Low Population Bonus and Low Score Bonus

Earthewen

I've been thinking about this feature of the game for a long time. It has caused frustration, anger, and jeering in some quarters. For me, it has caused some real frustration the last 24 hours at least. We saw EP in last place and immediately got to work last night. The entire time, DC has had a low pop bonus, which afforded them the advantage of having, God and ZOS only knows, the numbers with minimal resources to have more potential points than any of the other factions. After several hours of EP working their butts off, they again took first place but only by a small margin. This morning we log on and DC still has a low pop bonus and because of it are in first place.

Now, let's consider this as I have. I began to wonder about why this feature is even allowed. Several thoughts came to mind. I'm trying to wrap my head around it and no matter what reasoning road I take, I can't find anything that makes sense. This low pop bonus encourages ANY faction to not even show up on the map. How? Well, humans are pretty much the same all over. In this matter the developers of ZOS have done what most developers do. While they are very able to consider the codes, the graphics, the w/e of developing games, there is a factor they never seem to consider and that is the human factor and human behavior. If you reward a certain behavior in people, that is the behavior that you reinforce. ZOS sends with this unspoken message, "Don't show up and we'll reward you for it. We'll help you win it, even if you don't show up.

Let's look at the human side for a second. Is there anyone here who has played sports or anything close? Let's say for a moment that the Cardinals and the Cubs are up for the World Series. The Cardinals decide they would rather play soccer instead. They immediately fly to Brazil and start training, never stepping foot inside the stadium to battle the Cubs. The MLB decides that since the Cardinals are otherwise engaged, they'll just let them have the wins. So, in order to win, just don't show up. Everyone knows that if a team doesn't show up to a match, whoever never showed just forfeited their chance. The team who did show up, wins.

Not so in ESO. Don't show up, and you're team can win anyway.

ZOS really needs to add human behavior to their equations when coming up with these kinds of features. I've seen even a "low scoring bonus". Really? So, people are not showing up, are sucking at the game to win a campaign as designed, so let's just give them free points anyway? In what universe is this EVER acceptable except in a Kindergarten class? Time to put your big girl panties on and show up to the fight. Get rid of any kind of bonuses and keep the playing field as it should be.

Soul_Demon

Yeah, a very strange feature to be sure. The assumption is the feature was started to encourage the low pop faction to play the game- however this is incorrect and the feature does exactly the opposite.

Not only is it rewarding someone for not showing up at all, but if you allow them to keep even the tri-keeps (sportsmanlike behavior) they will overtake the lead in such a short timeframe you MUST take every single resource they have and push them to the gates if you value winning the campaign at all. So, it actually does not encourage the low pop faction to play if they want to win, exactly the opposite while simultaneously it forces those playing to behave in a poor way to secure a win. Kind of double down on bad behavior.

Nice job.

Earthewen

my point exactly, Demon. They can come out for 2 hours the whole campaign, get in the top 10% or better, not show up the rest of the campaign and get gold in their mail. All for not doing a thing. Really?!!!

Galagos1

That has to be the silliest argument against the low population bonus that I have ever seen. Win by not playing?!?!?!

Its a balance issue more than anything else and it encourages people to play even when they're likely to be steamrolled by the EP horde.

I've come to believe that many EP would prefer to PVD rather than PVP.

Earthewen

Galagos1 wrote: »

That has to be the silliest argument against the low population bonus that I have ever seen. Win by not playing?!?!?!

Its a balance issue more than anything else and it encourages people to play even when they're likely to be steamrolled by the EP horde.

I've come to believe that many EP would prefer to PVD rather than PVP.

I disagree. I think it encourages the opposite. You aren't even putting up a valid argument. Please tell me how it encourages them to come out and play? If there is a logical explanation, I'm still looking for one. I'm not trying to troll, but if you have any insight, please tell me.

Galagos1

In a campaign like PCNA Haderus it could be argued that what few DC are there might leave if there were no possibility of winning the campaign and thus keeps it from becoming a 2 faction campaign. Its not the strongest argument but I think that is the reason its there.

I actually don't believe that most of the DC who play on Haderus play there for the low pop bonus. I think they play there for the opportunity to improve skills when fighting against greater numbers.

However to suggest that someone wakes up in the morning and says "Hey I'm not going to play the game today because we're gonna have a better chance of winning if I don't show up" is ludicrous. Even though (for some folks) it might be true.

