Server population

Jimbohere

Honestly when are they going to regulate the server population in this game ? 200 vs 40 is not pvp.

Emothic

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Cathexis

Emothic wrote: »

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Actually its a huge problem when battles are balanced entirely around who has the biggest zerg.

The way things are right now, I would way rather play a gated campaign where access is limited proportionally faction vs faction, than an open campaign. Then it would actually be about how players play.

lolo_01b16_ESO

There is no need to regulate population. Just add something to reduce the savety you get from the pure number of players stacking in one spot. Could be done with:
- removing aoe caps
- dynamic ulti generation
- something like ground oils / stackable woe / old standart that allows to create true void zones

Emothic

Cathexis wrote: »

Emothic wrote: »

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Actually its a huge problem when battles are balanced entirely around who has the biggest zerg.

The way things are right now, I would way rather play a gated campaign where access is limited proportionally faction vs faction, than an open campaign. Then it would actually be about how players play.

That is why there are specific armor sets and player abilities that are designed to combat against zergs. Vicious Death was a armor set that was designed for small groups of players to use to combat against zergs. The current "Eye of the Storm" ability is used to combat agaisnt zergs. The game already has to tools for you to combat against overwhelming numbers, you just need to findout what those tools are.

Another thing to that numbers only do so much. If you get into a group of other players and you actuall work togeather in a well organized combat situation. You can fight off groups two, three, four, or more times larger then yours. So even if you are in a group of say 10, and you actually work togeather and support each other, you can fight off against hordes of 30 - 40 players and probably win.

Jimbohere

Emothic wrote: »

Cathexis wrote: »

Emothic wrote: »

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Actually its a huge problem when battles are balanced entirely around who has the biggest zerg.

The way things are right now, I would way rather play a gated campaign where access is limited proportionally faction vs faction, than an open campaign. Then it would actually be about how players play.

That is why there are specific armor sets and player abilities that are designed to combat against zergs. Vicious Death was a armor set that was designed for small groups of players to use to combat against zergs. The current "Eye of the Storm" ability is used to combat agaisnt zergs. The game already has to tools for you to combat against overwhelming numbers, you just need to findout what those tools are.

Another thing to that numbers only do so much. If you get into a group of other players and you actuall work togeather in a well organized combat situation. You can fight off groups two, three, four, or more times larger then yours. So even if you are in a group of say 10, and you actually work togeather and support each other, you can fight off against hordes of 30 - 40 players and probably win.

The problem with the armor sets although they were designed to break up zergs they in fact did the opposite and made zergs stronger. Either way you look at it it's a numbers game and the faction that has the most numbers during the length of the campaign wins. So instead of adding sets like vicious death ,which is broken now because they know it did the opposite , give the factions that our way outnumber bigger buffs and health pools. Or regulate the numbers after each faction has 2 bars. Plus having the sewers count as the numbers in cyrodil is wrong. I agree getting into a good group and working together helps out a lot but when your outnumbered 4 to 1 faction wide there's only so far that's going to go and you defiantly have no chance in winning the campaign

Calboy

Emothic wrote: »

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Actually it is game mechanics. You are right though, it is the players choice. But if I have a spare couple of hours to play I'm not going to sit at my gate getting farmed waiting for more bodies because the servers don't allow for population balancing.

Emothic

Jimbohere wrote: »

The problem with the armor sets although they were designed to break up zergs they in fact did the opposite and made zergs stronger. Either way you look at it it's a numbers game and the faction that has the most numbers during the length of the campaign wins. So instead of adding sets like vicious death ,which is broken now because they know it did the opposite , give the factions that our way outnumber bigger buffs and health pools. Or regulate the numbers after each faction has 2 bars. Plus having the sewers count as the numbers in cyrodil is wrong. I agree getting into a good group and working together helps out a lot but when your outnumbered 4 to 1 faction wide there's only so far that's going to go and you defiantly have no chance in winning the campaign

Calboy wrote: »

Emothic wrote: »

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Actually it is game mechanics. You are right though, it is the players choice. But if I have a spare couple of hours to play I'm not going to sit at my gate getting farmed waiting for more bodies because the servers don't allow for population balancing.

Though I agree with you Jimbohere, that they should not count the players in the imperial city as part of the population bar. And thus should have their own "PvP specific server" to use. The fact remains to both of your points that they will not add a regulation to the campaigns. There are other campaigns for you to chose from where you can have better chances. But to start adding restrictions would mean that they would start restricting their PvP base community. Though you would not like to sit at your gate for a few hours getting farmed. A player would not like to sit in the campaign queue because they "Ratio restriction" is in effect.

Rune_Relic

They simply could have had an overspill faction.

100 vs 200 vs 300
Faction limit = 100
The other 300 can play on the nirn enemy side (alongside Daedra) or a rogue faction ....or wait.
Then you choose to fight against each opposing faction or against the common enemy (Molag Bals forces).

