Remove Cyrodiil Bonuses Already

Alfie2072

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Maybe if people would just pick a side and stick with it then it would balance itself out. Usually at the beginning of each campaign ad is outnumbered on both sides and takes a beating. Thanks to ad crowns putting in lots of effort and time(not numbers) ad is able to pull ahead. Once ad gets the lead then people hop over to the ad side causing the population to be unbalanced. As noted by Bhaal5 above the problem is people switching camps and alliances causing the imbalance. Lock it for camp duration, problem solved

ad consistantly has insane zergs lul

Alfie2072

Alfie2072 wrote: »

Sanctum74 wrote: »

Maybe if people would just pick a side and stick with it then it would balance itself out. Usually at the beginning of each campaign ad is outnumbered on both sides and takes a beating. Thanks to ad crowns putting in lots of effort and time(not numbers) ad is able to pull ahead. Once ad gets the lead then people hop over to the ad side causing the population to be unbalanced. As noted by Bhaal5 above the problem is people switching camps and alliances causing the imbalance. Lock it for camp duration, problem solved

ad consistantly has insane zergs lul

literally just look at tm, zerg guild that balls up with destro ults and then falls back and runs away when their ults are finished, defines garbage players

Munavar

Alfie2072,
Between 8 to 16 people is an 'insane zerg'? By your own words, you are then a zergling too (at times) given your group of 10. (Stated in another of your posts)

I have no idea who you are or what your issue is with TM. You sound like (at times) a 'soloist' that is having issues playing in group content. ZOS created duals and battlegrounds for 'you'.

Your comments in this thread have no bearing on the topic as TM has never 'switch sides' to be on the more populated faction for buffs. In fact, there are numerous times where TM switched to be on the lower populated faction to assist with balance.

VaranisArano

From what I've seen TM's 8 to 16 people count as an organized raid, not a zerg. (I define a zerg as one or more organized raids + pugs at the same location and moving more or less together.)

To be entirely fair to TM, the ulti-dropping pain train ball group meta is designed entirely around dropping your ultimates to kill the opposing group and if that fails you run around letting your healers and earthgore sets heal your group until your ultimates are back up for round 2. And round 3 and 4 is necessary, because the ball group doesn't have a lot of damage outside of their ultimates.

So its hard to argue that a successful ulti-dropping pain train ball group is doing their playstyle badly when they run away because that's actually how you properly execute the tactic when you don't have a lot of group damage outside of your ultimates. Its not garbage play. Its properly executing a certain playstyle - and you are welcome to have whatever opinion you like about that playstyle.

However, its perfectly valid to argue that those ulti-dropping pain train ball groups are over-reliant on their ultimates and their Earthgore procs to carry the day. There are counters to that, but its hard to execute properly, and very hard for small groups or disorganized groups to counter effectively. Which makes sense, really. The best counter to an organized raid is another organized raid or several smaller organized groups.

ShadowMole25

Why not apply the buffs only to the players that helped to get that buff rather than the entire faction? For instance, an offensive scroll buff would only be applied to the players who help to take the scroll. This might encourage players to zerg more, but if everyone is delivering a single scroll then no one is defending keeps. The only buff that I would apply to the entire alliance is the home keep buff.

VaranisArano

ShadowMole25 wrote: »

Why not apply the buffs only to the players that helped to get that buff rather than the entire faction? For instance, an offensive scroll buff would only be applied to the players who help to take the scroll. This might encourage players to zerg more, but if everyone is delivering a single scroll then no one is defending keeps. The only buff that I would apply to the entire alliance is the home keep buff.

Because delivering a scroll is only a part of what it takes to get a scroll home (on a competitive campaign).

To begin with, you need people to take the keep the scroll is in. Then you need a scroll runner, and plenty of times some random player will nip in and grab the scroll first when the group had someone ready to run. Whoever grabs it first gets it, so there's plenty of opportunity for trolling. But let's say all goes well.

If it was a scroll from a scroll temple, that group has to bust open 2 keeps and someone has to defend those two keeps while the scroll is stolen from the temple so that the gate does close and the group grabbing the scroll doesn't die to the scroll defenses. So let's say EP is grabbing a DC scroll from a temple, one group grabs the scroll while another group or random players defend Glademist and either Warden or Rayles long enough for the scroll to be grabbed. Even those those defending players aren't actually present at the scroll grab or never go out to help escort the scroll, they are supporting the scroll take.

But we've got the scroll, the runner is heading in the right direction, we're good. So now, who is supporting the scroll run? Is it the people throwing shards and giving rapid maneuvers to the scroll runner? Certainly. Is the person in the group cutting a path for the scroll runner? Certainly. Is it the people guarding the scroll and fighting and dying to protect the scroll? Certainly.

Is it the people flagging an enemy keep so that the enemy has to choose between chasing the scroll and defending their keep? Yep. Them too. Is it the people hanging out by the mile gates making sure the scroll path is clear? Yep. Them too. Is it people defending home keeps and tying up attackers so that the scroll has safe places to run by and a place to park it eventually? Yep. Them too. Consider how many keeps have to be defended for a scroll to have a safe path from a DC scroll temple to EP's Drakelowe Keep, or an AD scroll temple to EP's Kingscrest Keep, and AD and DC have their own paths to protect. If EP is taking a scroll from DC to Drakelowe, anyone defending at Aleswell, Bleakers, Chalman, Blue Road Keep, Sejanus, Drakelowe and potentially Dragonclaw, Bruma, and Cropsford can all have a part in indirectly protecting that scroll's path even if they never get close to the scroll. And at that point, we're talking close to the entire faction.

A scroll run can be a whole faction event without needing the entire faction to run alongside a scroll. On a competitive campaign, a group can impact the success or failure of a scroll run without ever getting too close to the scroll if they play the objectives properly.

