Cyrodiil Population Recomendation

Jaraal

techyeshic wrote: »

neferpitou73 wrote: »

I've always thought they should just up the rewards, such as give a ridiculous number of gold mats to the faction that wins the campaign, etc. Which might incentivize more people to go in there. They'd have to balance the score by population.

I think that would incentivize players to wait to see the likely winner, and then pile on.

They need to add tier 4 and 5 rewards. The current tier 3 rewards are way too easy for casual players to earn.

AJones43865

Jaraal wrote: »

techyeshic wrote: »

neferpitou73 wrote: »

I've always thought they should just up the rewards, such as give a ridiculous number of gold mats to the faction that wins the campaign, etc. Which might incentivize more people to go in there. They'd have to balance the score by population.

I think that would incentivize players to wait to see the likely winner, and then pile on.

They need to add tier 4 and 5 rewards. The current tier 3 rewards are way too easy for casual players to earn.

This is a good idea. (unless ZOS does not want to encourage people to PvP)

xylena_lazarow

AJones43865 wrote: »

They need to add tier 4 and 5 rewards... This is a good idea. (unless ZOS does not want to encourage people to PvP)

Agreed, if PvP was as rewarding as grinding crafting writs, you damn well bet more people would be trying.

DrSlaughtr

Here's what you do.

1. Decrease the cost of alliance change to 1k to 1.5k. no one wants to spend 30 bucks to switch for a 30 campaign.

2. Increase the low pop bonus to 150%.

3. Decrease Alliance score AP gain by 25% for pop locked factions unless all 3 are locked. Give the others a chance to compete. Make it less appealing to faction stack and plow the map.

If you make it easier to move alliances and give a big ol carrot in the form of AP and the chance to actually compete, people will switch.

neferpitou73

How about you just delete unneeded campaigns and direct the server resources to the other campaigns. There's no reason to have two CP campaigns. Faction lock/no faction lock doesn't matter when one faction is dominating

From what I hear EP is dominating Grayhost, DC Blackreach and AD Raven, with the other factions being scarely populated. So the only thing the extra campaigns do is split the population for slightly different gameplay (in the case of the CP campaigns anyway, No-proc is a different beast).

DrSlaughtr

neferpitou73 wrote: »

How about you just delete unneeded campaigns and direct the server resources to the other campaigns. There's no reason to have two CP campaigns. Faction lock/no faction lock doesn't matter when one faction is dominating

From what I hear EP is dominating Grayhost, DC Blackreach and AD Raven, with the other factions being scarely populated. So the only thing the extra campaigns do is split the population for slightly different gameplay (in the case of the CP campaigns anyway, No-proc is a different beast).

I agree. I actually wrote in another thread that be and GH should be merged, their resources combined and pop cap increased to keep people going. Cyrodiil population is spread too thin.

Alchimiste1

I really think they need to remove faction lock for a bit, at least until population recovers more.
I and some friends swapped to AD because they had the lowest pop last campaign, now they have the most whenever we play (guess I lot of people had the same idea). From my perspective seems like there is a good amount of people willing to just swap to what should be the lowest populated faction

you guys are welcome to agree or disagree and provide me with a different perspective.

AJones43865

Alchimiste1 wrote: »

I really think they need to remove faction lock for a bit, at least until population recovers more.
I and some friends swapped to AD because they had the lowest pop last campaign, now they have the most whenever we play (guess I lot of people had the same idea). From my perspective seems like there is a good amount of people willing to just swap to what should be the lowest populated faction

you guys are welcome to agree or disagree and provide me with a different perspective.

The problem is most people actually swap to the winning faction late in the campaign. It's only a small percentage of players that actually strive for competitive game play. I agree with you, but in practical terms it didn't work out as intended. People tended to just swap to the winning faction late in the camp.

NordSwordnBoard

wotevah wrote: »

An idea I chucked out there a while ago, which could make Cyro relevant again to many players..

Make claiming keeps for your guild a revenue generator for the guild. Even have some of the trader slots in the Faction capitals tied to who owns particular keeps in Cyrodiil.

Imagine trade guilds trying to hold keeps for profit in cyro and even more profit via the top trade spots in Mournhold, Wayrest and Elden Root. Something like this would liven it up quite a bit.

