The buff to Points from Scrolls is helping make Cyrodiil the least competitive ever

Twohothardware

Scrolls give a huge amount of points now when you control all of them and that benefit goes almost entirely to the Alliance with largest population that night caps. Once all the Scrolls are captured it is much easier to sit back the rest of the night during low population hours and guard a few home keeps than it is to attack those keeps to get them back. This allows the night capping Alliance to run up huge score leads above what they used to get just from controlling a lot of the map. That change needs to be reverted because it hasn't improved Cyrodiil at all and Campaigns are more lopsided now than they ever were.

Sharee

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

Twohothardware

Sharee wrote: »

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

It just allows the Alliance with all the Scrolls to sit back and defend a handful of keeps while outscoring the other Alliance that has 3/4ths of the map. The focus for Points should be on holding the most Imperial Keeps which is much harder to do and helps keep the map more balanced in scoring.

Cyrodiil is most definitely not better now than it was a year ago in terms of scoring balance.

jaws343

Sharee wrote: »

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

That just won't work. It isn't EP players in, say, Australia's fault that there are more of them on than another alliance. You can't punish players for have more of a population than another if there aren't players on the other alliance. The same works for EP, DC, and AD. It isn't either alliances fault that the other alliances don't have players on at a different time of day. It just happens with a global game. Dynamic caps work to prevent players who are unfortunate enough to not be in the right time zone or only able to play at certain times of day from playing.

For example. Let's say AD has 10 players wanting to play, DC has 5, and EP has 20 players. So the dynamic cap method would only allow 5 players for each alliance on the server, cutting out 20 players between AD and EP from being able to play the game entirely in the zone they want to play in. This is not a solution. This is players who live on one side of the globe saying their concerns are more important that other players. They're not. And dynamic caps are a terrible idea.

Twohothardware

jaws343 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

That just won't work. It isn't EP players in, say, Australia's fault that there are more of them on than another alliance. You can't punish players for have more of a population than another if there aren't players on the other alliance. The same works for EP, DC, and AD. It isn't either alliances fault that the other alliances don't have players on at a different time of day. It just happens with a global game. Dynamic caps work to prevent players who are unfortunate enough to not be in the right time zone or only able to play at certain times of day from playing.

For example. Let's say AD has 10 players wanting to play, DC has 5, and EP has 20 players. So the dynamic cap method would only allow 5 players for each alliance on the server, cutting out 20 players between AD and EP from being able to play the game entirely in the zone they want to play in. This is not a solution. This is players who live on one side of the globe saying their concerns are more important that other players. They're not. And dynamic caps are a terrible idea.

ESO is a global game but there are US and EU servers so time zone differences aren't the real issue. The majority of players causing the imbalanced numbers are due to Alliance hopping and not wanting to play on the weaker sides because there's no incentives to be on any Alliance but the one that is going to win the Campaign. And the larger the score difference gets during a Campaign the more lopsided the numbers get.

jaws343

Twohothardware wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

That just won't work. It isn't EP players in, say, Australia's fault that there are more of them on than another alliance. You can't punish players for have more of a population than another if there aren't players on the other alliance. The same works for EP, DC, and AD. It isn't either alliances fault that the other alliances don't have players on at a different time of day. It just happens with a global game. Dynamic caps work to prevent players who are unfortunate enough to not be in the right time zone or only able to play at certain times of day from playing.

For example. Let's say AD has 10 players wanting to play, DC has 5, and EP has 20 players. So the dynamic cap method would only allow 5 players for each alliance on the server, cutting out 20 players between AD and EP from being able to play the game entirely in the zone they want to play in. This is not a solution. This is players who live on one side of the globe saying their concerns are more important that other players. They're not. And dynamic caps are a terrible idea.

ESO is a global game but there are US and EU servers so time zone differences aren't the real issue. The majority of players causing the imbalanced numbers are due to Alliance hopping and not wanting to play on the weaker sides because there's no incentives to be on any Alliance but the one that is going to win the Campaign. And the larger the score difference gets during a Campaign the more lopsided the numbers get.

Except in the actual campaign (Vivec) where the servers are mostly pop-locked during primetime and weekends. The real issue is there aren't enough players to fill multiple servers and yet players insist on playing on empty servers for whatever reason.

Sharee

jaws343 wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

That just won't work. It isn't EP players in, say, Australia's fault that there are more of them on than another alliance.

Lets be honest here. There is absolutely no reason why one side in a conflict should have a naturally-occuring overwhelming population advantage, regardless of time of the day, since the alliances have roughly the same popularity (according to all polls i ever saw).

Especially considering that the other campaign right next to it also has an overwhelming advantage of a different color.

Sure, there might be a slight, naturally-occuring population imbalance here and there. But one side locked while two others have 1 bar each? This is players themselves choosing to all pile on the same side in any given campaign for easy wins. And that absolutely *is* their fault.

