Campaign scoring logic allows players to get massive gains during regional off hours

reazea

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

They're also making the game unplayable for the lower populations of AD/DC who want to be able to log in during those time zones, so it's not just NA players affected. The game needs to stop rewarding this behavior.

They'll send 20+ players after you for taking a mine, lumbermill, etc.

You're talking about AD, right? (if on PC NA)

yourhpgod

This has been a thing for years. They know. It won't change most likely.

darvaria

Exactly. As i have repeatedly said, the tides will turn. After 9 wins, EP is splitting apart. The multi account players basically make EP zone chat unusable, so many ppl on ignore. Today, the same troll picked up EP Chim and turned it over ... for the 4th time I've seen when I'm on, which isn't that much. A lot of players faction swapped or are going other campaigns. Now, we have a new night capping faction. Give them a few campaigns.

For some reason, winning makes a faction extremely toxic. Que is like 8 during prime time and at 10 pm est .. NO que. That's what 9 wins does for you. Some zone chat generals having melt downs. TBH, it's so toxic, I'm not going to Cyro much as of late. Wait a few campaigns and the night cappers will shift. You want EP to lose, they definitely will lose GH. Be careful what you wish for, only so much PV Dooring will hold PVP players .. they will shift. We just need a balanced TWO faction, smaller map. Equal ques.

Aurielle

Here’s a Gray Host screen shot I took at 5:30pm EST on Friday:



Map flipped almost entirely yellow while most of DC and EP was at work or on their way home from work in North America.

I’m not bothered by AD dominating the map this campaign and generating a significant lead; as I’ve said elsewhere, Cyrodiil is a war of numbers and attrition, and right now, AD is winning that war. War is war, it doesn’t have to be fair. I am bothered by player hypocrisy, though. EP “night-capping” was all AD could talk about in these forums and in game for months. Many passionate “solutions” were proposed, with some going as far as to suggest that it shouldn’t be possible to gain campaign points or even AP outside of NA prime time.

Now that the tide has shifted again in AD’s favor, it’s dead silence from AD’s vocal anti-nightcap camp. Your alt account zone troll doesn’t even seem to be pestering EP’s zone chat about PVDoor anymore (though I suspect he may have gotten a little vacation from the game for handing off the hammer to AD recently, so it may be a moot point).

You can’t have it both ways, guys. Either you’re against the scoring system during times of faction imbalance, or you’re not. If you’re not in these forums and in game berating your own alliance right now for continuing to play despite your significant lead, for continuing to flip the map yellow outside of NA prime time, then it’ll be really difficult to take your complaints seriously when you are in last place, once again.

darvaria

They are only against a scoring system if EP is winning. The other factions couldn't stand EP winning 9 straight campaigns. If their team is winning, they want things left as it. We have so many players in Cyro on EP rn that have multiple accounts. I see them bragging on discords, plus a lot of players call them out in zone as being @(Name) on AD and are playing on 2nd account. This accounts for the same troll grabbing Chim and handing it over ... 4X that I've seen. And I play less than 3 hours a day. When the troll gives the scroll away after players have fought and won 2 or 3 keeps to get it, a lot (like me) just log off.

dcrush

I’m on AD. I’d like to see a better scoring system put in place to deal with population imbalance during off-peak hours. AD being in first place now does not change my opinion on that.

Modzcs

a bunch of noobs can win empty Cyro with Night caps..this is it, best pvp game ever!

Aurielle

dcrush wrote: »

I’m on AD. I’d like to see a better scoring system put in place to deal with population imbalance during off-peak hours. AD being in first place now does not change my opinion on that.

You’re the first AD I’ve seen who still openly holds that opinion since the tide shifted, so that’s something, at least. The most vocal proponents of scoring changes (the same ones who are currently benefitting from a scoring system they claim is unfair and killing PVP) are “oddly” silent.

Agrippa_Invisus

I've proposed this before plenty of times, even opened my own threads on the subject.

But here we go, once more --

Dynamic population locks.

To explain -- Set the locks on the highest pop faction to only 1-3 more people than the lowest population. If people want to not suffer an absolutely disturbingly long queues in the off hours, they will need to spread out evenly amongst the three factions. It's either that ore likely 1-2 hour long queues for the locked faction. As more people for the lower pop factions log in the the lock on the capped faction relaxes more and more.

I, personally, would feel no sympathy for them. Especially certain guilds that have refused, for years, to split up to spread out during the off peak hours where they typically run the map one color or the other. It's been ten years at this point, we know players will NEVER be able to fix this themselves. Only by forcing the issue will things even out.