Imagine Cyrodiil guild traders, at crossroads. Bid with AP. Listing/tax/sink fees paid in AP. Imagine the flip timer counts down as factions fight for the right to bid for 7 days of commerce! Neutral traders, anybody can buy - but beware the ganks! lol Having access in the keeps is fleeting and often wasted on a joke anyway.

Kordai

Alchimiste1 wrote: »

I really think they need to remove faction lock for a bit, at least until population recovers more.
I and some friends swapped to AD because they had the lowest pop last campaign, now they have the most whenever we play (guess I lot of people had the same idea). From my perspective seems like there is a good amount of people willing to just swap to what should be the lowest populated faction

you guys are welcome to agree or disagree and provide me with a different perspective.

Yeah that doesn't happen on PC NA. Very few people swap especially when they are winning. Probably less than 10 actual pvpers switch factions each camp. And it's probably even less for the pugs, the only way they get kills is with numbers.

auz

Getting rid of faction lock would be great. I hate logging in to see my alliance has the other 2 gated. I just leave straight away and go bgs. Blackreach and the other campaigns are dead my times and so is IC. It leaves only bgs.

Tiphis

Kordai wrote: »

Alchimiste1 wrote: »

I really think they need to remove faction lock for a bit, at least until population recovers more.
I and some friends swapped to AD because they had the lowest pop last campaign, now they have the most whenever we play (guess I lot of people had the same idea). From my perspective seems like there is a good amount of people willing to just swap to what should be the lowest populated faction

you guys are welcome to agree or disagree and provide me with a different perspective.

Yeah that doesn't happen on PC NA. Very few people swap especially when they are winning. Probably less than 10 actual pvpers switch factions each camp. And it's probably even less for the pugs, the only way they get kills is with numbers.

Yeah largely the biggest zerg faction attracts more and more zerglings. EP pop actually managed to go back up again, owning most of the map.

Ostonoha

They would never do it (gotta sell those faction change tokens). But I think the game has reached the point where base factions should not matter when it comes to cyrodill. Let players que for a campaign as a low popped faction. Call it a mercenary system or what ever. So people can make quick swaps even if its temporary to create fights aka content.

Amottica

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

A better solution would be to scale player damage and mitigation based on the population imbalance.

If all populations are more or less the same, everyone is on equal footing. If one faction massively outnumbers the other two, the players of the overpopulated faction do less damage and take more damage. The underpopulated factions do more damage and take less. It should be a sliding scale based on the magnitude of the imbalance.

I wouldn't expect anything nuanced from people who would perform surgery with an axe.

Scaling a player's damage based on faction populations would require players in lower pop factions to group. It would also put more strain on the servers than the original suggestion in this thread.

How would that require players to group? Whether a faction works together as a team or not is a completely different issue and a different discussion.

I can't imagine it would cost that much more in the way of server resources. They already monitor how many people are in each faction for queues, low pop bonuses, etc. How hard could it be to scale Battle Spirit based on the differences?

The suggestion made in what I quoted was to scale player damage based and mitigation based on the population imbalance.
That is specifically suggesting that players in factions with higher populations have their damage done nerfed and to increase the damage they do.

As such it is obvious that the greater the imbalance the more of a weakling they will become which obviously is a greater problem for solo and small-scale players.

If it does not drive them to group with others or it will drive them from Cyrodiil. I would certainly leave if the game nerfed me just because other alliances lacked players.

I think it is better to realize Cyrodiil was never intended to be competitive by design. After all, the design not being competitive is why think thread was created. BGs is what they designed for more competitive PvP.

Then open up faction change so that they can move to the undermanned faction. If it's not meant to be competitive; then no need to worry about end campaign results and just provide a sandbox that encourages level fights.

There are campaigns where we can have characters from more than one faction which allows players in those factions to swap to a character in those factions.

However, in the end, that will not balance anything out because Cyrodiil was never designed to be balanced to the point, it could be considered truly competitive PvP. It is just for fun.

auz

Amottica wrote: »

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

A better solution would be to scale player damage and mitigation based on the population imbalance.

If all populations are more or less the same, everyone is on equal footing. If one faction massively outnumbers the other two, the players of the overpopulated faction do less damage and take more damage. The underpopulated factions do more damage and take less. It should be a sliding scale based on the magnitude of the imbalance.

I wouldn't expect anything nuanced from people who would perform surgery with an axe.

Scaling a player's damage based on faction populations would require players in lower pop factions to group. It would also put more strain on the servers than the original suggestion in this thread.

