Suggestion: Dynamic population caps.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

You can't force players to do anything. They don't react well to that.
Just see the storm that came about when they anounced the vr14 raise which doesn't even force them to switch gear.
They just felt forced, and reacted accordingly. Do not expect rationality.

The balance will happen if you sugar coat it and pat them on the back for doing the right thing, not by punishing them until they behave.
Punishment works when there are no escapes. In our case, there is: loging off.

Solving overall population balance will mean that hopeless number disadvantages won't happen. Sure, sometimes there will be some differences, but it will only be temporary and it would mean more gains for those facing it.

Agrippa_Invisus · September 2014

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

You can't force players to do anything. They don't react well to that.
Just see the storm that came about when they anounced the vr14 raise which doesn't even force them to switch gear.
They just felt forced, and reacted accordingly. Do not expect rationality.

The balance will happen if you sugar coat it and pat them on the back for doing the right thing, not by punishing them until they behave.
Punishment works when there are no escapes. In our case, there is: loging off.

Solving overall population balance will mean that hopeless number disadvantages won't happen. Sure, sometimes there will be some differences, but it will only be temporary and it would mean more gains for those facing it.

Players endured WoW queues for hours to get to early game Blackrock (and other heavily populated servers). They had options to roll on other servers and chose not to do so. With the dynamic queues players are presented the same option that's been endured successfully in other games.

They can still sugar coat it and pat them on the back. Implement some, if not all, of the following:

1. Free transfers to other factions if homed to an unbalanced campaign.
2. AP/XP gains if homed to a server as an underdog faction.
3. Free levels if you roll an alt of an underdog faction when homed to a different server. Are you an EP homed to Chillrend NA? Roll a DC, get to 10, home to Thornblade NA and type /level. BAMF! You're now level 40 with all quests/skyshards done. And the game emails you a set of commensurate green gear.
4. With 1.4 adding gear rewards to PVP (beyond the green bags), have the underdog factions get considerably better gear rewards (and money rewards out of their green bags).

Add that stuff in. It'll be great. It'll alleviate the sting of the caps. People will be happy with it, I'm sure.

But you need to implement the caps because the situation has to be fixed now before it gets worse.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

I think you sort of contradict yourself in this post.
If wow players were willing to stick to one server and endure queues in a game where being in a specific server has nearly no advantages at all, what do you think will happen in ESO for campaigns that have advantages?

The other things you suggested would work on their own, without the need for sliding caps.
Free levels may be a bit over the top, though, maybe an xp boost instead?
Keep in mind some day, the champion system will roll in, and that will be account wide. Having the ability to gain alts so easily my be an issue then.

I understand the need to find a solution quickly. And I agree on the sentiment.
But the caps have real long term issues and really won't solve the core problem on their own.

A quickfix would be to implement what you suggested here(the mails part and campaign switches) combined with what I suggested in the other thread.
In essence, preventing the vicious cycle from forming again ,and then give a temporary free campaign/faction switch offer for people to take advantage of.

Essentially creating a clean slate to start anew.

Tintinabula · September 2014

So..today AD thinks that the campaign is about camping gates lol Ill go do something else. A week from now they'll have no one to camp at the gates.

Agrippa_Invisus · September 2014

Tintinabula wrote: »

So..today AD thinks that the campaign is about camping gates lol Ill go do something else. A week from now they'll have no one to camp at the gates.

BloodTHORNblade?

Tintinabula · September 2014

yup I log in and they're at our starting gates. Just to clarify..AD(those camping the gates), Skill did not bring you to this point. Organization did not shoot you to lofty heights of winning.You're truthfully not that good

Simple dumb luck of the draw has placed you in the position of allowing people to play or not and you abuse that position like a fat kid abandoned and forgotten in a candy store. You have no restraint or discipline because only good players would show those types of qualities. You will probably be found head first and legs up in a sugar coated AP bin because you don't actually know what it is to earn AP via PVP. You only know farming and being superior via numbers.

I can see where this is going..there will be some EP and some DC who fight back...for a few days and even those hardcore players will go do something else.