Personally i prefer..
low pop faction = bonus Buff ~ AP penalty
high pop faction = bonus AP ~ Buff penalty
Faction God mode vs Faction Reward mode.

Cathexis

.

Emothic wrote: »

Cathexis wrote: »

Emothic wrote: »

What are you talking about? That's not a problem with the game mechanics or balanicing. That's just players choice. If only 40 players want to go into a campaign against 200 enemies then that's their choice. Nothing to do with how the game is designed. So for you're question, they are not going to add any restrictions.

Actually its a huge problem when battles are balanced entirely around who has the biggest zerg.

The way things are right now, I would way rather play a gated campaign where access is limited proportionally faction vs faction, than an open campaign. Then it would actually be about how players play.

That is why there are specific armor sets and player abilities that are designed to combat against zergs. Vicious Death was a armor set that was designed for small groups of players to use to combat against zergs. The current "Eye of the Storm" ability is used to combat agaisnt zergs. The game already has to tools for you to combat against overwhelming numbers, you just need to findout what those tools are.

Another thing to that numbers only do so much. If you get into a group of other players and you actuall work togeather in a well organized combat situation. You can fight off groups two, three, four, or more times larger then yours. So even if you are in a group of say 10, and you actually work togeather and support each other, you can fight off against hordes of 30 - 40 players and probably win.

Except that the game has been balanced for this idea that "if 3 players are all equal, 2 will always beat 1." Which means that mathematically, all players being equal, 40 will always beat 10.

As a sidenote I think this whole 2v1 is a flawed perspective for a lot of reasons. Yes, it seems logical that given equal terms 40 will always beat 10, but that is a simplified perspective. If skill is an expression of your ability to react and engage, there is a margin for error. If you can just sponge damage in a group indefinitely while sitting in a larger group, where for the vast majority of incoming damage there is no threat, the margin of risk and error is dramatically smaller.

Twohothardware

They need to close all but 3 or 4 Campaigns and incentivize playing on the lowest populated Alliance. There's a lot of ways they could do that including allowing the selection of any race without the Any Race, Any Alliance addon as well as giving bonus AP, XP, gold, ect for playing on that Alliance.

I know with Daggerfall on PS4 they control Scourge on a regular basis but any other Campaign is an automatic loss because of being outnumbered at least 2 to 1. It's even actually 4 to 1 since AD and EP typically both have twice the players in all other Campaigns besides Scourge and they like to team up to attack blue to take out their frustrations of getting slapped around in Scourge.

Emothic

Cathexis wrote: »

Except that the game has been balanced for this idea that "if 3 players are all equal, 2 will always beat 1." Which means that mathematically, all players being equal, 40 will always beat 10.

As a sidenote I think this whole 2v1 is a flawed perspective for a lot of reasons. Yes, it seems logical that given equal terms 40 will always beat 10, but that is a simplified perspective. If skill is an expression of your ability to react and engage, there is a margin for error. If you can just sponge damage in a group indefinitely while sitting in a larger group, where for the vast majority of incoming damage there is no threat, the margin of risk and error is dramatically smaller.

I have a basic understanding of what you are talking about, but not enough to comment on it. Can you please simplify or go into greater detail of your second paragraph, as that is the one I'm having issues in understanding.

reiverx

Twohothardware wrote: »

They need to close all but 3 or 4 Campaigns and incentivize playing on the lowest populated Alliance. There's a lot of ways they could do that including allowing the selection of any race without the Any Race, Any Alliance addon as well as giving bonus AP, XP, gold, ect for playing on that Alliance.

I know with Daggerfall on PS4 they control Scourge on a regular basis but any other Campaign is an automatic loss because of being outnumbered at least 2 to 1. It's even actually 4 to 1 since AD and EP typically both have twice the players in all other Campaigns besides Scourge and they like to team up to attack blue to take out their frustrations of getting slapped around in Scourge.

DC don't just control Scourge on a regular basis. They've been on a six month megazerg-a-thon. Of course they're going to lose the other campaigns.

Earthewen

Except that the game has been balanced for this idea that "if 3 players are all equal, 2 will always beat 1." Which means that mathematically, all players being equal, 40 will always beat 10.

This isn't true at all. You have forgotten the number of people using macros, overpowered 1vx builds, and then add that to the skills that ZOS has put in to take down the zergs (which doesn't) and you have a recipe for disaster in PVP. 40 does not always beat 10. Sometimes, legit player groups of 10 cannot even take down a macroing group of 1. Just saying. I don't know why these guys are still allowed to play.

That being said, I do understand that there are 1vX players who are really just that good. They are legit and I tip my cap to them. However, I don't think any one player should ever be able to withstand 10 enemies smacking on him and take no damage. then, not only not taking damager, but then turn around to kill all 10 players. I've seen it happen not to my group, but others. that just isn't logical game mechanics. If you can withstand the damage, cool. However, you shouldn't be able to take down the group with massive DPS either. You should give up one for the other as is logical. We have caps, but I don't understand the players seemingly bypassing all of the caps.