Is there an ETA on balancing the EU servers ? I heard US servers had been balanced.

Zer04

Pretty much this. One side is constantly underpopulated . I spend the whole day fighting bigger groups either small or large scale. Lots of people are leaving because it’s such an unpleasant experience making the situation worse. What makes it worse is that the 2 largest guilds on the other factions have formed a pact against the underpopulated one. Guilds are mad at people when they attack keeps because there’s “an agreement” not to attack certain keeps.

Some balancing would be great right now.

EvilAutoTech

I used to think that dynamic pop lock was a good idea. By that I mean, all alliances are allowed one bar of population until all alliances have a full bar, at which time a second population bar is added for all alliances. I no longer believe that would be a good idea.

If population increased enough to open another bar on all alliances and one or two have population increases but the third has a population loss, do we kick the people who just got in?

What about people who only pvp for one alliance? Should they have to wait when there are open spots in their alliance because another alliance cannot muster enough people to reach the artificially lowered pop cap?

If people have mandatory wait times for their alliance because other alliances don't have the population, people will flock to the no wait alliances just long enough to end the wait times and then return to the preferred alliance. That leaves the balance the same as before.

Another problem with ZOS trying to force population balance is that without a way to monetize the new system, such as selling over-pop priority tokens, there is not much justification for the development costs.

Sorry for the rambling rant.

TL/DR no, there is not, and never will be, balance in Cyrodiil.

Slack

And can you enlighten us how you'd believe something like this to be achievable (assuming what you say about balance is actually true).
Like Alliance-change-forcing people or handicapping the "better" alliances by letting about 100 players less join?

And both solutions would be stupid tbh

Asardes

Balanced in what way? You mean forcibly transfer people from one campaign to another to split population equally? I don't think this has been done before since it will *** off people quite badly. I think the problem with EU vs. NA servers is most likely caused by the fact the people playing on the former are more widely and evenly distributed geographically across time zones. For example players in Russia and the Middle East will tend to connect much earlier compared to players in Western EU, as opposed to people on US East vs. West Coast, with only a small minority playing from AU/Oceania and EU respectively.

oXI_Viper_IXo

There is no balance of which you speak.

Malmai

Balance ? Haha

Zer04

Slack wrote: »

And can you enlighten us how you'd believe something like this to be achievable (assuming what you say about balance is actually true).
Like Alliance-change-forcing people or handicapping the "better" alliances by letting about 100 players less join?

And both solutions would be stupid tbh

One idea would be to put variable waiting times depending on how unbalanced the servers are. Extreme times would force players to fill the smaller alliance. You could combine this with an alliance amnesty - where you can swap alliance every 3 months , meaning there’s no releveling etc etc. Or just having a floating lock at each bar level.

Example 20 min wait for 1 bar uneven , 40 mins 2 bars uneven. Or even more extreme 40 , 80 mins.

Unbalanced servers are terrible for all players. Zerging is unrewarding , being zerged is just crap. Equalish battles are where the accoumplishment is, using skill rather than 3:1 2:1 ratios.

AjiBuster499

I thought this was about class balancing.