Astanphaeus

At the very least it does reinforce gate camping.

Soul_Demon

"In a campaign like PCNA Haderus it could be argued that what few DC are there might leave if there were no possibility of winning the campaign and thus keeps it from becoming a 2 faction campaign."

So, you believe its a good idea to blow off the majority of players actively fighting in a campaign to cater to 10 "special snowflakes" by using a low pop bonus so great that you can win with three keeps on the map?

I have my curiosity peaked now since you said

"Even though (for some folks) it might be true."

This means you see exactly what other do...human nature. Why bother with the other campaigns if you can stack the entire alliance in TF and zerg the map with 80 man raids nightly while winning the other campaign's having 10 snowflakes there to win with low pop bonus.

Earthewen

Astanphaeus wrote: »

At the very least it does reinforce gate camping.

yes, I agree that it does. In order to win the campaign against a faction that has the bonus, you have push all the way back to the gates if you want any hope of winning. that does point back to human behavior.

I've never liked PVD. I don't like it when it's done to me so I don't like doing it to others. But is there an alternative if you want to win a campaign against the low pop bonus?

If the bonus isn't a factor for most players as Galagos has indicated, then it shouldn't matter if it gets removed. Or at the very least put limitations on it. Right as it stands, it is in excess. I think it's time to cap that puppy on something more reasonable. NEVER, in my opinion, should a faction win a campaign on low pop bonus alone whether it's AD, DC, or EP.

I also agree that not everyone has those reasons, but we all are way to aware of the exploiters out there that will do everything they can (including mass logging off is possible) in order to gain that bonus in the first place just to say they won.

NBrookus

I'm going to go out on a limb -- but not very far since I know some of those DC -- and say they are playing Haderus for reasons other than "winning the campaign." The pittance of gold you get for winning a Haderus campaign can be earned in about half an hour of farming and selling raw mats.

Since we are talking about Haderus, other than the occasional weekend blue zerg the entire DC population on this server consists of the same 20-30 players who play on the server despite the population imbalance -- despite the fact that they rarely have both their scrolls and despite the fact that sometimes both AD and EP groups will pvdoor their gate keeps for no reason other than chuckles. (That said, EP and AD have been pretty good lately about not hitting DC too hard.)

The server would be a better place to play if we had a larger DC presence all the time, and not just groups waiting for the Trueflame queue to pop on weekends. If the bait of getting a little extra gold at the end of the week encourages more DC to home the server, it'd be a positive thing for the campaign.

Galagos1

Soul_Demon wrote: »

"In a campaign like PCNA Haderus it could be argued that what few DC are there might leave if there were no possibility of winning the campaign and thus keeps it from becoming a 2 faction campaign."

So, you believe its a good idea to blow off the majority of players actively fighting in a campaign to cater to 10 "special snowflakes" by using a low pop bonus so great that you can win with three keeps on the map?

I have my curiosity peaked now since you said

"Even though (for some folks) it might be true."

This means you see exactly what other do...human nature. Why bother with the other campaigns if you can stack the entire alliance in TF and zerg the map with 80 man raids nightly while winning the other campaign's having 10 snowflakes there to win with low pop bonus.

I just jokingly meant that for some people it might be true that the campaign might stand a better chance of being won if they didn't play.

Honestly I don't think that the low pop bonus drives people to low pop campaigns. Nor do I think that your 10 players are "special snowflakes". They're just looking for a fight like anyone else.

But I don't think it drives them away either which is what was presented in the original post.

Soul_Demon

"both AD and EP groups will pvdoor their gate keeps for no reason other than chuckles. (That said, EP and AD have been pretty good lately about not hitting DC too hard.)"

That is exactly what the thread is about....why and how ZOS requires those playing a campaign who are concerned with winning for the better prizes at the end are forced to play to do so. The low pop bonus so many claim doesn't matter, in fact does to a great extent. It does not allow good sportsmanship to encourage play on the map, it forces the players to push to the gates to secure a win. It also allows the equivalent of those not showing up to play the ability to win something for NOT playing at all. Of course, so many say that isn't at all why they play, so it seems logical to do away with it.

ThePonzzz

ZOS needs to make the campaigns interesting to join other ones. Personally, I find no fun in Trueflamme, but my guild is there right now and I've been giving it a try. People like the large raids and non-stop action over there, but for the price of the lag, it's just not for me.