The campaign currently awards the buff to the entire faction and the points to whoever had the scroll quest. That's the reward that goes with the risk of a scroll run, the risk of overextending and losing keeps behind you. Your suggestion lowers the reward and increases the risk, meaning that scroll runs are even less valuable in a competitive campaign. (In a non-competitive campaign, the risk/reward won't matter because the zerg can run the scroll as a whole group and then recapture any keeps they lost easily.) Nor does your suggestion capture the complexity of how distant actions, such as defending a tri-keep to hold a gate open or to keep transit/respawn open for scroll defenders or even holding the line while a scroll is being run, can benefit the scroll delivery.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Really? So you want benefits for being on the losing side? Are we on the recess playground asking teacher to make sure the teams are even and we all have an even playing field?

I get that you wanna buff the underdogs here, but seriously, why should the rewards for winning get handed over to the losing faction? In the name of game balance? Its PVP. Are we really that bad about crying for nerfs that we can't even reward faction players for the objectives they captured? ZOS already gives you the low pop bonus that helps with the score, but you want more buffs?

I'm embarrassed for PVP.

im embarassed for no talent zerglings like yourself who think winning with numbers is equivalent to skill. keep mashing the same button over and over again.

If you had the skill, you wouldn't be whining about numbers, no? And yet we're whining about numbers.

I'd rather that PVPers bucked up, got the skills, and quit whining for the opposing factions to lose the rewards they got for pursuing the objectives. Then, when you've done that, you get to enjoy the rewards of pursuing the objectives yourself!

What you are saying is entirely different with what this thread is about. You are arguing about the rewards for the winning faction. Those are called "end of campaign rewards". You play for the objectives, u get more points, u win the campaign and you get rewarded. Those rewards should be much better for the winning faction compared to the other factions. Atm they are not. They should be better to incentivize people to actually play for the objectives.

The buffs however are a completely different story. Giving buffs to the already dominant faction makes no sense cause you are just making the campaign even more one sided. The losing factions should have the buffs to actually help them catch up and make the campaign more competitive.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

montiferus wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Really? So you want benefits for being on the losing side? Are we on the recess playground asking teacher to make sure the teams are even and we all have an even playing field?

I get that you wanna buff the underdogs here, but seriously, why should the rewards for winning get handed over to the losing faction? In the name of game balance? Its PVP. Are we really that bad about crying for nerfs that we can't even reward faction players for the objectives they captured? ZOS already gives you the low pop bonus that helps with the score, but you want more buffs?

I'm embarrassed for PVP.

im embarassed for no talent zerglings like yourself who think winning with numbers is equivalent to skill. keep mashing the same button over and over again.

If you had the skill, you wouldn't be whining about numbers, no? And yet we're whining about numbers.

I'd rather that PVPers bucked up, got the skills, and quit whining for the opposing factions to lose the rewards they got for pursuing the objectives. Then, when you've done that, you get to enjoy the rewards of pursuing the objectives yourself!

What you are saying is entirely different with what this thread is about. You are arguing about the rewards for the winning faction. Those are called "end of campaign rewards". You play for the objectives, u get more points, u win the campaign and you get rewarded. Those rewards should be much better for the winning faction compared to the other factions. Atm they are not. They should be better to incentivize people to actually play for the objectives.

The buffs however are a completely different story. Giving buffs to the already dominant faction makes no sense cause you are just making the campaign even more one sided. The losing factions should have the buffs to actually help them catch up and make the campaign more competitive.

No, I'm talking about the bonuses you get from pursuing the objectives. You know, the home keep bonus you get for holding all your home keeps. You know, the enemy keep bonuses you get for capturing and holding enemy keeps. Scroll buffs. Emperor buffs. Home keeps, enemy keeps, scrolls, emperor - those are the objectives of the campaign. You get those, you get the buffs that go with them.

The faction that gets those objectives should get the buffs for holding those. Its a reward for focusing on the objectives. Low population factions already get a bonus to help them with the score.

I understand that you are trying to argue "I'm already the underdog because of low population, the buffs make me even more of an underdog!" To which I repeat: "I get that you wanna buff the underdogs here, but seriously, why should the rewards for winning get handed over to the losing faction? In the name of game balance? Its PVP. Are we really that bad about crying for nerfs that we can't even reward faction players for the objectives they captured? ZOS already gives you the low pop bonus that helps with the score, but you want more buffs?

I'd have a little respect for arguing to remove the buffs entirely, but even then I think that's basically whining and I've been on the losing faction plenty. Asking for the underdog to be buffed is essentially asking ZOS to come in and even the playing field for you in PVP.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

I understand that you are trying to argue "I'm already the underdog because of low population, the buffs make me even more of an underdog!" To which I repeat: "I get that you wanna buff the underdogs here, but seriously, why should the rewards for winning get handed over to the losing faction? In the name of game balance? Its PVP. Are we really that bad about crying for nerfs that we can't even reward faction players for the objectives they captured? ZOS already gives you the low pop bonus that helps with the score, but you want more buffs?

But thats what im telling you. They shouldnt. The winning faction should get the rewards. The winning faction should get rewarded in terms of vastly superior end of campaigns rewards. Those are the rewards you should be getting for pursuing the objectives. Atm thats not the case. The winning faction just gets some extra gold, a couple of repair kits and a couple of extra decon gear. Thats stupid so they need to rework the end of campaign rewards. Make the rewards for winning the campaign actually good to incentivize people actually playing for the objectives instead of just farming AP.

The buffs however are a completely different story. Those should not be rewards for winning because like i said you already do that in "end of campaign rewards". The buffs should be there to help the losing factions so that the campaign becomes more competitive. Thats the idea behind giving the underdogs bonuses to help them with the score but then you also have bonuses for the dominant faction. That doesnt even make any sense. The whole point of helping the underdogs is to make the campaign competitive. Buffing the dominant faction as well beats that purpose.

Thats like scaling low lvl characters to max lvl to help them being competitive with max lvl characters and at the same time u buff max lvl characters just for being at max lvl. It just doesnt make any sense.

VaranisArano

I'll agree that they need to rework the end of campaign rewards. However, those also improve based on your leaderboard standing, not just the winning faction, so its more complicated than that.

I do think that the buffs for home keeps, enemy keeps, scrolls, and emperorship are balanced on a competitive campaign. By that, I mean a campaign that has an active and fairly even population at most times of the day and night. Which, to be entirely fair to ZOS, is how Cyrodiil campaigns are designed to be played and balanced. You balance a campaign for mostly equal teams. In a competitive campaign, there's enough opposition that the buffs are never overwhelming.