Heimpai

Twohothardware wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

The change is good, its the nightcapping that's the problem that needs to be fixed. Unless we get dynamic population caps (capping all the alliances at the current population of the lowest one), nothing is really gonna change.

It just allows the Alliance with all the Scrolls to sit back and defend a handful of keeps while outscoring the other Alliance that has 3/4ths of the map. The focus for Points should be on holding the most Imperial Keeps which is much harder to do and helps keep the map more balanced in scoring.

Cyrodiil is most definitely not better now than it was a year ago in terms of scoring balance.

A handful🤔 more like they’re at your home keeps so when you log on you get bagged by emp‘s group and can’t even make it to the first keep out the gates

geonsocal

100% agree @Twohothardware ...campaign scoring and gameplay has changed significantly...

dramatically affects lower population alliances...

Biro123

Pop caps are not the way to go. It won't stop those who faction-hop, or deliberately play off-peak to cap the map (EU based players are doing this at 6-7am) - it will only indiscriminately impact people - hurting those who really can only play at ttaht time and on that alliance..

No, it has to be a scoring change - It has to remove the incentives for morning-capping - maybe something along the lines of making your scores reflect the population at the time..
Lets say for example a scroll is taken by AD when they have 90% more population than the next biggest faction.. then holding that scroll will only award them 1 point per tick (instead of 10)..

But taking a scroll when pop-capped on all sides should mean it earns the full 10 points per tick..

I'm sure there are flaws with that - but it needs something along those lines to make it so that the actions of a minority don't have a disproportionate impact in the overall campaign score.

Sharee

Biro123 wrote: »

Pop caps are not the way to go. It won't stop those who faction-hop, or deliberately play off-peak to cap the map (EU based players are doing this at 6-7am) - it will only indiscriminately impact people - hurting those who really can only play at ttaht time and on that alliance..

It wouldn't hurt them (except maybe in the first few days).

The factions are roughly equally popular. The 1-vs-lock scenario is not due to the natural alliance preference of players, its artifically created by the lack of dynamic cap(and people taking the path of least resistance to victory).

If dynamic caps were introduced, people would not be hurt, because the available population would quickly naturally disperse to the factions they would otherwise play(factions are equally popular!), creating a balanced experience.
The beauty of it is that once this happens, the caps would hardly be noticed by anyone anymore (since noone would try to faction stack anymore, knowing it is not possible.)

Katahdin

The change to scrolls actually make them worth something. The way it was before, no one gave a damn about the scrolls most of the time and hardly ever bothered to capture them unless they were just PVDooring the map and had nothing else to do.


The only way population imbalance will be solved is to force population balance via dynamic population caps.

I know that is not popular but it is the only way

.

Twohothardware

Katahdin wrote: »

The change to scrolls actually make them worth something. The way it was before, no one gave a damn about the scrolls most of the time and hardly ever bothered to capture them unless they were just PVDooring the map and had nothing else to do.


The only way population imbalance will be solved is to force population balance via dynamic population caps.

I know that is not popular but it is the only way

.

Every Campaign I've played in for two years people went for Scrolls when they had the opportunity. The only difference is that the Scrolls were not the #1 focus that ZOS has made them now by giving them a huge score buff. If they wanted to buff Scrolls it should of been to the amount of AP you earn while holding them so that it didn't screw up the Campaign scoring system.

It makes it where there's no point in fighting for Imperial Keeps and Resources now because the only thing that matters is the Scrolls which all together are worth 80 points.

OneWarlord001

Balance population by reducing number of NPC guards. The more player advantage you have the less guards at your kerps, and maybe extra for the other factions. This will allow smaller groups to flip keeps.

MalagenR

The scrolls are the focal point but I don't see how that's a bad thing. They are THE *** ELDER SCROLLS, on top of that - it adds a layer of strategy and coordination.

If your faction isn't coordinated enough to run the scroll or defend them while also pushing for keeps you get punished, like you should.

Heimpai

MalagenR wrote: »

The scrolls are the focal point but I don't see how that's a bad thing. They are THE *** ELDER SCROLLS, on top of that - it adds a layer of strategy and coordination.

If your faction isn't coordinated enough to run the scroll or defend them while also pushing for keeps you get punished, like you should.

I’ll correct your statement..if you don’t have a zerg on off hours you get punished

zyk

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please revert the scroll scoring changes until your server tech can handle the kind of gameplay scroll and emp mechanics result in.

When you log in to prime time Cyrodiil to see one faction has emp and all scrolls, you know it's going to be a completely miserable evening because of the lag those things result in.

Biro123

zyk wrote: »

@ZOS_BrianWheeler Please revert the scroll scoring changes until your server tech can handle the kind of gameplay scroll and emp mechanics result in.

When you log in to prime time Cyrodiil to see one faction has emp and all scrolls, you know it's going to be a completely miserable evening because of the lag those things result in.

Every evening on PC EU Vivec.