Offering a low pop "underdog" bonus is the cop out to dealing with dead campaigns. We need 2 identical 30-day campaigns to spread out the numbers. At least one 7-day campaign identical to the 30-day ones. And then some fun campaigns that have completely different objectives.

Earthewen

NBrookus wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb -- but not very far since I know some of those DC -- and say they are playing Haderus for reasons other than "winning the campaign." The pittance of gold you get for winning a Haderus campaign can be earned in about half an hour of farming and selling raw mats.

I'm actually speaking of the gold equipment and armor drops. not the gold in currency.

Iskrasfemme

Earthewen wrote: »

NBrookus wrote: »

I'm going to go out on a limb -- but not very far since I know some of those DC -- and say they are playing Haderus for reasons other than "winning the campaign." The pittance of gold you get for winning a Haderus campaign can be earned in about half an hour of farming and selling raw mats.

I'm actually speaking of the gold equipment and armor drops. not the gold in currency.

Yes, need more rewards and diferents quality of rewards.

ThePonzzz

Earthewen wrote: »

my point exactly, Demon. They can come out for 2 hours the whole campaign, get in the top 10% or better, not show up the rest of the campaign and get gold in their mail. All for not doing a thing. Really?!!!

Gold is 2%. Top ten is purple, and most times junk. Gold is SO much better with nirnhoned traits as well.

Claire

As a member in good standing of the Haderus "special snowflake" brigade, I can assure you that campaign score and rewards have almost zero influence on our decision to keep playing there.

NBrookus

TBH, I couldn't tell you who has won the last few campaigns or what the score is now. Last week I got a gold nirn battleaxe of transmutation. Whee. Even if I had got a nirn AND a temper from decon (I got neither), there are much easier and faster ways of getting those items or the associated gold than PVPing your way into the top 2%. If anyone is deliberately spending their time PVPing for the Rewards of the Junkyard, idk what to say.

ThePonzzz wrote: »

ZOS needs to make the campaigns interesting to join other ones. Personally, I find no fun in Trueflamme, but my guild is there right now and I've been giving it a try. People like the large raids and non-stop action over there, but for the price of the lag, it's just not for me.

Offering a low pop "underdog" bonus is the cop out to dealing with dead campaigns. We need 2 identical 30-day campaigns to spread out the numbers. At least one 7-day campaign identical to the 30-day ones. And then some fun campaigns that have completely different objectives.

I don't know if that would work. I used to think we needed more camps with lower populations, but I've changed my mind. Clearly a lot of people like to stack up in Trueflame with the zergs, so many so that there's a queue while Haderus and Azura's usually don't hit pop lock for any faction. I personally hate Trueflame, but it's a success. I like that Haderus is the lag-reduced, small-scale alternative, but I don't think most players in ESO want to spread out. It doesn't help that the current meta favors zergs and sheer numbers above all else other than ganking.

I might like to see Haderus switch to the same ruleset. With the upcoming AP changes to taking resources, the effect on Haderus could be really odd. I guess we'll find out.

If you care about competition and scoring, both Azura's and Trueflame both have more of a competitive culture right now and might be a better fit. I mean, there's no 6090 page thread full of Haderus salt.

Earthewen

Claire wrote: »

As a member in good standing of the Haderus "special snowflake" brigade, I can assure you that campaign score and rewards have almost zero influence on our decision to keep playing there.

Claire, I'm sincerely wondering why you do. What does influence your decision to keep playing there? I'm just wondering and wanting an honest opinion.

Claire

Smaller scale battles, less lag, my nightly eight man (including @Galagos1, above ) feels like we can have fun and make an impact. Yeah, some nights it's like we've just pounded out heads against a wall, but we always have fun. In addition, the opponents we face in Haderus are people we've competed against for a while, and we genuinely look forward to finding them out on the battlefield. See you out there!

IxSTALKERxI

I've never really liked the low score bonus. It should be removed or drastically changed. Reduce the amount of time it calculates the average population from so the bonus does not linger. The bonus should end as soon as the faction regains population. Perhaps change it completely and make it so a faction can't earn less than 20 points / evaluation if they are outnumbered by 200% from the 2 enemy factions combined, sort of like a safety net that drops off instantly the moment they gain some players. It's sole purpose would just be to minimize the impact on the scoreboard during that outnumbered period, but in no way would put them close to a competitive position on the scoreboard like it does currently. The current formula allows them to get some crazy point bonuses / evaluation which is silly.