In a non-competitive campaign, the situation is already insurmountable for the losing side in terms of numbers and organization, so I'm sure those buffs feel like the cherry on top of the suck sundae. The problem isn't the buffs. Its the lack of numbers and organization on the losing side. Buffing the underdog players isn't going to substantially help a fundamental imbalance of numbers and organization.

On top of that, its hard to quantify a non-competitive campaign. Oh, there's the obvious ones like Xarxes and Kastav - but even there were players claiming those were competitive campaigns that shouldn't be removed. And then there's PC/NA Shor, which is pretty non-competitive most of the night and day and then picks up a greater population at primetime and becomes much more competitive. So you can tie those buffs to population (which tends to disadvantage those players who don't play during their server's dominant time zone) or you could remove those buffs from certain servers (keep them on PC/NA Vivec but remove them on Shor) which still runs into the problem of removing incentives for players to focus on objectives like keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship for their entire faction. The score is a long-term benefit, the buffs are a short-term benefit. So its still hard to determine who needs those buffs and in which campaigns.

I don't think that buffing the underdog faction will address the reason that they are the underdog in the first place in any substantial way. The buffs are only an extra problem on top of the lack of population and organization on the underdog side. Furthermore, I don't think that ZOS needs to change something that is balanced on competitive campaigns in order to address the issue on a campaign that can't maintain a competitive level of players on all factions. If there are changes to be made, it should be made on the level of that campaign and that campaign only.

A_G_G_R_O

Why can’t TM farm out all the dreadlords from shor already, they are zerging down my map nothing left to fight.

VaranisArano

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

Why can’t TM farm out all the dreadlords from shor already, they are zerging down my map nothing left to fight.

Its a comment on the sad state of PVP in PC/NA Shor when a single organized raid constitutes "zerging."

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

I'll agree that they need to rework the end of campaign rewards. However, those also improve based on your leaderboard standing, not just the winning faction, so its more complicated than that.

I do think that the buffs for home keeps, enemy keeps, scrolls, and emperorship are balanced on a competitive campaign. By that, I mean a campaign that has an active and fairly even population at most times of the day and night. Which, to be entirely fair to ZOS, is how Cyrodiil campaigns are designed to be played and balanced. You balance a campaign for mostly equal teams. In a competitive campaign, there's enough opposition that the buffs are never overwhelming.

In a non-competitive campaign, the situation is already insurmountable for the losing side in terms of numbers and organization, so I'm sure those buffs feel like the cherry on top of the suck sundae. The problem isn't the buffs. Its the lack of numbers and organization on the losing side. Buffing the underdog players isn't going to substantially help a fundamental imbalance of numbers and organization.

On top of that, its hard to quantify a non-competitive campaign. Oh, there's the obvious ones like Xarxes and Kastav - but even there were players claiming those were competitive campaigns that shouldn't be removed. And then there's PC/NA Shor, which is pretty non-competitive most of the night and day and then picks up a greater population at primetime and becomes much more competitive. So you can tie those buffs to population (which tends to disadvantage those players who don't play during their server's dominant time zone) or you could remove those buffs from certain servers (keep them on PC/NA Vivec but remove them on Shor) which still runs into the problem of removing incentives for players to focus on objectives like keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship for their entire faction. The score is a long-term benefit, the buffs are a short-term benefit. So its still hard to determine who needs those buffs and in which campaigns.

I don't think that buffing the underdog faction will address the reason that they are the underdog in the first place in any substantial way. The buffs are only an extra problem on top of the lack of population and organization on the underdog side. Furthermore, I don't think that ZOS needs to change something that is balanced on competitive campaigns in order to address the issue on a campaign that can't maintain a competitive level of players on all factions. If there are changes to be made, it should be made on the level of that campaign and that campaign only.

There are two types of rewards for the end of campaign. Normal rewards for winning/participating in the campaign and rewards for individual performance based on how much AP u got. I dont really consider some gold and a gold piece of gear of a trash set an actual reward considering the amount of time that you spent to get those rewards. Not even going to touch on the normal rewards for winning the campaign. Those are beyond trash. Both types of rewards need to be reworked.

As far as competitive campaigns are concerned im speaking strictly about those that actually have enough population and daily PVP in general. Not empty, buff campaigns that people use for telvar farm or to get emperor for their buddies.

When one faction is pop locked and the other one has 2 bars and they are pushed back to two keeps its kinda dumb to give the dominant faction further buffs. Giving the dominant faction extra crit, dmg, mitigation and possibly hp (if they have emp) is just a kick in the nuts to the underdogs and basically tells them "wait for ur zergs to arrive" or just "go get a resource and farm potatoes" . The whole reason of giving the underdogs a buff to their points is to help them catch up but at the same time u make it harder for them to even take anything back. So whats the point.

I agree that it mostly boils down to organisation and Im not saying that giving those buffs to the losing faction will drastically change everything but giving the dominant faction further buffs for no reason doesnt help.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

I agree that it mostly boils down to organisation and Im not saying that giving those buffs to the losing faction will drastically change everything but giving the dominant faction further buffs for no reason doesnt help.

Those buffs aren't given for no reason. Those buffs are given by ZOS as an incentive and a reward for achieving short-term faction objectives. Retaining all home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding scrolls, and gaining emperorship. Those objectives and the buffs that are gained by getting them help generate short-term conflict as much as the score helps maintain long-term conflict.

Switching those buffs around so that they are granted to a faction as that faction loses ground is a perverse incentive to losing. Want to be an more powerful ganker with the best buffs? Now, instead of helping your faction win, you want your faction to lose because the worse your faction does the better you get.

The current logic of the buffs is "the better your faction does, the better you do, so support your faction." That works fine on competitive campaigns. In non-competitive campaigns, it just adds the cherry on top of already overwhelming numbers or organization. Switching the buffs around on the other hand is the logic of "The better your faction does, the stronger your opponents become thanks to ZOS, so why support your faction?" And for the losing side, again, "The worse your faction does, the stronger you get, so why not keep losing while you do your own thing?" On competitive campaigns, that would probably be pretty balanced except it really messes with encouraging players to pursue objectives thereby screwing up the fundamental design of Cyrodiil. On noncompetitive campaigns, it empowers solo and small groups on the losing side to screw their faction and do whatever they want, PVPing how they please and enjoying the buffs without fighting for their faction, which is a significant problem in a faction-based, objective-based PVP zone.

