What do you think of the Low Population Bonus?

SerasWhip

If the game rewards certain factions for not being present, it is an insult to the opposing players who are present and actually putting an effort to increase their scores. If players of a certain faction abstain from playing they do deserve to have a low score in a campaign they don't participate in.

r34lian

Useful

I like it

spartaxoxo

Useful

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

SerasWhip

Unfair

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

redspecter23

Needs Improvement

The idea behind it is good. The implementation is absolute garbage.

Giving a bonus to an underpopulated faction is not inherently a bad thing. When it bleeds over into the most populated faction as often as we see it happen, the system is broken and needs to be fixed.

While we're on this topic, the low score bonus is also just not as useful as you might want it to be either. I'm not sure how it's supposed to work, but it seems to just sort of disappear completely and just never return after a certain point in each campaign.

Arunei

Needs Improvement

The low population bonus is to give people an incentive to play even if their Alliance isn't able to do much against others who have more players. I'm not sure why you seem to find that unfair. It's not unfair to encourage an Alliance with only 1 bar to actually *try* against another with 3, because that Alliance has the people who don't need to try nearly as hard to do anything competitive. Not to say they AREN'T trying, but when you have a full 24 group taking keeps and all as opposed to having potentially only 5 people in a low-pop Alliance, those 24 people don't necessarily have to work as hard as the 5 people do.

Of course that's a general thing, since those 5 could be very skilled and the 24 might be a random zerg of potatoes. But essentially, it's to encourage people to try where they might normally look at the map and decide not to even bother.

That being said, the bonus does need some work done, considering how easy it is for it to bug out and go to an Alliance that has higher population than either or both of the others. Perhaps it needs to update more often or look at other variables than it does now.

spartaxoxo

Useful

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

Tommy_The_Gun

Needs Improvement

It is ok, but it often can work in opposite way it was meant to.

Instead of drawing some players & encourage them to login, it actually does the opposite. It encourages to logoff to keep insane potential point advantage.

I don't think a faction should be able to change scoreboard place (3rd to 2nd or 2nd to 1st) by logging off. I mean, what kinda of game design is that ?!

I think this bonus should only last until you are very close in points to other faction in the scoreboard, but it should never allow to "overtake" other scoreboard place.

Xarc

Useful

on a 1 color map,

• home keep bonus : +5% alliance points
• ennemy keep bonus IX : +15% alliance points
• edge keep bonus III : +24 % Alliance points
• blessing of war: +20% alliance points

so you have a total combined equivalent to the faction who has nothing but lowpop bonus

SerasWhip

Unfair

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

SerasWhip

Unfair

Xarc wrote: »

on a 1 color map,

• home keep bonus : +5% alliance points
• ennemy keep bonus IX : +15% alliance points
• edge keep bonus III : +24 % Alliance points
• blessing of war: +20% alliance points

so you have a total combined equivalent to the faction who has nothing but lowpop bonus

I don't really see the point as AP and the total alliance score don't have anything to do with one another. Some would prefer winning the campaign over the AP gains, whereas others would be just busy farming AP. And it is not always when map is only one colour.

Stanx

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

Yeah, t's called an incentive. If low pop factions didn't hop in when they got the bonus then what would be the point? Just because you organise groups to manipulate the bonus it doesn't mean that people don't use it for the valid purpose it serves.

Xarc

Useful

SerasWhip wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

on a 1 color map,

• home keep bonus : +5% alliance points
• ennemy keep bonus IX : +15% alliance points
• edge keep bonus III : +24 % Alliance points
• blessing of war: +20% alliance points

so you have a total combined equivalent to the faction who has nothing but lowpop bonus

I don't really see the point as AP and the total alliance score don't have anything to do with one another. Some would prefer winning the campaign over the AP gains, whereas others would be just busy farming AP. And it is not always when map is only one colour.

?
I really dont know why you're talking about score, low population isnt low score bonus. wake up

SerasWhip

Unfair

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

Yeah, t's called an incentive. If low pop factions didn't hop in when they got the bonus then what would be the point? Just because you organise groups to manipulate the bonus it doesn't mean that people don't use it for the valid purpose it serves.

Lol wut? When did I say I manipulated the bonus? Proofread.

SerasWhip

Unfair

Xarc wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

on a 1 color map,

• home keep bonus : +5% alliance points
• ennemy keep bonus IX : +15% alliance points
• edge keep bonus III : +24 % Alliance points
• blessing of war: +20% alliance points

so you have a total combined equivalent to the faction who has nothing but lowpop bonus

I don't really see the point as AP and the total alliance score don't have anything to do with one another. Some would prefer winning the campaign over the AP gains, whereas others would be just busy farming AP. And it is not always when map is only one colour.