How would that require players to group? Whether a faction works together as a team or not is a completely different issue and a different discussion.

I can't imagine it would cost that much more in the way of server resources. They already monitor how many people are in each faction for queues, low pop bonuses, etc. How hard could it be to scale Battle Spirit based on the differences?

The suggestion made in what I quoted was to scale player damage based and mitigation based on the population imbalance.
That is specifically suggesting that players in factions with higher populations have their damage done nerfed and to increase the damage they do.

As such it is obvious that the greater the imbalance the more of a weakling they will become which obviously is a greater problem for solo and small-scale players.

If it does not drive them to group with others or it will drive them from Cyrodiil. I would certainly leave if the game nerfed me just because other alliances lacked players.

I think it is better to realize Cyrodiil was never intended to be competitive by design. After all, the design not being competitive is why think thread was created. BGs is what they designed for more competitive PvP.

Then open up faction change so that they can move to the undermanned faction. If it's not meant to be competitive; then no need to worry about end campaign results and just provide a sandbox that encourages level fights.

There are campaigns where we can have characters from more than one faction which allows players in those factions to swap to a character in those factions.

However, in the end, that will not balance anything out because Cyrodiil was never designed to be balanced to the point, it could be considered truly competitive PvP. It is just for fun.

Blackreach is dead majority of the time. Tbh I think they should scrap it at the moment. Pump up the GH population to try and prevent the gated times. Maybe the IC and Raven populations would be boosted as well.
Cyro doesn't have to be perfectly balanced to be competitive, it just needs a healthy population and to work.

techyeshic

Amottica wrote: »

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

A better solution would be to scale player damage and mitigation based on the population imbalance.

If all populations are more or less the same, everyone is on equal footing. If one faction massively outnumbers the other two, the players of the overpopulated faction do less damage and take more damage. The underpopulated factions do more damage and take less. It should be a sliding scale based on the magnitude of the imbalance.

I wouldn't expect anything nuanced from people who would perform surgery with an axe.

Scaling a player's damage based on faction populations would require players in lower pop factions to group. It would also put more strain on the servers than the original suggestion in this thread.

How would that require players to group? Whether a faction works together as a team or not is a completely different issue and a different discussion.

I can't imagine it would cost that much more in the way of server resources. They already monitor how many people are in each faction for queues, low pop bonuses, etc. How hard could it be to scale Battle Spirit based on the differences?

The suggestion made in what I quoted was to scale player damage based and mitigation based on the population imbalance.
That is specifically suggesting that players in factions with higher populations have their damage done nerfed and to increase the damage they do.

As such it is obvious that the greater the imbalance the more of a weakling they will become which obviously is a greater problem for solo and small-scale players.

If it does not drive them to group with others or it will drive them from Cyrodiil. I would certainly leave if the game nerfed me just because other alliances lacked players.

I think it is better to realize Cyrodiil was never intended to be competitive by design. After all, the design not being competitive is why think thread was created. BGs is what they designed for more competitive PvP.

Then open up faction change so that they can move to the undermanned faction. If it's not meant to be competitive; then no need to worry about end campaign results and just provide a sandbox that encourages level fights.

There are campaigns where we can have characters from more than one faction which allows players in those factions to swap to a character in those factions.

However, in the end, that will not balance anything out because Cyrodiil was never designed to be balanced to the point, it could be considered truly competitive PvP. It is just for fun.

What I was referencing was to the incentives to play lesser pop faction. Obviously without that; it would just be what we have available now

Jaraal

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

techyeshic wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

danthemann5 wrote: »

A better solution would be to scale player damage and mitigation based on the population imbalance.

If all populations are more or less the same, everyone is on equal footing. If one faction massively outnumbers the other two, the players of the overpopulated faction do less damage and take more damage. The underpopulated factions do more damage and take less. It should be a sliding scale based on the magnitude of the imbalance.

I wouldn't expect anything nuanced from people who would perform surgery with an axe.

Scaling a player's damage based on faction populations would require players in lower pop factions to group. It would also put more strain on the servers than the original suggestion in this thread.

How would that require players to group? Whether a faction works together as a team or not is a completely different issue and a different discussion.

I can't imagine it would cost that much more in the way of server resources. They already monitor how many people are in each faction for queues, low pop bonuses, etc. How hard could it be to scale Battle Spirit based on the differences?