The buffs as currently implemented are fine in a competitive campaign. In a noncompetitive campaign, I could accept removing the buffs entirely even though I don't think that will substantially change anything. Switching the buffs to buff the underdog so that players gain in strength as their faction loses creates a lot of perverse incentives that run counter to how Cyrodiil is designed to be played.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

I agree that it mostly boils down to organisation and Im not saying that giving those buffs to the losing faction will drastically change everything but giving the dominant faction further buffs for no reason doesnt help.

Those buffs aren't given for no reason. Those buffs are given by ZOS as an incentive and a reward for achieving short-term faction objectives. Retaining all home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding scrolls, and gaining emperorship. Those objectives and the buffs that are gained by getting them help generate short-term conflict as much as the score helps maintain long-term conflict.

Switching those buffs around so that they are granted to a faction as that faction loses ground is a perverse incentive to losing. Want to be an more powerful ganker with the best buffs? Now, instead of helping your faction win, you want your faction to lose because the worse your faction does the better you get.

The current logic of the buffs is "the better your faction does, the better you do, so support your faction." That works fine on competitive campaigns. In non-competitive campaigns, it just adds the cherry on top of already overwhelming numbers or organization. Switching the buffs around on the other hand is the logic of "The better your faction does, the stronger your opponents become thanks to ZOS, so why support your faction?" And for the losing side, again, "The worse your faction does, the stronger you get, so why not keep losing while you do your own thing?" On competitive campaigns, that would probably be pretty balanced except it really messes with encouraging players to pursue objectives thereby screwing up the fundamental design of Cyrodiil. On noncompetitive campaigns, it empowers solo and small groups on the losing side to screw their faction and do whatever they want, PVPing how they please and enjoying the buffs without fighting for their faction, which is a significant problem in a faction-based, objective-based PVP zone.

The buffs as currently implemented are fine in a competitive campaign. In a noncompetitive campaign, I could accept removing the buffs entirely even though I don't think that will substantially change anything. Switching the buffs to buff the underdog so that players gain in strength as their faction loses creates a lot of perverse incentives that run counter to how Cyrodiil is designed to be played.

If you want to reward the faction that its currently doing good and dominating the map then do it in a way that doesnt harm the overall competitiveness of the campaign. Buff the rewards of the worthy for the alliance that is currently dominating the map. This way you actually reward the alliance that is doing good and at the same time you dont make the campaign more one sided.

Uneven numbers are not only a thing on empty non competitive campaigns. They are also a thing in competitive campaigns hence the nightcaps. The bolded parts also make no sense. Its like you ignore everything i told you. Why the hell would you want ur alliance to lose if the alliance that wins the campaigns is getting actual rewards. Why the hell would anyone prefer to have some temporary buffs over actual rewards that u can get for winning.

The buffs as currently implemented are not fine. Most people dont give a crap about having some temporary buffs so they are not even actual rewards in the first place. Those buffs harm the competitiveness of the campaign and they are doing the exact opposite of what the system is actually trying to do. Which is give some bonuses to the underdogs to help them catch up and make the campaign competitive.

There is already no incentive at all to play for the objectives. The one and only relevant reward in PVP right now is AP, which is prety much completely irrelevant with playing for ur alliance. Even getting emp revolves around farming AP instead of playing for ur alliance. If u want to change that then change the end of campaign rewards and the rewards of the worthy. But those buffs are not the answer.

Manlayan

VaranisArano wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

Why can’t TM farm out all the dreadlords from shor already, they are zerging down my map nothing left to fight.

Its a comment on the sad state of PVP in PC/NA Shor when a single organized raid constitutes "zerging."

Thumb up emoji and all that!

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

I agree that it mostly boils down to organisation and Im not saying that giving those buffs to the losing faction will drastically change everything but giving the dominant faction further buffs for no reason doesnt help.

Those buffs aren't given for no reason. Those buffs are given by ZOS as an incentive and a reward for achieving short-term faction objectives. Retaining all home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding scrolls, and gaining emperorship. Those objectives and the buffs that are gained by getting them help generate short-term conflict as much as the score helps maintain long-term conflict.

Switching those buffs around so that they are granted to a faction as that faction loses ground is a perverse incentive to losing. Want to be an more powerful ganker with the best buffs? Now, instead of helping your faction win, you want your faction to lose because the worse your faction does the better you get.

The current logic of the buffs is "the better your faction does, the better you do, so support your faction." That works fine on competitive campaigns. In non-competitive campaigns, it just adds the cherry on top of already overwhelming numbers or organization. Switching the buffs around on the other hand is the logic of "The better your faction does, the stronger your opponents become thanks to ZOS, so why support your faction?" And for the losing side, again, "The worse your faction does, the stronger you get, so why not keep losing while you do your own thing?" On competitive campaigns, that would probably be pretty balanced except it really messes with encouraging players to pursue objectives thereby screwing up the fundamental design of Cyrodiil. On noncompetitive campaigns, it empowers solo and small groups on the losing side to screw their faction and do whatever they want, PVPing how they please and enjoying the buffs without fighting for their faction, which is a significant problem in a faction-based, objective-based PVP zone.

The buffs as currently implemented are fine in a competitive campaign. In a noncompetitive campaign, I could accept removing the buffs entirely even though I don't think that will substantially change anything. Switching the buffs to buff the underdog so that players gain in strength as their faction loses creates a lot of perverse incentives that run counter to how Cyrodiil is designed to be played.

If you want to reward the faction that its currently doing good and dominating the map then do it in a way that doesnt harm the overall competitiveness of the campaign. Buff the rewards of the worthy for the alliance that is currently dominating the map. This way you actually reward the alliance that is doing good and at the same time you dont make the campaign more one sided.