Everyone should be able to play with a balanced population and a fair chance at winning a fight, no matter when they log in, be it 3 AM Eastern US time or 3 AM Eastern Australian time. No one should spend their play window getting steam rolled by 3 or more times their numbers just because that's when they happen to be able to log in. This is a 24/7 game (minus maintenance windows) and any time period should be viable.

Aurielle

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

I've proposed this before plenty of times, even opened my own threads on the subject.

But here we go, once more --

Dynamic population locks.

To explain -- Set the locks on the highest pop faction to only 1-3 more people than the lowest population. If people want to not suffer an absolutely disturbingly long queues in the off hours, they will need to spread out evenly amongst the three factions. It's either that ore likely 1-2 hour long queues for the locked faction. As more people for the lower pop factions log in the the lock on the capped faction relaxes more and more.

I, personally, would feel no sympathy for them. Especially certain guilds that have refused, for years, to split up to spread out during the off peak hours where they typically run the map one color or the other. It's been ten years at this point, we know players will NEVER be able to fix this themselves. Only by forcing the issue will things even out.

Everyone should be able to play with a balanced population and a fair chance at winning a fight, no matter when they log in, be it 3 AM Eastern US time or 3 AM Eastern Australian time. No one should spend their play window getting steam rolled by 3 or more times their numbers just because that's when they happen to be able to log in. This is a 24/7 game (minus maintenance windows) and any time period should be viable.

There are so many problems with your proposal.

For your idea to work, the way Cyrodiil functions would need to be completely upended. Faction locks would need to be removed completely. Guilds and small groups would likely have to wait a very long time if they want to play together. In fact, it might not even be possible for guilds or friends to play together during NA prime time with your proposal in place. Cyrodiil would likely end up becoming solos vs solos vs solos.

Let me explain.

Say you have 20 solo DC players logged in, and they’re the lowest population faction. That would mean AD and EP could both only have 20-23 players logged in at the same time. What if a guild run is scheduled for EP, and the EP queue is 15+ at that time? That guild would likely never get in for their run, as they would only be allowed to trickle in one at a time — dependent entirely upon EP players leaving Cyrodiil and/or new DC/AD players entering Cyrodiil. They also wouldn’t be able to join the lowest pop alliance instead of EP, because they’d only have a few available population slots to work with until DC then becomes the high pop alliance — they’re back to square one at that point, waiting for more AD/EP to join Cyrodiil or more DC to leave. It would kill groups and PVP guilds so quickly.

And then what happens if a bunch of players suddenly drop connection in the lowest pop alliance, either unwillingly or deliberately? What if, say, five of those 20 DC players lose connection at the same time or rage quit at the same time after a wipe, and there aren’t five more DC players waiting in queue to replace them? What happens to the “excess” players on AD and EP after the loss of DC players now puts their alliance’s populations at more than 1-3 players above the lowest pop? Would the last two players who joined AD/EP get automatically booted out of Cyrodiil? They’d HAVE to be booted, wouldn’t they, to maintain those strict dynamic pop parameters of yours? How would that be a fun PVP environment, where you could get booted out at any time based on which alliance has the lowest population? In fact, I could even see the lowest pop alliance using those strict population limitations to grief. What if DC is losing badly during off peak hours when there are no other DC trying to get into Cyrodiil, and they feel that AD/EP are ganging up on them, so ten of them leave Cyrodiil at the same time to grief the AD/EP players that are beating them?

You say that “as more people for the lower pop factions log in the lock on the capped faction relaxes more and more,” but how would that actually work in practice? What’s the threshold point? And again, what’s to stop the lowest pop alliance from griefing once they start losing by leaving Cyrodiil en masse after the upper limit of the cap is more relaxed, bringing them back down to that aforementioned threshold point and resulting in even MORE players getting booted unfairly out of Cyrodiil?

Sorry, but dynamic population caps — especially ones with strict parameters — just do not work for this game mode.

It might just be time to accept that Cyrodiil doesn’t work in its current form and with its current population caps. It will always be unfair, and dynamic population caps or population-based/time zone-based scoring will not do anything to change that.

I think a better alternative would be to break Cyrodiil up into three smaller maps, with short two hour long campaigns capped at something like thirty players per alliance for the duration. Once you enter the map, you’re locked to your faction of choice on that map until the two hours is up (so no faction-hopping). Dynamically add to the number of INSTANCES of these maps based on queue demands. During prime time, for instance, there could be multiple instances of each map open for players to join (see, for instance, how Battlefield’s Conquest maps work). The score should furthermore be INVISIBLE to new players joining each campaign, so they can’t just select a campaign where their alliance is winning.