?
I really dont know why you're talking about score, low population isnt low score bonus. wake up

The thread is about alliance score, not alliance points. You have listed me the AP bonuses which has nothing to do with the original point which is the campaign score.

Xarc

Useful

SerasWhip wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

on a 1 color map,

• home keep bonus : +5% alliance points
• ennemy keep bonus IX : +15% alliance points
• edge keep bonus III : +24 % Alliance points
• blessing of war: +20% alliance points

so you have a total combined equivalent to the faction who has nothing but lowpop bonus

I don't really see the point as AP and the total alliance score don't have anything to do with one another. Some would prefer winning the campaign over the AP gains, whereas others would be just busy farming AP. And it is not always when map is only one colour.

?
I really dont know why you're talking about score, low population isnt low score bonus. wake up

The thread is about alliance score, not alliance points. You have listed me the AP bonuses which has nothing to do with the original point which is the campaign score.

the alliance score has nothing to do with your title then, "low population bonus". It comes when population is low, as named.
I think you dont understand how it works...

SerasWhip

Unfair

Xarc wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

on a 1 color map,

• home keep bonus : +5% alliance points
• ennemy keep bonus IX : +15% alliance points
• edge keep bonus III : +24 % Alliance points
• blessing of war: +20% alliance points

so you have a total combined equivalent to the faction who has nothing but lowpop bonus

I don't really see the point as AP and the total alliance score don't have anything to do with one another. Some would prefer winning the campaign over the AP gains, whereas others would be just busy farming AP. And it is not always when map is only one colour.

?
I really dont know why you're talking about score, low population isnt low score bonus. wake up

The thread is about alliance score, not alliance points. You have listed me the AP bonuses which has nothing to do with the original point which is the campaign score.

the alliance score has nothing to do with your title then, "low population bonus". It comes when population is low, as named.
I think you dont understand how it works...

You are the only person in this thread who misunderstood what I'm talking about, but rather than admitting to it you just keep doubling down and dragging this convo. To everyone else it is clear as day what I am talking about. If I am mentioning the low pop bonus I am clearly not talking about alliance points.

spartaxoxo

Useful

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

You rightfully win the campaign when you fight against opponents that also have a real chance at winning. Without the low population bonus you'd just be getting a free advantage against the enemy. The low pop bonus, in theory and maybe it needs improvements, puts all factions on more or less equal footing the entire time. So that all sides always have an incentive to try their best and nobody can just run login when the enemy pop is low for some freelo.

Indigogo

Needs Improvement

I know what you're getting at OP.
Before this current low pop mess certain alliances would log off when they felt too pressured, then would mass log on an hour or two later.
With low pop and numbers they'd zerg the map down and surge ahead in score.

Then other alliances can be hard gated and never have low pop kick in because they haven't had enough people quit and log off.

Low pop encourages and rewards quitting.

What's it's supposed to do and what it does has been busted a long time.
It's important to have something that encourages people to fight an uphill battle, but low pop needs a hard rework.

Indigogo

Needs Improvement

On that, I think it needs to be removed from population entirely.
Tie it to objectives.

Have it kick in as soon as you're down to one keep.
Have it fall off as soon as you own 3 keeps.

Simple, effective.
Might even discourage hard gating as it will be strategically attractive to let people have their gate keeps to stop low pop kicking in.

Marcus_Thracius

Needs Improvement

After all these years , sure it can get better. But we all know thats a mirage. But at this point of the game , frankly I dont give a f about it , hell iam waiting for them to give you a trophy just for showing up and not pointing out the amazing gameplay at prime time

Stanx

SerasWhip wrote: »

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

Yeah, t's called an incentive. If low pop factions didn't hop in when they got the bonus then what would be the point? Just because you organise groups to manipulate the bonus it doesn't mean that people don't use it for the valid purpose it serves.

Lol wut? When did I say I manipulated the bonus? Proofread.

"That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign."

Your words. Proofread.

EF321

Needs Improvement

Double AP - YES
Double score - NO


Instead adjust score in a way that it is calculated according to total server population. One small group night capping on empty server - low score gains. Entire faction playing in dead campaign - moderate gains. Fully pop locked server - full gains.

WhiteCoatSyndrome

I think it’s buggy.

tonyblack

Useful

It’s a good system because it keeps all factions relatively balanced. If one faction dominate the map with big advantage in numbers what incentives are there for other factions to fight against overwhelming odds? Without it most people won’t bother to waste time on losing side and you would end up zerging some solo players and npcs on empty map. Low pop remedy that by giving incentives to players for fighting back.