Uneven numbers are not only a thing on empty non competitive campaigns. They are also a thing in competitive campaigns hence the nightcaps. The bolded parts also make no sense. Its like you ignore everything i told you. Why the hell would you want ur alliance to lose if the alliance that wins the campaigns is getting actual rewards. Why the hell would anyone prefer to have some temporary buffs over actual rewards that u can get for winning.

The buffs as currently implemented are not fine. Most people dont give a crap about having some temporary buffs so they are not even actual rewards in the first place. Those buffs harm the competitiveness of the campaign and they are doing the exact opposite of what the system is actually trying to do. Which is give some bonuses to the underdogs to help them catch up and make the campaign competitive.

There is already no incentive at all to play for the objectives. The one and only relevant reward in PVP right now is AP, which is prety much completely irrelevant with playing for ur alliance. Even getting emp revolves around farming AP instead of playing for ur alliance. If u want to change that then change the end of campaign rewards and the rewards of the worthy. But those buffs are not the answer.

I'm not ignoring what you tell me. I just disagree, rather obviously. You are trying to buff rewards of the worthy and end of campaign rewards to encourage faction winning, which more power to you. Right now, they are 99% useless stuff. So until the RotW and end of campaign rewards are actually changed, I regard them as immaterial to the discussion.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who's played regular on both PC/NA Vivec and PC/NA Shor, a competitive campaign with semi-organized PVP at all hours and a campaign which...doesn't. ZOS designed Cyrodiil to be AvAvA focused on objectives like capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship. Obviously problems happen when a campaign is more like Army v a few v a handful. The problem there isn't the buffs. Its the lack of numbers/organization/capability on the part of the losing factions. None of that changes the fundamental design of Cyrodiil - objectives like capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship. The faction buffs reward a faction for focusing on objectives - for playing Cyrodiil like ZOS intended!

Flipping the buffs around so you get more as your faction loses creates the incentive to let your faction lose ground. Think about it from a small group or solo build perspective (especially those farming groups that set up shop in a resource and just farm players). If your faction is pushed back to the tri-keeps and losing scrolls, you now have all those bonuses you are complaining about the other side having. If you push back and fight for your faction, you will start losing those bonuses. The more you fight for your faction and start taking the very objectives Cyrodiil was designed around, the weaker you as a player get. That makes no sense from a gameplay point-of-view. Faction loyalty and objective-based gameplay starts to look really strange when you get weaker the more you win. Doing this might make Cyrodiil more "competitive" on a player vs player level, but it will not make Cyrodiil more competitive on a faction vs faction level. Quite the opposite actually.

We're going around in circles at this point, honestly. I think that Cyrodiil is designed for factions to focus on objectives and that the faction buffs are an appropriate way for ZOS to reward players that focus on objectives like keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship. You think that ZOS should use those buffs to rebalance the game in favor of the outnumbered/outorganized/outplayed faction players so they have a better shot at capturing those objectives (which isn't going to happen when losing objectives gives you more buffs). We fundamentally disagree on the purpose of the faction buffs and we aren't going to agree.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

I agree that it mostly boils down to organisation and Im not saying that giving those buffs to the losing faction will drastically change everything but giving the dominant faction further buffs for no reason doesnt help.

Those buffs aren't given for no reason. Those buffs are given by ZOS as an incentive and a reward for achieving short-term faction objectives. Retaining all home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding scrolls, and gaining emperorship. Those objectives and the buffs that are gained by getting them help generate short-term conflict as much as the score helps maintain long-term conflict.

Switching those buffs around so that they are granted to a faction as that faction loses ground is a perverse incentive to losing. Want to be an more powerful ganker with the best buffs? Now, instead of helping your faction win, you want your faction to lose because the worse your faction does the better you get.

The current logic of the buffs is "the better your faction does, the better you do, so support your faction." That works fine on competitive campaigns. In non-competitive campaigns, it just adds the cherry on top of already overwhelming numbers or organization. Switching the buffs around on the other hand is the logic of "The better your faction does, the stronger your opponents become thanks to ZOS, so why support your faction?" And for the losing side, again, "The worse your faction does, the stronger you get, so why not keep losing while you do your own thing?" On competitive campaigns, that would probably be pretty balanced except it really messes with encouraging players to pursue objectives thereby screwing up the fundamental design of Cyrodiil. On noncompetitive campaigns, it empowers solo and small groups on the losing side to screw their faction and do whatever they want, PVPing how they please and enjoying the buffs without fighting for their faction, which is a significant problem in a faction-based, objective-based PVP zone.

The buffs as currently implemented are fine in a competitive campaign. In a noncompetitive campaign, I could accept removing the buffs entirely even though I don't think that will substantially change anything. Switching the buffs to buff the underdog so that players gain in strength as their faction loses creates a lot of perverse incentives that run counter to how Cyrodiil is designed to be played.

If you want to reward the faction that its currently doing good and dominating the map then do it in a way that doesnt harm the overall competitiveness of the campaign. Buff the rewards of the worthy for the alliance that is currently dominating the map. This way you actually reward the alliance that is doing good and at the same time you dont make the campaign more one sided.

Uneven numbers are not only a thing on empty non competitive campaigns. They are also a thing in competitive campaigns hence the nightcaps. The bolded parts also make no sense. Its like you ignore everything i told you. Why the hell would you want ur alliance to lose if the alliance that wins the campaigns is getting actual rewards. Why the hell would anyone prefer to have some temporary buffs over actual rewards that u can get for winning.

The buffs as currently implemented are not fine. Most people dont give a crap about having some temporary buffs so they are not even actual rewards in the first place. Those buffs harm the competitiveness of the campaign and they are doing the exact opposite of what the system is actually trying to do. Which is give some bonuses to the underdogs to help them catch up and make the campaign competitive.

There is already no incentive at all to play for the objectives. The one and only relevant reward in PVP right now is AP, which is prety much completely irrelevant with playing for ur alliance. Even getting emp revolves around farming AP instead of playing for ur alliance. If u want to change that then change the end of campaign rewards and the rewards of the worthy. But those buffs are not the answer.

