Bullying the 3rd place and Incentive

LightYagami

I guess one of the original intention of war better 3 alliances is to give a chance losing factions to work together and fight the winning one.
The fact is that the two winning alliances keep bullying and gating the 3rd one, even though the 3rd one has no scroll and has only 2 keeps left...
(I'm not speaking for or against any particular alliance.)

To fix the problem and make the game more fun to play, ZOS may consider to adjust the incentive... for example introducing some kinds of AP factor...

If you capture keeps / rss or kill players of the 1st place faction, you'll receive a certain % more AP, for example 10%.
If you do these on the 3rd place faction, you'll receive 5% less AP.

The above is only a brief example of incentive changes, but trust introducing something to reduce to problem of bullying on the losing one.
Feel free to have other suggestions.

Sarousse

We've asked for an incentive even for the first place in Cyrodiil since BETA. Hundreds of forum posts were made and were totally ignored, so don't count on it.

Beardimus

Huh, there already is an underdog bonus right?

Runefang

Beardimus wrote: »

Huh, there already is an underdog bonus right?

I believe OP wants an incentive for the first two alliances to fight each other. Often winning is a result of who can dominate 3rd place best rather than there being an incentive to take on 1st or 2nd.

orion_1981usub17_ESO

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

Elo106

The same thing happens in battlegrounds, 2nd and 3rd place fight over 2nd place instead of fighting 1st together.
BGs really should only be 2 teams.

Cyro should award more AP for fighting 1st place.

Joy_Division

Most of the time I am playing I have no idea who is in first, second, last, by how much, or how many days are left in the campaign.

nukk3r

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

orion_1981usub17_ESO

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

nukk3r

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

Well sorry that my fellow players need to pay their bills and care for their families. I wonder who pays yours if you and your alliance can afford a 24/7 (or even 9 to 5) presence in a game?

Also LOL'd at "competitive game", we're talking about ESO of all games.

Jayserix

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

Well sorry that my fellow players need to pay their bills and care for their families. I wonder who pays yours if you and your alliance can afford a 24/7 (or even 9 to 5) presence in a game?

Also LOL'd at "competitive game", we're talking about ESO of all games.

This.

LightYagami

Runefang wrote: »

Beardimus wrote: »

Huh, there already is an underdog bonus right?

I believe OP wants an incentive for the first two alliances to fight each other. Often winning is a result of who can dominate 3rd place best rather than there being an incentive to take on 1st or 2nd.

Yep that's my intention...

Two leading fractions work together to continuously gate the no scroll 3rd isn't fun I guess.
They don't need to nerf any alliance but only slightly adjust AP gain.

Shomenuchi

Isn't it social game? I mean Do you really want someone to regulate relations between aliances? We are all people after all playing online game and it makes this game really interesting. Because it's a projections of our real life with 1 exception - it's safe for us.
If 2 sides are acting together against the 3d one there is should be a reason. Maybe that alliance does morning cap a lot or has the biggest well controlled zerg or smth.
I'm playng 90% of time in Cyro since 2016 and no, I don't want anything or anyone interfere with the current state.

LightYagami

Shomenuchi wrote: »

Isn't it social game? I mean Do you really want someone to regulate relations between aliances? We are all people after all playing online game and it makes this game really interesting. Because it's a projections of our real life with 1 exception - it's safe for us.
If 2 sides are acting together against the 3d one there is should be a reason. Maybe that alliance does morning cap a lot or has the biggest well controlled zerg or smth.
I'm playng 90% of time in Cyro since 2016 and no, I don't want anything or anyone interfere with the current state.

I'm only saying like 5% to 10% AP difference, and that's it.

It's not any big change like Double AP or Double XP or CP2.0 or Hammer or no-proc or One Tamriel or Introducing of new Classes or Changing sets.

alterfenixeb17_ESO

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

Well sorry that my fellow players need to pay their bills and care for their families. I wonder who pays yours if you and your alliance can afford a 24/7 (or even 9 to 5) presence in a game?

Also LOL'd at "competitive game", we're talking about ESO of all games.

Keep in mind that all 3 alliances have all sort of players including those who need t work and those who do not. Stating that nobody in your alliance (or mine for that matter is also affected here) can log in morning due to having to pay bills is like stating that players from other alliances do not have to do that which is just not true. And it does not take a few dozens of people to take objectives in mostly empty map.

orion_1981usub17_ESO

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

Well sorry that my fellow players need to pay their bills and care for their families. I wonder who pays yours if you and your alliance can afford a 24/7 (or even 9 to 5) presence in a game?