They already have a feature in place where players on the outnumbered side earn more AP, however I think they could improve this feature. The AP feature should always be active for all factions and scale depending on how outnumbered the faction is.

Example:

AD lock pop
DC lock pop
EP 3 bars pop

Let's say EP have 25% less population than either DC or AD. All those 3 bar pop of EP should receive a 25% AP Bonus. This would encourage them to stay online and fight, despite being pushed back to their gates, rather than simply rage quitting or going to bed early.

Heck, in the rare case that a server had Lock pop DC and 1 bar AD, those AD could receive a 100% AP buff for their troubles, which would be enough to make guilds jump servers during that time to help out, in turn lowering the AP buff as more players jumped in to help.

It is a very common occurrence for AD to drop from 3 bar to 2 bar, coincidentally right after they lose Faregyl. Same goes for the other factions. This change could encourage them to stay and fight and defend their scrolls rather than crying in zone chat prior to logging out or going to do their daily pledges instead.

concegual

The conversation we should be having is what kind of game do we prefer...what makes us all log in every night? Spend our spare time doing what we do...Likely all our answers differ for all of us...Some here are playing a points game. Worried about "Winning" My self I play for a good fight...win lose or draw long as the fights are good I'm satisfied. If I had my way... Zergs would find a place to do what it is they want...Small man groups like my own would find a place to do what we want...gankers would also find what makes them log in every night...There is no one right way to play...
All this being said We are that DC guild you refer to and it is likely we have been on Haderus much longer than you all...We gravitate to the campaign where we can be the underdogs.Not because we can "Win" some horrible rewards but because we enjoy the challenge. If Zerg to "Win" is your thing... that's all cool with me. To each there own. We would play the way we do either way...
Any system that would bring more balance to the game for everyone... I'd be for. No system should represent only the larger group... it needs to push for balance between groups. It needs to make available the fights everyone is looking for. We often just try and set up a Farm so we can "just fight" inevitably after a few even number groups can't push us out we end up getting pushed out but 3x our numbers... we don't get mad we go try and set up the fight we're looking for again. PvP in this game has many issues...but certainly bigger issues than this lil DC group isn't making it easy for us to win....Far as i'm concerned you all can have the trophy. We'll still be there fighting the fight we do...See ya all out there!

Earthewen

How about this ... Instead of having different servers based on the point systems or the champ system, by not have servers for group sizes instead. So for instance a server that is for gankers/small groups. groups size would limit to under 12. Then a server for zergs would be amazing for people who want to zerg. group size up to 24. All they would have to do is change the code that allows a certain number of people in a group. They could do that pretty easily I should think given they do that for trials already.

The numbers I just gave are just an idea. it's the principle that I'm aiming for. Perhaps a server where there is no end to the campaign at all. No points for any faction. you just get a reward according to how many keeps your faction owns at the moment of evaluation.

I think those options would be much better for our servers than the way they are now.

NBrookus

Official group size is kinda irrelevant; larger guilds stack raids now and have no trouble because everyone is in the same voice comms. Even without stacking you get zergs both because people bunch up for a sense of security and because there aren't that many places to go to be sure you find a fight. Lots of people in a zerg aren't even in a group at all.

It will be interesting to see what changes with battlegrounds, if and when we get them. Some guilds will likely abandon open world play entirely; others will mix it up, and some will continue playing the zerg meta with their blobs of encase spamming negate monkeys and destro ult Reactive templars.

In the meantime @ZOS_BrianWheeler, I for one would be totally on board with a sandbox campaign. No scoring, no end of campaign rewards, no emperor, maybe even no home keep/scroll buffs. (Especially no people coming into Haderus just to farm emperor.) Resets back to default home keeps every _x_ days. It might be a mess. It might just be one big fight at Alessia Bridge and Chalman mine. Or it could be that everyone who doesn't give a rip about "winning" could go there and peacefully brawl while the competitive guilds get on with the stuff they like.