I'm not ignoring what you tell me. I just disagree, rather obviously. You are trying to buff rewards of the worthy and end of campaign rewards to encourage faction winning, which more power to you. Right now, they are 99% useless stuff. So until the RotW and end of campaign rewards are actually changed, I regard them as immaterial to the discussion.

I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who's played regular on both PC/NA Vivec and PC/NA Shor, a competitive campaign with semi-organized PVP at all hours and a campaign which...doesn't. ZOS designed Cyrodiil to be AvAvA focused on objectives like capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship. Obviously problems happen when a campaign is more like Army v a few v a handful. The problem there isn't the buffs. Its the lack of numbers/organization/capability on the part of the losing factions. None of that changes the fundamental design of Cyrodiil - objectives like capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship. The faction buffs reward a faction for focusing on objectives - for playing Cyrodiil like ZOS intended!

Flipping the buffs around so you get more as your faction loses creates the incentive to let your faction lose ground. Think about it from a small group or solo build perspective (especially those farming groups that set up shop in a resource and just farm players). If your faction is pushed back to the tri-keeps and losing scrolls, you now have all those bonuses you are complaining about the other side having. If you push back and fight for your faction, you will start losing those bonuses. The more you fight for your faction and start taking the very objectives Cyrodiil was designed around, the weaker you as a player get. That makes no sense from a gameplay point-of-view. Faction loyalty and objective-based gameplay starts to look really strange when you get weaker the more you win. Doing this might make Cyrodiil more "competitive" on a player vs player level, but it will not make Cyrodiil more competitive on a faction vs faction level. Quite the opposite actually.

We're going around in circles at this point, honestly. I think that Cyrodiil is designed for factions to focus on objectives and that the faction buffs are an appropriate way for ZOS to reward players that focus on objectives like keeps, resources, scrolls, and emperorship. You think that ZOS should use those buffs to rebalance the game in favor of the outnumbered/outorganized/outplayed faction players so they have a better shot at capturing those objectives (which isn't going to happen when losing objectives gives you more buffs). We fundamentally disagree on the purpose of the faction buffs and we aren't going to agree.

Yes im saying that the issue is the rewards so rework those. Those are the issue. Just because they dont exist it doesnt mean that the buffs are the replacement or that u can choose to ignore what they actually do just for the sake of having the delusion that u are getting rewarded.

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

You are not going to be getting weaker the more you win. You are just twisting everything now. You are not winning anything. The whole point of getting those buffs in the first place is because you are getting ur butt kicked and u were pushed back to ur gates. Getting back a few keeps isnt winning. You are still losing, you are still outnumbered. It just gives you a little help to even out the numbers and get back into the game.

Yes cyrodiil is designed for factions to focus on objectives. And its obvious that the way this system works fails because half of the people in cyrodiil dont give a crap about objectives or whether their alliance wins or loses. And why would they. There is prety much no difference whether u finish first or last. The only relevant reward in cyrodiil is AP which is prety much completely irrelevant with actually playing for ur alliance.

You are right, we fundamentally disagree on the purpose of the buffs. You see them as a reward but if they were actual rewards people would play for the objectives and help their alliance to win. Not farming AP in the middle of nowhere.

technohic

VaranisArano wrote: »

A_G_G_R_O wrote: »

Why can’t TM farm out all the dreadlords from shor already, they are zerging down my map nothing left to fight.

Its a comment on the sad state of PVP in PC/NA Shor when a single organized raid constitutes "zerging."

The problem with non-pop-locked campaigns is that it doesn't take much to be a zerg that rolls over the campaings. Especially when mechanics of AOE caps and ridiculous sets fit so well. If you wander by yourself a bit; you do see the solo/duo players that stand out, but its not match for just being the faction with the zerg at that moment in time.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

Arthg

I agree.

These combat buffs are free gifts to PvDoorers - PvEers in essence.

The winning faction should be rewarded in a way that doesn't buff combat.

VaranisArano

Arthg wrote: »

I agree.

These combat buffs are free gifts to PvDoorers - PvEers in essence.

The winning faction should be rewarded in a way that doesn't buff combat.

Focusing on the campaign objectives: capturing keeps, resources, scrolls and emperorship is not PVE in essence. Its a vital part of what generates conflict and combat in Cyrodiil AvAvA in the first place. Those PVP fights you like happen when and where they do because of the conflict over objectives. If the objectives weren't there, it'd be much harder to generate fights. Oh, and on a competitive campaign, those combat buffs aren't "free", there's usually very little PVDoor and usually lots of PVP involved in gaining them.

Now, in a noncompetitive campaign, it might well be PVDoor when the opposing alliance can't field enough players, but that's a problem for the opposing alliances. Not an accurate statement on the state of competitive PVP. So, maybe, let's qualify those blanket statements and clarify what type of PVP you are talking about here.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

I know they are not the same buffs. And i am talking about that specific purpose. Not making campaigns one-sided. Which is what those buffs help do. No one likes campaigns painted in one colour. No one. Not just on score but in general. Which is why vastly outnumbered factions pushed back all the way to their gates should have those buffs. To help them.

I understand that you want more rewards for doing good (apart from the obvious rewards like points and AP) but those buffs are not rewards. You are talking about incentives for completing objectives and playing for ur alliance. No one looks at them as rewards or incentives. As it is now the system just doesnt work.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

I know they are not the same buffs. And i am talking about that specific purpose. Not making campaigns one-sided. Which is what those buffs help do. No one likes campaigns painted in one colour. No one. Not just on score but in general. Which is why vastly outnumbered factions pushed back all the way to their gates should have those buffs. To help them.

I understand that you want more rewards for doing good (apart from the obvious rewards like points and AP) but those buffs are not rewards. You are talking about incentives for completing objectives and playing for ur alliance. No one looks at them as rewards or incentives. As it is now the system just doesnt work.

No one? I do. The PVP guild I'm in does. On competitive campaigns, those bonuses for objectives are seen as rewards, though minor rewards because, again, they are balanced on competitive campaigns and relatively minor increases. You aren't talking about competitive campaigns where we actually see Cyrodiil functioning as designed.

On non-competitive campaigns, they don't work like that, sure. But why should ZOS change the way Cyrodiil works in order to fix a non-competitive campaign where the problems are caused by a fundamental lack of population? They close non-competitive campaigns instead. So which campaign are we closing?