Eventually an adult (ZOS )will notice a puke covered child locked in a candy store screaming to escape and run to get keys to let ya'll out but until then..enjoy your free AP.

Sharee · September 2014

Just a comment about the 10% margin: As i said in the original post, this number is negotiable. If it's too much, reduce it. If it's too little, increase it. It's not set in stone.

The reason why i put it there in the firstplace is to create some leeway for joining groups.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

purgation wrote: »

All these issues have occurred in other games. Chronic faction imbalance is a game killer. Some solutions work, others do not.

Dynamic caps are not a complete solution, but one measure that would help.

Limiting the total number of campaigns is another important strategy... unfortunately human nature is factions will tend to sort into campaigns they are winning over time, and if you have adequate capacity for the entire active player base across 3 servers, you will most likely end-up with 3 monochromatic campaigns.

In the end, it really boils down to incentives: Players should be rewarded for succeeding in play against opposition. Rewarding PVDoor is bad. Forcing players to sit in a queue if they want to pile in on a campaign that is already tilted heavily in favor of one faction is a GOOD thing.

Maybe we could pair dynamic caps with dynamic campaign switch costs -- flipping to a server where your faction is chronically outmatched is free, switching to a server where your faction frequently has the largest queues should be VERY costly.

All I really know is that Warhammer, the closest recent analog had all these issues. People, on average, try to pile on to the winning side; but at the same time people quickly get bored of one-sided play. "Forcing" players to play in competitive campaigns -- particularly if they are on the losing side -- is unfortunately critical to the overall game working.

But thats because you allowed choice. Take away the choice and decide which of the 3 servers to put players on.

Anyway...this still doesnt get away from the fact ...what happens with 800 of one faction on line but only 100 of one and 100 of the other ?
There is simply no way you can sit 700 players in a queue for the sake of balance. I have seen nothing that solves this yet. Leaving 700 players sidelined is simply not an option.

Even handicap bonuses may help....and encourage you to play. But they dont solve the main issue. The faction will ALWAYS have more players online than another. Sometimes to the extreme.

The more I think about it.... the more I realise the only option is NPCs to balance the population. That is the INEVITABLE result of 3 factions that cant/wont swap allegiance.

Its not as if you can force faction to ally.......or perhaps... we should ?

Monsoon · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Rune_Relic wrote: »

Problem is 1000 EP and 100 AD and 100 DC.....where do you put the remaining 900 EP. Do they just sit in a queue forever ?

Rofl, on Thornblade the 30 days NA server its AD that is 100% constantly filled and EP and DC who are mostly 2 bars and being facerolled by the giant night crew of skills from AD

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

@Sharee‌ well, in the context of your idea, 10% was good.
You do need some margin to decide who's the smallest faction.
It's sort of a be damned if you do, be damned if you don't.

That's the thing, we can't use tools like those available to fps servers. We can't do auto team balance or pop caps because our characters are faction locked and there is persistence in between rounds.
We can't operate at an "online" population level.
We have to work on a "total" population level.

For that, we need to fix the core imbalance sources, remove the feedback loops and add relevant catch up mechanics. Give incentives to team up on the current winner and not rage quit the faction.

And then, once the game is "fixed", delete all the campaigns. Or at least detatch all players from the current ones and reset them.

Then let people pick a campaign again but advertize the amount of "homed" players rather than the current online players. Also advertize the advantages of joining a balanced server added in the "fix". Appeal to individual players' greed: "You will earn more here" through a recommended campaign system.

You should never doubt human greed, but if you really want to be certain, you can add a 50% sliding cap here with a queue. But it wouldn't kick in unless one faction has overall more members.

@Rune_Relic‌
We shouldn't force players to do anything. We actually cannot, they'll rage at the slight feeling of being forced.

What we can do is give options with pros and cons and let them decide for themselves. You can hide one option that is superior and make them reach that conclusion on their own and be satisfied with their illusion of choice with results very similar to forcing.

You can place incentives for them to ally against the winner, and most will do it.