SerasWhip

Unfair

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

Yeah, t's called an incentive. If low pop factions didn't hop in when they got the bonus then what would be the point? Just because you organise groups to manipulate the bonus it doesn't mean that people don't use it for the valid purpose it serves.

Lol wut? When did I say I manipulated the bonus? Proofread.

"That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign."

Your words. Proofread.

I have no idea how you extracted such meaning from what I've said. I am saying that we organize in ways that our home server always has some active people playing there, and we rarely get outnumbered, thus we naturally happen to win. However, the game does not reward this behavior but instead offers us more campaign points if we leave the server unattended and do get outnumbered where we are giving an effort to not get outnumbered.

Why would I suggest for the bonus to be removed/altered if I am abusing the bonus in my favor?...

NordSwordnBoard

Needs Improvement

In its current state it's not doing the job correctly. It's purpose makes sense, but the fact that some people are playing the system instead of playing the game makes it have the opposite effect intended. If players are not directly responsible, its even worse as its a "spin the bottle" to see who gets the kiss with no curse.

If players in a sport are doping, its up to the regulating authorities to fix the problem and restore some integrity by eliminating dishonesty. We can point the fingers at players, teams, mangers etc. but it's the commissioner who is responsible at the end of the day to take action. Ignoring it will not make it go away.

Stanx

SerasWhip wrote: »

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

Yeah, t's called an incentive. If low pop factions didn't hop in when they got the bonus then what would be the point? Just because you organise groups to manipulate the bonus it doesn't mean that people don't use it for the valid purpose it serves.

Lol wut? When did I say I manipulated the bonus? Proofread.

"That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign."

Your words. Proofread.

I have no idea how you extracted such meaning from what I've said. I am saying that we organize in ways that our home server always has some active people playing there, and we rarely get outnumbered, thus we naturally happen to win. However, the game does not reward this behavior but instead offers us more campaign points if we leave the server unattended and do get outnumbered where we are giving an effort to not get outnumbered.

Why would I suggest for the bonus to be removed/altered if I am abusing the bonus in my favor?...

Looks like I've misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry.

SerasWhip

Unfair

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

Stanx wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SerasWhip wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It keeps it competitive and is especially fair given that any race, any alliance is not a free feature.

Competitiveness is good as long as it makes you compete with other players and not against the lack of players.

It allows the group with the lack of players to compete with other players. It's a handicap for having an objectively smaller team, which is a disadvantage. A disadvantage that is not the fault of the people actually competing in the low population campaign.

The disadvantage is gone the moment the low pop factions decide to log in and engage with the game. That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign.

Surely not everyone has to be in a guild or play with a group, but suggesting that the other competing factions should be on the disadvantaged side points-wise because the low pop faction has a population disadvantage doesn't make sense at all to me.

Yeah, t's called an incentive. If low pop factions didn't hop in when they got the bonus then what would be the point? Just because you organise groups to manipulate the bonus it doesn't mean that people don't use it for the valid purpose it serves.

Lol wut? When did I say I manipulated the bonus? Proofread.

"That's why we organize in guilds and plan the times we log in as groups, that's part of what makes you rightfully win the campaign."

Your words. Proofread.

I have no idea how you extracted such meaning from what I've said. I am saying that we organize in ways that our home server always has some active people playing there, and we rarely get outnumbered, thus we naturally happen to win. However, the game does not reward this behavior but instead offers us more campaign points if we leave the server unattended and do get outnumbered where we are giving an effort to not get outnumbered.

Why would I suggest for the bonus to be removed/altered if I am abusing the bonus in my favor?...

Looks like I've misunderstood what you were saying. Sorry.

It's all good!

wazzz56

Many people do not care about the campaign points aspect of it tbh...just as many people don't care about the score in general...as far as the ap bonuses for low pop etc for those who prefer playing on the undermanned alliances it is a pretty nice bonus for playing in out manned conditions... the score bonus, in theory it is there to keep alliances from running away with things, but with population imbalance, time zone differences etc it seemingly does not always have that outcome.....

paulsimonps

Needs Improvement

During the last event it was nice to get even more AP at times, but my guild discord was always on the look out for which campaign was "lowpop" and would jump ship as soon as they lost it on one campaign and gained it on another. I didn't like that type of play, leaving a whole campaign on their own as soon as you lost your AP bonus. I get it, more AP please, but when I do play cyrodiil I play it to play the map, not just for AP gain, seeing behavior, that saw people abandon a campaign as soon as your faction was on even grounds with the rest, being rewarded seemed so wrong.

Maybe only give Low pop AP bonus in home campaign? Giving you incentive to keep fighting but not to jump ship for the "gains"