My idea is fair, because it means guilds and small groups can still play together without waiting in queues forever. My idea is fair, because it means players won’t be kicked out of Cyrodiil or stuck in endless queues because the lowest pop alliance wants to abuse a dynamic population cap system to grief. My idea is fair, because it means certain players won’t be prohibited from adding to the campaign score just because they’re from Japan or Australia. My idea is fair, because it prevents flip-flopping to the winning alliance when it looks like you’re going to lose the campaign.

In addition to being fair, my idea would likely result in better competitive fights with better performance due to smaller map sizes and smaller population caps (while still being large enough to facilitate the large-scale siege fights and open field tri-faction fights we all love). It would also mean you’re less likely to face the same notorious ball group(s) every time you play, fixing a common complaint people have. Two hour campaigns would be more manageable for working people with families to schedule around and leave them feeling like they’ve actually achieved something in Cyrodiil, because their efforts during that two hour window matter more than their efforts during a few two hour windows over the course of a month long campaign. Two hour campaigns would also eliminate all the inane “night capping” arguments and discrimination against non-NA and non-EU players who still have every right to play this game.

One way or another, I think it’s time to stop complaining about night capping (it’s not going away, accept it) and start proposing better alternatives to Cyrodiil. Cyrodiil is a shadow of its former self these days, and I think it’s time for something very similar but different that will be fair and fun for everyone.

Muizer

I've not been to Cyrodiil in ages, but this whole thread could have been copied from 8 years ago. Agrippa_Invisus' suggested implementation may have problems, but IMHO putting population balance first and building up the rest from there is the right thing to do. That should weigh heavier than not being able to maintain the current scoring system or not always being able to play with your friends AND with your favorite faction. Players can adapt to that. It's no big deal.

Marronsuisse

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

The best example is PC NA has out-of-region players that log in every night and PvDoor the entire map for 4-6 hours and run up the score. All of the hard work that regional players invested is not only gone but there's no chance of catching up.

PC-NA is called PC-NA because the servers are located in North America, not because it's only meant for North Americans. I'm not sure "out-of-region players" is a term that makes sense for a server meant to be used by a global audience.

yourhpgod

Marronsuisse wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

The best example is PC NA has out-of-region players that log in every night and PvDoor the entire map for 4-6 hours and run up the score. All of the hard work that regional players invested is not only gone but there's no chance of catching up.

PC-NA is called PC-NA because the servers are located in North America, not because it's only meant for North Americans. I'm not sure "out-of-region players" is a term that makes sense for a server meant to be used by a global audience.

So in actual competitive global scale games with world tournaments one wouldn't be allowed on a NA server if you're not from there because there's loads of science behind why this is bad.

Yes, being that a server is located in North America , one would equate that to only being allowed to play from this region again in games that understand the adverse effects of allowing players from other continents to compete. This is considered regional ping exploitation.

The exact science is astronomical to elaborate here but latency is just one factor. Then you have combo dumping bypassing global server side cooldowns.. there is all kinds of things, Those are just two.

So lets talk latency..

If ,I, lets say "BOB" for the sake of this demonstration have a normal resting ping of say 66 and I encounter someone with a resting ping of 300 . What do you think happens to my ping or "Bob's" incurred latency of the encounter ?

Bob's latency increases to 234 ,mine, goes RED notating Bob's is HIGHER THAN NORMAL this is called "Shared Latency"

"jeff" the guy i'm fighting against his will either stay at 300 or go to 234 but will be WHITE notating that his latency is NORMAL

Meaning all jeff's commands will be going through at the normal rate and effecting Bob much faster than intended. Such as casting faster. Or even the ability to get a skill to actually go off. Even jeff appearing to be moving faster than normal on Bob's side of the connection. .

Now what happens to BOB?

Bob notices that jeffs commands are being balled up and hitting him all at one time. Where as Bob will either not be able to hit jeff, because his skills won't fire or worse jeff's character will not register that he is at that location where bob is firing. Because jeff isn't there at the time of the cast. Jeff on his side of the connection, he is behind bob, where as bob sees jeff Infront of him or be side him; in some worst cases.


