Dynamic Population Caps - ever going to happen?

Taylor_MB

Because we really really need them...

https://youtu.be/79URgBpqDwM

I see no downsides, but maybe I'm just being naive.

I implore anyone who might find themselves in a situation where they severely outnumber, try out anoher form of PvP
1) Use the non-faction lock to play toons on other factions and encourage competitive PvP
2) Play in IC
3) Play battlegrounds
4) Play in a different campaign
5) Duel in Stormhaven (or at a random location in Cyrodiil)

caeliusstarbreaker

Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”

dennissomb16_ESO

Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.

Taylor_MB

dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »

Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.

Personally, I would not get frustrated at all. My PvP has always been highly diversified, I would chose one of the options in the OP well before a pop cap would kick in anyway, and would encourage as many as possible to do the same thing.

Would not work for everyone, but if enough people did it (optimism) the problem would be solved.

Ranger209

dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »

Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.

Initially it could be frustrating. Long term it could lead some people to switching to other alliances balancing out population over time. The choice would be to spread out among factions as campaigns reset, or pile on one and endure the queue.

JamilaRaj

Ranger209 wrote: »

dennissomb16_ESO wrote: »

Think about how frustrated you would get if you could not log into your home campaign not because it was full but because one of the other alliances simply were not logged in. Population balance is always the great weakness to a Cyrodiil style of PvP but I will take unbalanced population over not being able to play any day of the week.

Initially it could be frustrating. Long term it could lead some people to switching to other alliances balancing out population over time. The choice would be to spread out among factions as campaigns reset, or pile on one and endure the queue.

Most would pile on one and endure the queue rather than suffer what would be there in lieu of PvP from underdog's PoV. Which is rational.

Zer0oo

To say it with the words of the dev: "You are outnumbered, you should lose"

It has reached almost a comedic stage on PC EU. The factions take now turns in which they will hugely outnumber the other factions and cap the whole map.

6am-8am: AD 2bar organized vs 1bar dc and ep
8am-6pm: DC 2-4 bar vs 1-2 ad and ep
prime time: LAG vs all
12pm-6am EP poplocked and later still always more player with emp vs 1bar ad and dc

Minnesinger

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”

The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.

Reverb

Zeni has not demonstrated that they’re capable of implementing such a thing well. When “match 3 teams of 4 players each” a a bar too high to clear, when “match a tank, healer and 2 damage dealers” is too complicated to to reliably, dynamic population caps are way way out of reach

caeliusstarbreaker

Minnesinger wrote: »

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”

The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.

Let me put it another way, no you shouldn’t be kept out of cyrodiil because your faction currently has more people on it than the others. Why? Your tears for the map don’t override my ability to play.
To be clear, I play DC PC/NA.

Minnesinger

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”

The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.

Let me put it another way, no you shouldn’t be kept out of cyrodiil because your faction currently has more people on it than the others. Why? Your tears for the map don’t override my ability to play.
To be clear, I play DC PC/NA.

Ok if you misssed the point I repeat it. There are players who like to paint the map one color. Never said you should/ could be kept from doing that. Read the first post in this thread. Keep that in mind that these DC more than not were not having many opponents. Thus coming to the conclusion this is hardly pvp like it should be understood.

caeliusstarbreaker

Minnesinger wrote: »

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Minnesinger wrote: »

caeliusstarbreaker wrote: »

Can’t prohibit people from pvp’ing just cause another alliance doesn’t have enough people.
It’s almost as if we had the ability to play on any faction on any campaign.... oh wait, forgot about “loyalty.”

The definition of pvp can be stretched quite far from its original meaning. Rather can´t prohibit people from taking the advantage of an empty pvp map.

Let me put it another way, no you shouldn’t be kept out of cyrodiil because your faction currently has more people on it than the others. Why? Your tears for the map don’t override my ability to play.
To be clear, I play DC PC/NA.

Ok if you misssed the point I repeat it. There are players who like to paint the map one color. Never said you should/ could be kept from doing that. Read the first post in this thread. Keep that in mind that these DC more than not were not having many opponents. Thus coming to the conclusion this is hardly pvp like it should be understood.

Yea I understand that. I play in the main cp campaign and standard cp campaign where the overwhelming majority of map painting goes to EP, except certain hrs when it’s AD doing so. My point is that the idea of a “dynamic” population cap, where more of any alliance entering a campaign is controlled by the amount of members currently on the campaign in one alliance, is hogwash.

Mr_Walker

I won't mince words, sorry, but it's a dumb idea. It will end up being a race to the bottom.

Faction locking did not help matters at all, just quietly.