I don't think more npcs is a viable solution. It is artificial and takes away from the sandbox nature of Cyrodiil. Not to mention, hard to balance. Either they'll be too weaj or too strong compared to players.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

@Sharee‌ well, in the context of your idea, 10% was good.
You do need some margin to decide who's the smallest faction.
It's sort of a be damned if you do, be damned if you don't.

That's the thing, we can't use tools like those available to fps servers. We can't do auto team balance or pop caps because our characters are faction locked and there is persistence in between rounds.
We can't operate at an "online" population level.
We have to work on a "total" population level.

For that, we need to fix the core imbalance sources, remove the feedback loops and add relevant catch up mechanics. Give incentives to team up on the current winner and not rage quit the faction.

And then, once the game is "fixed", delete all the campaigns. Or at least detatch all players from the current ones and reset them.

Then let people pick a campaign again but advertize the amount of "homed" players rather than the current online players. Also advertize the advantages of joining a balanced server added in the "fix". Appeal to individual players' greed: "You will earn more here" through a recommended campaign system.

You should never doubt human greed, but if you really want to be certain, you can add a 50% sliding cap here with a queue. But it wouldn't kick in unless one faction has overall more members.

@Rune_Relic‌
We shouldn't force players to do anything. We actually cannot, they'll rage at the slight feeling of being forced.

What we can do is give options with pros and cons and let them decide for themselves. You can hide one option that is superior and make them reach that conclusion on their own and be satisfied with their illusion of choice with results very similar to forcing.

You can place incentives for them to ally against the winner, and most will do it.

I don't think more npcs is a viable solution. It is artificial and takes away from the sandbox nature of Cyrodiil. Not to mention, hard to balance. Either they'll be too weaj or too strong compared to players.

Yet we will "force" them to sit in queue forever because there isnt enough other players in the other factions to balance the system ?

NPC will be either too strong or too weak compared to what...no players ? Seriously given the choice between an endless wait in a queue or being outnumbered 10:1 or playing NPCs with no queue and never outnumbered.....I would happily play NPCs. We all have our own views though. I appreciate that.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

Read again. I'm in this thread solely to suggest alternatives and to explaine how flawed queues are.

This isn't a binary choice. It's not queues or imbalanced fights.
You can give incentives for factions to be balanced at their core, and you'd never need caps or npcs.

As to why npcs would be hard to balance, this isn't a moba.
The campaigns run 24/7, and people will have to deal with them most of the time so they'll be the bulk of the "PvP". In this, it is crucial to get the balance right.

If they are too weak, they can't adequately represent a player slot, they'd get stomped all the time. Basicaly making them wasted cpu.
If they are too strong, they'd overshadow players, making fights more about killstealing the npcs' targets rather than doing the fight ourselves.
Even if they are balanced to the average strength of a player, they still aren't an element in player control. It would lead to victories decided by random factors rather than player agenda. (the chaos of war isn't random)
And finally, what is balanced at 2pm may not be balanced at 2am.

In short, that's a lot of efforts to address what is just a symptom without addressing the actual problem.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Read again. I'm in this thread solely to suggest alternatives and to explaine how flawed queues are.

This isn't a binary choice. It's not queues or imbalanced fights.
You can give incentives for factions to be balanced at their core, and you'd never need caps or npcs.

As to why npcs would be hard to balance, this isn't a moba.
The campaigns run 24/7, and people will have to deal with them most of the time so they'll be the bulk of the "PvP". In this, it is crucial to get the balance right.

If they are too weak, they can't adequately represent a player slot, they'd get stomped all the time. Basicaly making them wasted cpu.
If they are too strong, they'd overshadow players, making fights more about killstealing the npcs' targets rather than doing the fight ourselves.
Even if they are balanced to the average strength of a player, they still aren't an element in player control. It would lead to victories decided by random factors rather than player agenda. (the chaos of war isn't random)
And finally, what is balanced at 2pm may not be balanced at 2am.

In short, that's a lot of efforts to address what is just a symptom without addressing the actual problem.

Although you raise good points (NPC farming)....nothing addresses the main problem. The NPCs just address the problem 'better' than now. IMHO. Plus you don't have to just be 1 difficulty level of NPC. You could have anything ranging from guards to commanders. It is no more a balancing issue then PVE at the end of the day.