Also LOL'd at "competitive game", we're talking about ESO of all games.

Your apologies are just empty air, you have no more power over your fellow players than I do. Don't shoot the messenger! Every person out there is different and has a different life. It's not anyone's fault of some alliance have folks that can afford to play longer on the game than others.

Like I'll never be an emperor because I don't have that amount of time to devout to it. I dont complain that others do and they get to be emperors and I don't. I don't seek to put nee arbitrary rules upon them to assuage my own feelings of inadequacy.

It is just a game, but every game has rules and must have willing participants. Show up to sports games, short of players and half hearted... you will lose.

xylena_lazarow

Similar thread: double AP for attacking 1st place faction

An important detail that seems to be overlooked in these threads: no incentive should ever be given for ganging up on 2nd place, since this helps 1st place to snowball in population and score, much like ganging up on 3rd place does.

Starshadw

Beardimus wrote: »

Huh, there already is an underdog bonus right?

Lets not talk about the "low pop" bonus because the way it was implemented means it gets abused and exploited. It needs to go until and unless they can figure out a better way to implement it. And while they're at it, they can take the stupid hammer as well.

Guizan

AP only help players in the personal emperor leaderboard, what is needed is some way for the last place
alliance getting more points on the alliance ranking helping them catch up. I have had a decent amount of AP
even in campaigns that my faction lost badly as I play daily for a couple of hours.

Flangdoodle

Hysterical that anyone would think being serious about the game has anything to do with who wins campaigns. Campaigns are won by whichever faction has the most night/day capping players. Period.

AllPlayAndNoWork

The low pop bonus is a joke. It can be easily exploited to win campaigns. Happens just about every campaign on PC EU Raven at the moment.

No show for third faction for 15 days, two other factions fight tooth and nail... Third faction then starts night capping then logs out all day. Two factions retake the map, and fight tooth and nail again... Third faction gets 320+ low pop bonus for most of the day..

PvD, log out and win !

In 5 days the third faction has closed the gap on second place, about 2000 points and is now only 500 points behind the leaders having closed a gap of about 4500 points.

A better way to implement this would be to give them points no more than faction1 + faction2 / 2. EG: (faction1 100 + faction2 75: 100+75 = 175/2 = 87.5 (88). Faction3 would get 88 points for low pop bonus.

Soul_Demon

LightYagami wrote: »

I guess one of the original intention of war better 3 alliances is to give a chance losing factions to work together and fight the winning one.
The fact is that the two winning alliances keep bullying and gating the 3rd one, even though the 3rd one has no scroll and has only 2 keeps left...
(I'm not speaking for or against any particular alliance.)

To fix the problem and make the game more fun to play, ZOS may consider to adjust the incentive... for example introducing some kinds of AP factor...

If you capture keeps / rss or kill players of the 1st place faction, you'll receive a certain % more AP, for example 10%.
If you do these on the 3rd place faction, you'll receive 5% less AP.

The above is only a brief example of incentive changes, but trust introducing something to reduce to problem of bullying on the losing one.
Feel free to have other suggestions.

Already stated prior to this the best solution is to award AP based on
attacking first place faction players = 200% normal AP
attacking second place faction players = 100% normal AP
attacking third place faction players = 50% normal AP

CooloutAC

They do it just to ragequit players. I don't think they could care less about any incentive there would be. The community is just not every competitive. They don't even play map objectives in the bg's.

CooloutAC

AllPlayAndNoWork wrote: »

The low pop bonus is a joke. It can be easily exploited to win campaigns. Happens just about every campaign on PC EU Raven at the moment.

No show for third faction for 15 days, two other factions fight tooth and nail... Third faction then starts night capping then logs out all day. Two factions retake the map, and fight tooth and nail again... Third faction gets 320+ low pop bonus for most of the day..

PvD, log out and win !

In 5 days the third faction has closed the gap on second place, about 2000 points and is now only 500 points behind the leaders having closed a gap of about 4500 points.

A better way to implement this would be to give them points no more than faction1 + faction2 / 2. EG: (faction1 100 + faction2 75: 100+75 = 175/2 = 87.5 (88). Faction3 would get 88 points for low pop bonus.

I was wondering how the last place team all month suddenly was coming in 1st and second during the last week. interesting.

DrSlaughtr

Anyone who's played Risk with 3 players knows how it goes. They should never have went with an odd number of factions, lore be damned.

Firstmep

Well temporary alliances do exist in war.