Lots of people want to equate it to just crappy servers. These things I have provided for your understanding do not help server performance and actually decrease its functionality to process overall population commands. So eventually the entire server suffers the latency.

enjoy

Agrippa_Invisus

Aurielle wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

SNIP for brevity of posts

I'll just sum up my response:

I am not persuaded by your counter argument. Neither the large guilds or faction locks deserve to be preserved in any way. It's the same large guilds that have been told and begged and pleaded with to break up and instead laugh in people's faces. They're part of the problem and them having struggles with new dynamic locks isn't a position that I'm willing to bow to. They can break up or sit in queue and suffer. People can have five guilds in this game. They can still stay together and do other activities.

Faction locks were a mistake from day one, but ZOS will never remove them because they've already monetized the faction swap mechanic. Those are stuck in place moving forward. While I agree they should be removed (they should be removed NOW even without other changes), they never will be. This isn't an argument to even consider.

ZOS is NEVER putting in the resources to rebuild the Cyro map. The last changes we got were destructible gates/bridges and adding 3 new outposts. It took YEARS for them to remove the tree outside Glademist you could use to bounce into the keep with. Backend, behind the scenes code is the best we'll get.

If people don't like having to sit in queue instead of ruin someone else's night, they can suffer. They can play on BR or swap factions. They've spent years destroying the playing experiences of others, they can deal with some inconvenience for once.

Syrusthevirus187

reazea wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

They're also making the game unplayable for the lower populations of AD/DC who want to be able to log in during those time zones, so it's not just NA players affected. The game needs to stop rewarding this behavior.

They'll send 20+ players after you for taking a mine, lumbermill, etc.

You're talking about AD, right? (if on PC NA)

They all do it

Marronsuisse

yourhpgod wrote: »

Marronsuisse wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

The best example is PC NA has out-of-region players that log in every night and PvDoor the entire map for 4-6 hours and run up the score. All of the hard work that regional players invested is not only gone but there's no chance of catching up.

PC-NA is called PC-NA because the servers are located in North America, not because it's only meant for North Americans. I'm not sure "out-of-region players" is a term that makes sense for a server meant to be used by a global audience.

So in actual competitive global scale games with world tournaments one wouldn't be allowed on a NA server if you're not from there because there's loads of science behind why this is bad.

Yes, being that a server is located in North America , one would equate that to only being allowed to play from this region again in games that understand the adverse effects of allowing players from other continents to compete. This is considered regional ping exploitation.

The exact science is astronomical to elaborate here but latency is just one factor. Then you have combo dumping bypassing global server side cooldowns.. there is all kinds of things, Those are just two.

So lets talk latency..

If ,I, lets say "BOB" for the sake of this demonstration have a normal resting ping of say 66 and I encounter someone with a resting ping of 300 . What do you think happens to my ping or "Bob's" incurred latency of the encounter ?

Bob's latency increases to 234 ,mine, goes RED notating Bob's is HIGHER THAN NORMAL this is called "Shared Latency"

"jeff" the guy i'm fighting against his will either stay at 300 or go to 234 but will be WHITE notating that his latency is NORMAL

Meaning all jeff's commands will be going through at the normal rate and effecting Bob much faster than intended. Such as casting faster. Or even the ability to get a skill to actually go off. Even jeff appearing to be moving faster than normal on Bob's side of the connection. .

Now what happens to BOB?

Bob notices that jeffs commands are being balled up and hitting him all at one time. Where as Bob will either not be able to hit jeff, because his skills won't fire or worse jeff's character will not register that he is at that location where bob is firing. Because jeff isn't there at the time of the cast. Jeff on his side of the connection, he is behind bob, where as bob sees jeff Infront of him or be side him; in some worst cases.


Lots of people want to equate it to just crappy servers. These things I have provided for your understanding do not help server performance and actually decrease its functionality to process overall population commands. So eventually the entire server suffers the latency.

enjoy

Forgive my ignorance but wouldn't the solution to those problems would be for Oceania players to play during their own primetime, when players in NA are asleep or at work?

But... that's exactly what this thread, and so many others, is complaining about.

To be clear I'm not against any kind of incentives that would encourage a more even population across the alliances at any given hour (and I think there are some decent suggestions in this thread). But I'm against anything that incentivizes players to play only during NA prime time, which I've seen suggestions for in the past. That's why I just wanted to point out that NA is serving a global player base, not just a regional one.

Aurielle

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

SNIP for brevity of posts

I'll just sum up my response:

I am not persuaded by your counter argument. Neither the large guilds or faction locks deserve to be preserved in any way. It's the same large guilds that have been told and begged and pleaded with to break up and instead laugh in people's faces. They're part of the problem and them having struggles with new dynamic locks isn't a position that I'm willing to bow to. They can break up or sit in queue and suffer. People can have five guilds in this game. They can still stay together and do other activities.