The suggestion made in what I quoted was to scale player damage based and mitigation based on the population imbalance.
That is specifically suggesting that players in factions with higher populations have their damage done nerfed and to increase the damage they do.

As such it is obvious that the greater the imbalance the more of a weakling they will become which obviously is a greater problem for solo and small-scale players.

If it does not drive them to group with others or it will drive them from Cyrodiil. I would certainly leave if the game nerfed me just because other alliances lacked players.

I think it is better to realize Cyrodiil was never intended to be competitive by design. After all, the design not being competitive is why think thread was created. BGs is what they designed for more competitive PvP.

Then open up faction change so that they can move to the undermanned faction. If it's not meant to be competitive; then no need to worry about end campaign results and just provide a sandbox that encourages level fights.

There are campaigns where we can have characters from more than one faction which allows players in those factions to swap to a character in those factions.

However, in the end, that will not balance anything out because Cyrodiil was never designed to be balanced to the point, it could be considered truly competitive PvP. It is just for fun.

What I was referencing was to the incentives to play lesser pop faction. Obviously without that; it would just be what we have available now

I play for my Queen and for the Alliance friends I've made over the years. I wouldn't play another Alliance if it was quadruple low pop bonus.

Not everybody is motivated by the same things.

EmperorIl

The sad thing is ZOS has no incentive to fix this, because the more imbalanced it is the more alliance change tokens they sell.

Gummybear803

I was DC for years, under a few names and with a few guilds. I never thought I'd swap EP, or AD...especially EP whom I always viewed as zerglings (still do). Then I met my fiance, she mains EP and I seem to have simped making 3 of my mains EP.

Well, while the above is true...it didn't last long in the sense that I stopped caring at all about Cyro a few months back during MYM. Prior to MYM, EP was winning campaigns via PvDoor night caps off a certain infamous zone general.

MYM balanced Greyhost for a few weeks, even had DC and AD close the massive point gap EP had and sent EP into 3rd. Didn't last though and the faction imbalances returned, I haven't touched Cyro for about 4 months as a result of just not wanting to night cap (early morning cap, whatever it's pvdoor) and also having little desire to lag during prime time.

EmperorIl

Gummybear803 wrote: »

I was DC for years, under a few names and with a few guilds. I never thought I'd swap EP, or AD...especially EP whom I always viewed as zerglings (still do). Then I met my fiance, she mains EP and I seem to have simped making 3 of my mains EP.

Well, while the above is true...it didn't last long in the sense that I stopped caring at all about Cyro a few months back during MYM. Prior to MYM, EP was winning campaigns via PvDoor night caps off a certain infamous zone general.

MYM balanced Greyhost for a few weeks, even had DC and AD close the massive point gap EP had and sent EP into 3rd. Didn't last though and the faction imbalances returned, I haven't touched Cyro for about 4 months as a result of just not wanting to night cap (early morning cap, whatever it's pvdoor) and also having little desire to lag during prime time.

Yep, pvedoor or be zerged, these are our choices. The bored ones turn into tower humpers, which is basically half the pop now made up of players chasing and being chased through a tower. It's so lame what cyro has become.

Tiphis

I guess ep back to 3bar zerging the map while everybody else sits at low 1 bar. What joy.

techyeshic

Tiphis wrote: »

I guess ep back to 3bar zerging the map while everybody else sits at low 1 bar. What joy.

Better give them some bosses and content to farm so they have something to do while they wait to pounce on anyone that shows up.

DrSlaughtr

Either make alliance change significantly cheaper (preferred) or remove lock.

Duke_Falcon

For a balanced Pvp experience in Cyrodil, I'd suggest making 2 types of servers.

1) One where people get to choose their alliance, and it is population locked to the lowest alliances population.

Make these rewards be based on the current traditional reward system.

2) and a second server where the game places you on an alliance to evenly balance out the populations and you don't get to pick your alliance.

Offer different end of campaign rewards based on individual achievement on the server where you don't get to pick your alliance. Offer rewards based on siege damage, keep repairs, damage done, damage taken, healing done, healing taken, etc... something where individual achievement can be measured.