Or in other words, argue for a specific campaign's ruleset to be changed, and I'll go with that. We can try it out, see whether your method works to revive a non-competitive campaign. But your solution is not needed and would hurt objective-based gameplay (how Cyrodiil is designed to be played) on Competitive Campaigns.

pieratsos

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

I know they are not the same buffs. And i am talking about that specific purpose. Not making campaigns one-sided. Which is what those buffs help do. No one likes campaigns painted in one colour. No one. Not just on score but in general. Which is why vastly outnumbered factions pushed back all the way to their gates should have those buffs. To help them.

I understand that you want more rewards for doing good (apart from the obvious rewards like points and AP) but those buffs are not rewards. You are talking about incentives for completing objectives and playing for ur alliance. No one looks at them as rewards or incentives. As it is now the system just doesnt work.

No one? I do. The PVP guild I'm in does. On competitive campaigns, those bonuses for objectives are seen as rewards, though minor rewards because, again, they are balanced on competitive campaigns and relatively minor increases. You aren't talking about competitive campaigns where we actually see Cyrodiil functioning as designed.

On non-competitive campaigns, they don't work like that, sure. But why should ZOS change the way Cyrodiil works in order to fix a non-competitive campaign where the problems are caused by a fundamental lack of population? They close non-competitive campaigns instead. So which campaign are we closing?

Or in other words, argue for a specific campaign's ruleset to be changed, and I'll go with that. We can try it out, see whether your method works to revive a non-competitive campaign. But your solution is not needed and would hurt objective-based gameplay (how Cyrodiil is designed to be played) on Competitive Campaigns.

Nightcaps and maps painted in one colour exist on competitive campaigns too you know. The campaigns are open all day. Not just on prime time where its pop locked.

Again, they are not rewards. There is really no other way to put it. The only relevant reward in cyro is AP and thats not really a debate. Half of the people dont give a crap about playing for their alliance. Even those that do play for the objectives do it for the AP.

VaranisArano

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

I know they are not the same buffs. And i am talking about that specific purpose. Not making campaigns one-sided. Which is what those buffs help do. No one likes campaigns painted in one colour. No one. Not just on score but in general. Which is why vastly outnumbered factions pushed back all the way to their gates should have those buffs. To help them.

I understand that you want more rewards for doing good (apart from the obvious rewards like points and AP) but those buffs are not rewards. You are talking about incentives for completing objectives and playing for ur alliance. No one looks at them as rewards or incentives. As it is now the system just doesnt work.

No one? I do. The PVP guild I'm in does. On competitive campaigns, those bonuses for objectives are seen as rewards, though minor rewards because, again, they are balanced on competitive campaigns and relatively minor increases. You aren't talking about competitive campaigns where we actually see Cyrodiil functioning as designed.

On non-competitive campaigns, they don't work like that, sure. But why should ZOS change the way Cyrodiil works in order to fix a non-competitive campaign where the problems are caused by a fundamental lack of population? They close non-competitive campaigns instead. So which campaign are we closing?

Or in other words, argue for a specific campaign's ruleset to be changed, and I'll go with that. We can try it out, see whether your method works to revive a non-competitive campaign. But your solution is not needed and would hurt objective-based gameplay (how Cyrodiil is designed to be played) on Competitive Campaigns.

Nightcaps and maps painted in one colour exist on competitive campaigns too you know. The campaigns are open all day. Not just on prime time where its pop locked.

Again, they are not rewards. There is really no other way to put it. The only relevant reward in cyro is AP and thats not really a debate. Half of the people dont give a crap about playing for their alliance. Even those that do play for the objectives do it for the AP.

So getting buffed for getting scrolls, home keeps, enemy keeps, and emperorship isn't a reward now? Really now.

A competitive campaign has semi-organized PVP going on at all hours of the day. I play on PC/NA Vivec and every morning for a while now, there's a AD ball group that decides to push EP. Is that somehow non-competitive? No. EP has enough players, we just don't always organize properly to deal with it. That's our problem as a faction, not an unbalanced or noncompetitive campaign.

technohic

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

I know they are not the same buffs. And i am talking about that specific purpose. Not making campaigns one-sided. Which is what those buffs help do. No one likes campaigns painted in one colour. No one. Not just on score but in general. Which is why vastly outnumbered factions pushed back all the way to their gates should have those buffs. To help them.

I understand that you want more rewards for doing good (apart from the obvious rewards like points and AP) but those buffs are not rewards. You are talking about incentives for completing objectives and playing for ur alliance. No one looks at them as rewards or incentives. As it is now the system just doesnt work.

No one? I do. The PVP guild I'm in does. On competitive campaigns, those bonuses for objectives are seen as rewards, though minor rewards because, again, they are balanced on competitive campaigns and relatively minor increases. You aren't talking about competitive campaigns where we actually see Cyrodiil functioning as designed.

On non-competitive campaigns, they don't work like that, sure. But why should ZOS change the way Cyrodiil works in order to fix a non-competitive campaign where the problems are caused by a fundamental lack of population? They close non-competitive campaigns instead. So which campaign are we closing?

Or in other words, argue for a specific campaign's ruleset to be changed, and I'll go with that. We can try it out, see whether your method works to revive a non-competitive campaign. But your solution is not needed and would hurt objective-based gameplay (how Cyrodiil is designed to be played) on Competitive Campaigns.

Nightcaps and maps painted in one colour exist on competitive campaigns too you know. The campaigns are open all day. Not just on prime time where its pop locked.

Again, they are not rewards. There is really no other way to put it. The only relevant reward in cyro is AP and thats not really a debate. Half of the people dont give a crap about playing for their alliance. Even those that do play for the objectives do it for the AP.

So getting buffed for getting scrolls, home keeps, enemy keeps, and emperorship isn't a reward now? Really now.

A competitive campaign has semi-organized PVP going on at all hours of the day. I play on PC/NA Vivec and every morning for a while now, there's a AD ball group that decides to push EP. Is that somehow non-competitive? No. EP has enough players, we just don't always organize properly to deal with it. That's our problem as a faction, not an unbalanced or noncompetitive campaign.