Faction locks were a mistake from day one, but ZOS will never remove them because they've already monetized the faction swap mechanic. Those are stuck in place moving forward. While I agree they should be removed (they should be removed NOW even without other changes), they never will be. This isn't an argument to even consider.

ZOS is NEVER putting in the resources to rebuild the Cyro map. The last changes we got were destructible gates/bridges and adding 3 new outposts. It took YEARS for them to remove the tree outside Glademist you could use to bounce into the keep with. Backend, behind the scenes code is the best we'll get.

If people don't like having to sit in queue instead of ruin someone else's night, they can suffer. They can play on BR or swap factions. They've spent years destroying the playing experiences of others, they can deal with some inconvenience for once.

I suspect you did not read my post in full. In a reworked Cyrodiil with a max of 30 players per alliance in each instance, the big guilds would HAVE to split things up across instances. You couldn’t have three full 12 man groups for one guild stacking the same location, because the lower cap would make it a lot harder for them to do that. Ideally, there’d only be room for one 12 man group per alliance in the reworked maps. So guilds could still do runs, but they wouldn’t be able to do what they do right now (i.e. send 40+ players to one keep). Your idea would eliminate guild play entirely, so it would NEVER fly. You need to give guilds SOME freedom to host events.

As for faction locks, yeah, they’d need to be removed entirely for your idea to work. You want people to spread across the factions and avoid stacking one faction in a campaign. Well, they can’t do that on GH with your highly restrictive dynamic population idea in place, unless faction locks are removed. I disagree that faction locks are a bad thing, but that’s why I proposed two hour faction locked campaigns. People can surely tolerate faction locks for two hours, can’t they?

ZOS won’t put in the resources to rebuild Cyro, eh? Well, they’re putting in resources to rebuild BGs… not sure why you think it’s outside the realm of possibility to rebuild Cyrodiil. Rebuilding Cyrodiil would be in their best interests. It would immediately solve SO many problems that players continually whine about in the forums.

darvaria

Faction locks were a mistake from day one, but ZOS will never remove them because they've already monetized the faction swap mechanic. - Agrippa

YES. This started the problem.

The ONLY thing that will balance the problem is to adapt LOCKED faction populations 15/15/15 ... up to 60/60/60 ... 24/7. If a faction starts logging off, the population LOCKS until the other factions have equal numbers. There should never be a 4/2/3. And I mean precise locks. Numbers there instead of those nebulous bars.

I only recently played during prime time when all the ball groups are stacking. It's not worth my time and I'm not going to play at that time again.

Agrippa_Invisus

darvaria wrote: »

Faction locks were a mistake from day one, but ZOS will never remove them because they've already monetized the faction swap mechanic. - Agrippa

YES. This started the problem.

The ONLY thing that will balance the problem is to adapt LOCKED faction populations 15/15/15 ... up to 60/60/60 ... 24/7. If a faction starts logging off, the population LOCKS until the other factions have equal numbers. There should never be a 4/2/3. And I mean precise locks. Numbers there instead of those nebulous bars.

I only recently played during prime time when all the ball groups are stacking. It's not worth my time and I'm not going to play at that time again.

I 100% agree here. You're one of the few that have been around through the mire and muck of it as long as I have, so I know you know what's going on in Cyrodiil.

I don't think people understand how completely unfun and unplayable the massive population imbalances are if you are on the short end of the stick. I've been on both end and it is eventually boring as a bad joke when there's nothing to do and your faction owns the whole map. The worst are the poor sports on the winning side that sit and camp both gate keeps of the other factions and even fire trebs into the spawn zones of the camped factions.

It's ridiculous that this has been allowed to endure for a decade. People wonder why I have no sympathy for the folks who have repeatedly abused the absurd population lock system currently in place.

darvaria

^ Yes, but I don't think it was quite as bad during our time up to around 2020 ish. I remember blue winning a fair amount when I was on DC and my small man group transferred to EP because Blue was so dominant. Dominant but rarely a completely blue map. For the last 7 or 8 campaigns, EP has done this exact thing. A red map, all scrolls and then you see Rayles flagged, with no scroll behind it. And then you would see ppl keeping factions gated. I didn't know they were sieging within gates because I never went over there.

