win the "war".

CatchMeTrolling

Stop playing in buff servers.