Let people que for the alliance of their choosing and then play in the other server where the game evenly balances populations while they wait for their que to pop. This way both populations are evenly balanced, competitive, and people can receive rewards from both servers.

xFocused

Longtime AD GH PS4/5 player here. OP's post is spot on. This current campaign has been absolutely nothing but EP steamrolling the entire map all day & night until AD does finally get enough players logged in to push back a little. We were able to grab our scroll from them last night but it took the entire server. EP is incredibly over populated right now, especially when they have 3 bars and a queue at 3 in the morning, lol. I don't know how you can really call Cyrodiil competitive when that sort of thing is happening, all it does is make players from AD/DC logout.

Now as far as fixing PvP as I've seen mentioned here. I'd start with removing the hammer entirely, it adds nothing to the game but lag and cheating across factions. Bring back resource tower destruction, figure out a way to fix the servers performance wise because the constant lag, random bluescreens, skills not working, can't barswap, stuck in combat bugs are just way too much right now, always have been.

Everyone is suggesting removing faction locking in GH but that's why we have BR. I know most people don't like BR but with how popular GH is, all I can see is a huge influx of trolls and toxicity in that campaign if you remove faction lock. I think pushing to remove the 3 faction system is a good step and make it 2 factions, battlegrounds included.

xFocused

Amottica wrote: »

It seems Cyrodiil was not designed to be truly competitive because it is set up so one alliance can outnumber the other alliances. Even looking at the number of campaigns we have it is clear that we have more campaigns than players filling them even on the busiest of nights. I also find it hard to believe that any alliance is pop-locked 24/7.

Going to the lower population campaigns, they are often lop-sided and from what I understand it has been this way since the dawn of the game making it very clear that population controls to balance out each campaign is not something Zenimax is interested in. If they were they would have eliminated the extra campaigns long ago.

I would never suggest kicking players from the game just because other players are not interested in playing.

Sadly, EP has been a full 3 bars for days now. I've had guildmates who play on EP say that they had to queue for Cyro at 2-3am even as I mentioned above. It seems unbelievable but it's definitely happening

Feaky

xFocused wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

It seems Cyrodiil was not designed to be truly competitive because it is set up so one alliance can outnumber the other alliances. Even looking at the number of campaigns we have it is clear that we have more campaigns than players filling them even on the busiest of nights. I also find it hard to believe that any alliance is pop-locked 24/7.

Going to the lower population campaigns, they are often lop-sided and from what I understand it has been this way since the dawn of the game making it very clear that population controls to balance out each campaign is not something Zenimax is interested in. If they were they would have eliminated the extra campaigns long ago.

I would never suggest kicking players from the game just because other players are not interested in playing.

Sadly, EP has been a full 3 bars for days now. I've had guildmates who play on EP say that they had to queue for Cyro at 2-3am even as I mentioned above. It seems unbelievable but it's definitely happening

I play EP GH mostly during US primetime and rarely had to queue for than a min or two since MYM ended. When I play, all 3 alliances are pop locked. A few times, I am on past 1 AM CDT and it is usually consistent 2-3 bars on all 3 alliances.

The only real population issues I see are related to 2 alliances teaming up for several hours. Short teaming always happens and is part of the strategy, but there have been days when 2 alliances ignore each other all night. Broken low pop bonus is the other population mechanic that needs addressing.

Silversmith

World of Warcraft had a sliding scale of power in Wrath of the Lich King. The low pop bonus was insanely powerful and the side with the least players almost always won.

Wolfpaw

wotevah wrote: »

An idea I chucked out there a while ago, which could make Cyro relevant again to many players..

Make claiming keeps for your guild a revenue generator for the guild. Even have some of the trader slots in the Faction capitals tied to who owns particular keeps in Cyrodiil.

Imagine trade guilds trying to hold keeps for profit in cyro and even more profit via the top trade spots in Mournhold, Wayrest and Elden Root. Something like this would liven it up quite a bit.

That used to be the only way to have a trader outside of using guild membership traders at banker. Cyrodiil was the focus and endgame at launch.

Faction swapping should only be allowed a few times a year per account.

DrSlaughtr

One thing I see is people are too hung up on faction loyalty and this is reinforced by the high cost of switching alliances.

So they get stuck in the worst faction and trudge through half a year of grind. They start to play outside of Cyro and then sooner or later they quit altogether.

The 3 banner war and ridiculous cost to change characters holds back Cyrodiil. It probably wouldn't be so bad if there was just one CP campaign. As it stands, factions pile on to chosen campaign, leaving each to be dominated by one color.