Last night pops were 2/2/1. A hammer appeared on DC. Someone ASKS me if I will pay 1M gold for it. I just blocked them. Of course NOT. I wouldn't pick it up if that troll gave it to me. I said this in zone chat and said "watch some troll turn over the hammer to AD." And surely, the troll ported to Ash and the hammer instantly turned blue. With AD then taking all the way up to Rayles. I logged at this point so I'm guessing they probably used it to take Warden. What do you think? Probably less than 10 DC online. And as this is happening, AD goes up to 3/2/1 population.

I'm not what solution could be applied except matching numbers appearing instead of those bars. EP is a miserable faction atm. The zone chat on last campaign was so toxic and numerous EP went to AD. I've seen at least 20 (players I haven't seen much) say they are going AD next campaign. I've counted 11 AD trolls on our faction this campaign. Some I know are because I have been on their discords and see them now. Others have been identified by EP players in zone chat as (named AD account). I get it that it was time for EP to lose. But AD's time in the sun won't last. Less skilled players will faction swap, ques longer (I saw a screen shot of 187 que on AD). But we still have the problem. of 4/1/1, 1/4/1, or 1/1/ 4, which are no fun for most players. Except a few bullies that want to gate and punish people. Just wait this all spins around as we that have been around have witnessed. AD will pick up a surge of players next campaign that want to PV Door the map as I've seen at least 30 announcing their faction swaps in zone chat. I'm hoping to see a screenshot of que times.

All these point assignments would lead to too much abuse. You can't freeze scores, etc. or allocate more points at certain times, etc. You can't penalize players in different time zones but you could equalize faction populations. What would be wrong with this? This is giving them options to play. The only solution I can see is the equal balance in numbers. Then maybe while waiting, players would play another campaign. But they are allowed to play but not mass up a 4/1/1 or 1/4/1 or 1/1/4.

But yeah as players mentioned about ball groups "Not playing while they are on" is an option". Well "not playing" with a lop sided map and faction population spread is certainly an option for me.

I want to see NUMBERS instead of those bars. Like it says "Pop Locked" yet you get instant ques. Show us what we are really facing and see if things don't change.

xylena_lazarow

Aurielle wrote: »

Now that the tide has shifted again in AD’s favor, it’s dead silence from AD’s vocal anti-nightcap camp.

I've been silent because I mostly stopped playing, being on winning side of a dead lopsided camp is no fun either. It was literally 6 months in a row (March-August) of extremely lopsided EP nightcap wins, now out of nowhere we get a lopsided AD win. Wonder if the daytime EP all left because they were sick of being "punished" for the nightcapping.

I'm hesitant to switch factions again if I'm just going to end up locked into the high pop zerg anyway. Faction locks are a disgrace. I'm being forced to stay on the side with an 8k lead, doing what exactly? I would've loved to switch to last place EP mid camp. I have no idea what this next camp will look like so I'm staying AD rather than spending all my clowns, really hope it doesn't turn into 6 months of AD doing what EP did.

Minnesinger

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Aurielle wrote: »

Now that the tide has shifted again in AD’s favor, it’s dead silence from AD’s vocal anti-nightcap camp.

I've been silent because I mostly stopped playing, being on winning side of a dead lopsided camp is no fun either. It was literally 6 months in a row (March-August) of extremely lopsided EP nightcap wins, now out of nowhere we get a lopsided AD win. Wonder if the daytime EP all left because they were sick of being "punished" for the nightcapping.

I'm hesitant to switch factions again if I'm just going to end up locked into the high pop zerg anyway. Faction locks are a disgrace. I'm being forced to stay on the side with an 8k lead, doing what exactly? I would've loved to switch to last place EP mid camp. I have no idea what this next camp will look like so I'm staying AD rather than spending all my clowns, really hope it doesn't turn into 6 months of AD doing what EP did.

I am not even bothering to play if there are no fights. Happy to wait until EP and DC start taking the map back. Though this is very current occurance as we all got used to EP doing this for months end.

Anyways, there needs to be some initiative to play pvp. The rewards are only good when there are new sets. The gold is miniscule. There is no need fot AP. If there could be Cyrodiil 2.0 they could rid of the scoring altogether and replace it with something different.

10 years and pvp has never felt so meaningless. There was some real pride in pvping long ago but nowadays it has become too much an odd activity that attracts some of the best and worst types of players.

Muizer

Minnesinger wrote: »

If there could be Cyrodiil 2.0 they could rid of the scoring altogether and replace it with something different.

That's the thing though, the campaign scoring and reward logic is a relatively non-complex system that stands alone from all other game logic. It should be comparatively easy to eliminate all incentives leading to extreme pop imbalances.