Radiance

The savagery of War is animalistic in nature and predators always go for the weak and wounded prey.

Even with incentive, people will still go after easy pickins' just for the simple fact that seeing their colors on the map make them feel like they've accomplished something. If you want to gain something, conquest is more appealing than Stalemate war unless you're just looking for a fight but that's just IMO, I suppose.

starlizard70ub17_ESO

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

Well sorry that my fellow players need to pay their bills and care for their families. I wonder who pays yours if you and your alliance can afford a 24/7 (or even 9 to 5) presence in a game?

Also LOL'd at "competitive game", we're talking about ESO of all games.

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

nukk3r wrote: »

orion_1981usub17_ESO wrote: »

All is fair in love and war...
Seriously if the third faction doesn't wish to be "bullied" by the other two factions there is a method they can use to improve their position. This is called 3C Command, Control, Communications. This maybe just a game but it's still a real fight and you either care enough to win or you don't deserve to.

There is no reason to affect AP, it wouldn't like have its intended effect especially if the third faction are just so darn farmable...

This doesn't work if the majority of players of a certain alliance plays only during prime time, while the winning alliance controls the map for 12 hours during the day. No matter how good you communicate or how hard you try, you simply can't beat an alliance that gets ~3k points when your side is at work.

That's the issue... your alliance does not want it. They do not care enough to win and therefore do not deserve to win. A competitive game is inherently a meritocracy by its very nature. And those that don't win should accept their already generous participation trophies.

And understand, most players don't have the time or inclination to make lasting contributions to their alliance... but the alliance that has the most that will, wins. When folks switch sides to ride coattails, it's just a reminder of the selfish nature of humanity, don't expect loyalty from strangers. They're free to switch and drive up the log in queues times.

And the other two factions have to shape up or be happy with their rewards, because they reap what they sow. And thats exactly how it should be.

Well sorry that my fellow players need to pay their bills and care for their families. I wonder who pays yours if you and your alliance can afford a 24/7 (or even 9 to 5) presence in a game?

Also LOL'd at "competitive game", we're talking about ESO of all games.

Your apologies are just empty air, you have no more power over your fellow players than I do. Don't shoot the messenger! Every person out there is different and has a different life. It's not anyone's fault of some alliance have folks that can afford to play longer on the game than others.

Like I'll never be an emperor because I don't have that amount of time to devout to it. I dont complain that others do and they get to be emperors and I don't. I don't seek to put nee arbitrary rules upon them to assuage my own feelings of inadequacy.

It is just a game, but every game has rules and must have willing participants. Show up to sports games, short of players and half hearted... you will lose.

Kind of sad some people can only measure their success in life by how well they do in a video game but that's how it goes. Over the last few years, AD the 3rd place team have lost a lot of players. Many stopped playing PvP, while most just moved over to EP so they can pick up first place rewards. And it's all because how unbalanced the map and the rewards for PvP are. And it won't change, so if you want a "competitive game" , look elsewhere.

DrSlaughtr

Right now on XB NA in Blackreach DC and Yellow players are swapping back and forth to take advantage of bonuses to push red into third. They leave AP on the board by not attacking one another because they aren't playing to just win. They're trying to embarrass red who normally win the campaign. So they'll gate red, but blue will leave the entire south yellow. Then team green just follows the red groups around, killing them together without attacking one another.

It's trollish behaviors but it's part of the game currently.

Indigogo

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Right now on XB NA in Blackreach DC and Yellow players are swapping back and forth to take advantage of bonuses to push red into third. They leave AP on the board by not attacking one another because they aren't playing to just win. They're trying to embarrass red who normally win the campaign. So they'll gate red, but blue will leave the entire south yellow. Then team green just follows the red groups around, killing them together without attacking one another.

It's trollish behaviors but it's part of the game currently.

Good lord. This is a thing everywhere then. Identical story in my campaign on ps4.

Jaraal

Another bad thing about being in last place is that at the end of every campaign the last place alliance usually loses good players who swap over to the winning faction.... at least that's how it works in Gray Host. And the gimpy faction is discovered early in the month, and is often focused a lot because players know the resistance will not be as formidable and there are easier scoring opportinies by preying on the weak.

I would be in favor of incentivizing attacking the top faction. It could make things a bit more even on the battlefield.

Joy_Division wrote: »

Most of the time I am playing I have no idea who is in first, second, last, by how much, or how many days are left in the campaign.

Some of us check the score regularly to see what we can acquire before the hourly eval. Strategy is important in winning campaigns.