I don’t think of it as a reward. It’s just a means to an end to try to get AP. Of course I don’t really care about that much either. I’m just looking for good fights

VaranisArano

technohic wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

pieratsos wrote: »

Vastly outnumbered factions having buffs is how the system is supposed to be working in the first place. But at the same time you give buffs to the dominant faction just for the sake of having the delusion of getting rewarded which makes no sense since the reward already exists in terms or stacking points that will help you win the campaign which is how every competitive match works anyway. You do good, you win you get rewarded. You dont see football matches where the team that is leading is allowed to put more players in the game just because they are leading. Thats stupid. If you want some extra rewards for doing good look at a different way of getting them like rewards of the worthy. Not at buffs that shift the scales even more.

Since when?

Since when are the buffs awarded to a faction for holding all of the home keeps, capturing enemy keeps, holding defensive and offensive scrolls, and the emperorship supposed to be given to the faction that is losing?

ZOS already buff the outnumbered population . Its called the low population bonus. I've got no problem with this. If you want to argue that it should be improved, argue away.
http://en.uesp.net/wiki/Online:Campaigns
"At certain times, one of the alliances may qualify for an "underdog bonus" during a particular campaign. These are applied when an alliance has a consistently low population of players entering that campaign, or if an alliance has a significantly lower score than the others. Underdog bonuses are re-evaluated every 30 minutes, and grant a 20% increase to Alliance Point gain for the duration. The population and scoring bonus takes all the samples its collected over a period of time, and then on each evaluation period, measures the current score against the average of the prior samples, then applies bonuses as needed. An alliance that is currently benefiting from an underdog bonus will display one of the following icons on the scoreboard:

Population Underdog — Scoring bonus ×4, AP bonus 20%
Score Underdog — Scoring bonus ×3, AP bonus 20%"

But those aren't the buffs you are complaining about. No, you are complaining about the other buffs. The ones awarded for capturing enemy keeps and scrolls;
Enemy Keeps Increases experience, alliance points, and gold gained from kills by 7%. Increase Weapon Critical and Spell Critical by 2%.- 8%(8% with all keeps)
Or the Scrolls bonuses for armor rating by 5%, and Increases weapon power and spell power by 5% if you have plenty of enemy scrolls.

So. Since when were those buffs supposed to be awarded to the outnumbered and losing faction instead of the faction that accomplished those objectives? Since when?

Since you just literally said that the outnumbered faction is already getting buffed. So the system is supposed to be helping the outnumbered faction to make the campaign more competitive. But its also buffing the dominant faction which makes no sense cause its the exact opposite of what its intentions are. (buff the underdogs to make the campaign competitive).

You see, i understand your point. You want to see the dominant faction rewarded etc. I get that. I dont disagree with that. The problem is that those buffs are not a reward. Seriously man they are not. No one cares about them. No one plays for the objectives just to get more crit. You are knocking on the wrong doors. And at the same time by defending those buffs for no reason at all since they are not really rewards, you also harm the campaign in terms of making it one sided. So again, you want to be rewarded for doing good. Ok i get that. But harming the campaign just to get the delusion of being rewarded is not the solution.

The Low Population Bonus is buffing their score, not the players. The function of that is to make sure the score doesn't become completely one-sided, aka so players don't completely give up because they are too deep in the hole.

The bonuses for objectives are there for completing objectives. Capturing keeps, resources, scrolls, emperorship. The function of that is to encourage and reward players for focusing on campaign objectives, aka playing the Cyrodiil AvAvA how it was designed. While the bonuses are relatively minor, on competitive campaigns, you will see people talk about getting the home keep bonuses, or the scroll buffs. They are good, short term and relatively low impact bonuses for focusing on campaign objectives, at least in competitive campaigns.

They are not the same buffs. They do not serve the same function. You want the second set of buffs to function like the first, I think they are fine as they are on competitive campaigns. We disagree.

I know they are not the same buffs. And i am talking about that specific purpose. Not making campaigns one-sided. Which is what those buffs help do. No one likes campaigns painted in one colour. No one. Not just on score but in general. Which is why vastly outnumbered factions pushed back all the way to their gates should have those buffs. To help them.

I understand that you want more rewards for doing good (apart from the obvious rewards like points and AP) but those buffs are not rewards. You are talking about incentives for completing objectives and playing for ur alliance. No one looks at them as rewards or incentives. As it is now the system just doesnt work.

No one? I do. The PVP guild I'm in does. On competitive campaigns, those bonuses for objectives are seen as rewards, though minor rewards because, again, they are balanced on competitive campaigns and relatively minor increases. You aren't talking about competitive campaigns where we actually see Cyrodiil functioning as designed.

On non-competitive campaigns, they don't work like that, sure. But why should ZOS change the way Cyrodiil works in order to fix a non-competitive campaign where the problems are caused by a fundamental lack of population? They close non-competitive campaigns instead. So which campaign are we closing?

Or in other words, argue for a specific campaign's ruleset to be changed, and I'll go with that. We can try it out, see whether your method works to revive a non-competitive campaign. But your solution is not needed and would hurt objective-based gameplay (how Cyrodiil is designed to be played) on Competitive Campaigns.

Nightcaps and maps painted in one colour exist on competitive campaigns too you know. The campaigns are open all day. Not just on prime time where its pop locked.

Again, they are not rewards. There is really no other way to put it. The only relevant reward in cyro is AP and thats not really a debate. Half of the people dont give a crap about playing for their alliance. Even those that do play for the objectives do it for the AP.

So getting buffed for getting scrolls, home keeps, enemy keeps, and emperorship isn't a reward now? Really now.

A competitive campaign has semi-organized PVP going on at all hours of the day. I play on PC/NA Vivec and every morning for a while now, there's a AD ball group that decides to push EP. Is that somehow non-competitive? No. EP has enough players, we just don't always organize properly to deal with it. That's our problem as a faction, not an unbalanced or noncompetitive campaign.

I don’t think of it as a reward. It’s just a means to an end to try to get AP. Of course I don’t really care about that much either. I’m just looking for good fights

Ah, yes. The "I'm just looking for good fights" player. Have fun with that.