P.S. Someday I want to see a heat map from ZOS of pvp actions spots in Cyro. I could probably make up a fairly accurate one, but there could be some surprises!

concegual

I like to believe that we don't need separate places for everyone to play the way they want...This pvP system is roughly based upon a system that achieved that very well. In Dark age of Camelot The Zergs mostly fought for control of the Map...While the 8 man groups roamed the lands looking for a fight... looking for the opportunity to side swipe the zerg and mess up their day..the gankers camped entrances like IC or camped bridges outside keeps. There literally was something for everyone. Here they changed the map from that system to encourage fights being funneled always to 3 points...1st thing needed is to create a separation between home keep areas. maybe a large forest with loose knit "outposts" which would when captured allow port to be open to another alliances home keep area...2nd would be to create a dungeon system which could connect all current delves. This system would be connected to greater cyrodil as a whole...scrolls could be run into one delve through the dungeon and out another to be returned ...3rd would be more pinch points outside of keeps/ resources. Bridges or tunnels which in order to leave the immediate grounds one has to travel through. Do all this and Bam there is a fight for everyone in one map system...

Galagos1

NBrookus wrote: »

In the meantime @ZOS_BrianWheeler, I for one would be totally on board with a sandbox campaign. No scoring, no end of campaign rewards, no emperor, maybe even no home keep/scroll buffs. (Especially no people coming into Haderus just to farm emperor.) Resets back to default home keeps every _x_ days. It might be a mess. It might just be one big fight at Alessia Bridge and Chalman mine. Or it could be that everyone who doesn't give a rip about "winning" could go there and peacefully brawl while the competitive guilds get on with the stuff they like.

This would be a blast!

NBrookus wrote: »

P.S. Someday I want to see a heat map from ZOS of pvp actions spots in Cyro. I could probably make up a fairly accurate one, but there could be some surprises!

Agreed - beyond keeps, resources, towns and gates it would be interesting to see if anyplace else shows up... I think there might be differences between campaigns as well that would be interesting to see.

concegual

I think the idea of campaigns in general is a bad idea.... get rid of rewards campaigns and give a long term pvp leveling system... the reward is in time served kills made keeps taken etc...

Drachenrune

AP Bonuses do not work as long as the player is outnumbered and get killed before he can do somethimng to get AP.
Even when he trys to turn ressources enemys will show off and starting to kill him before he can get a ressource.
So, why should someone play on a campaign if he is outnumbered?
It is often not very fun, especally when you are a healer and need a group to team up with.
Standing in Haderus and trying to find a group is still not funny, when nobody is there.
When I am the only one of my fraction in the campaign and maybe not the best equiped one, i can only do the scoutmission by riding accross the Land and getting some less AP.
If i ran into an enemy player i am dead or win the battle and it would not take a long time that the others come to get a little pvp action. Then you are outnumbered again.
The problem for the low population fractions is not the win of the campaign. The problem is, they can not turn the tides.
For example, if there are fifty people of one fraction and two of another. What can they do?
If they attack an ressource there is an alarm triggert so the 50 people port to the nearest castle and run to the ressource to overrun them.
Siege a fortress would be impossible. Doing some guerilla tactics would not work eighter.
So what a outnumbered fraction really needs is the ability to stop capture really quickly ressources and than running of, before they get found.
In the time the enemys than get that ressource the outnumbered one should be able to get another. So they can maybe just cut off the teleports for the enemys.

kadar

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_CyrodiilTeam

Does anyone know how the Low Population Bonus works?

Yesterday (01/20), I was able to play off and on in Haderus (PC/NA) for most of the day. Over the course of the day, DC went from 1 bar, to 2, and all the way up to 3 bars of population. DC had over 100 potential points with 3 bars of population. Low population scoring bonus....with 3 bars of population...

There was a moment yesterday where we realized, DC has 1 bar and the LPB...and they are winning the campaign because of it.

The only incentive I can think of for the LPB to exist, is to keep players interested by keeping a faction with a low population in the running to win the campaign. It is failing at that purpose. Instead, I suggest, reevaluate the end of campaign rewards and add incentive to actually show up and win the campaign. This means, buff end-of-campaign rewards! Give us a better reason to come to a campaign, be loyal for it's duration, and fight to win!

Currently the LPB is a x5 multiplier. If the LPB mechanic must exist, can we tune it down to a more reasonable level?
(edit) The LPB also needs to drop off once a factions population is not...well, low.

Earthewen

I agree, it is broken terribly. NO FACTION should ever win because they didn't show up.

concegual

I think the discussion should be... how do we create balance in all campaigns... I don't think "winning" is showing up to an empty campaign with a zerg and holding the map from the few other groups who are there in the hopes of finding less of a zerg than the truly zergy campaign... I don't personally think that winning because of low pop is viable either... On the other hand winning because you zerg an empty campaign should not make one swell with pride ....Lets all press Zos to add mechanics which cause us to have to fight for a win....