You cant force people who buy the game to join factions in round robin style.
Nor can you force certain population numbers to play at certain times.
ie. There will never be population balance....and sometimes it will be wildly imbalanced. Population can never be controlled if its voluntary. People will win by the herd mentality. Win by sheer numbers is too powerful an incentive. Who wants t join the losing side ? This is exactly the problem we have right now.

I have to say to myself when I really think about it. Would I accept constantly losing against greater numbers even with handicap bonuses ? In reality, no I wouldn't. I'd still get sick of it. Even if I was higher up the board it would feel....cheap and fake too.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

How about you get mercenaries to fight by your side depending on population balance ?
So if you are outnumbered 2:1 you get 1 mercenary. 3 mercenaries if its 4:1 etc.
No doubt people will be dying constantly, so they can easily track population balance and add/remove mercenary extras.

Perhaps even choose NPC class ?

Needless to say people would probably go for NPC first so it might be an idea to keep the fact they are NPC quiet.

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

The point of compensation isn't to reward losing but to encourage wining by fighting.
A buff campaign gives at most +10% gains, reward incentives combined could give a x10 gains and more. That makes switching campaigns a net loss for dedicated PvP players, but winning still a benefit.

If more people stay, you're less overpoped and you lose less.
And more importantly, it balances the overall "hardcore" pop so that even at night there isn't a big faction difference.

And I get your points on npc. It is possible to implement them properly, at the cost of dev time then cpu tine.
But they would just hide the population balance issues, not fix them.
Also, competitive PvP getting decided by npcs, even partially, isn't really enjoyable for most players.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

The point of compensation isn't to reward losing but to encourage wining by fighting.

You make that sound as if you have a chance of winning. You don't when you are outnumbered. It wont take long to realise that.

That's the point I was trying to make.
compensation is not a cure....its a false promise...a seduction of doom and nothing else.
It will change nothing other than encourage you to try harder against odds you still cant overcome.

Keron · September 2014

Which is why I still think that neither caps help (people have already the possibility to reroll a lower pop faction or lower pop campaign - they don't use this option, they either wait & complain or leave, whether the game or pvp doesn't matter) nor incentives for low pop. The only thing that will alleviate this is making it useless to pile up on one faction because it gives no rewards.

Hence, make over-pop'ed factions not gain any faction points or bonuses. If you don't have an incentive to color the map in your color, you don't do it. If you don't do this, your faction will not gain the lead on the faction board and there will be no incentive to stack your faction population on this campaign.

It can't be difficult to follow this logic. Pop caps will result in player loss. Whether the player loss is substantial or not and whether it is large enough to kill pvp or not, I will not try to guestimate. I just think that it is not smart to pick a solution that will have detrimental effects, no matter their scale.

Tintinabula · September 2014

Just make it so when you log into cyrodiil as a group it assigns your group a faction that is permanent til campaign is over.

If you want a guild to all be under the same faction sign up for the campaign as a raid.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

LOL ..a vicious circle.

People leave > population imbalance > cap population > people leave due to queue
People leave > population imbalance > people leave being outnumbered

Perhaps we should just stick a closed sign on the door to cyrodiil

You have to make the numbers balance without making queues. Square the circle.

@‌ keron
punishing over populated factions....wont help if this also makes people leave.
What if is start in my shard with neutral balance than 100 or more decide to join the same campaign ? Why should I be punished for the action of my team mates because they want security in numbers ? Why should I leave...wasn't me that caused this....but someone has to go.

..and again if 500 is the cap..... if there is 1000 EP 500 DC and 500AD online in cyrodiil....if 500 each join 1 campaign, what happens to the remaining 500 EP ? Do they sit in there own deserted campaign or sit in a queue ? If they are in a deserted campaign they will get the OP penalty too ???

Keron · September 2014

@Rune_Relic
We've had that discussion. Don't penalize the player, penalize the faction. Personal AP gain and therefore "worthy" rewards and rank advance stays the same no matter how the pop distribution is.

You will get pvp bonuses if you fight players. If you fight robots or doors, you don't get them. The individual will not be punished except if he is used to reap the bonuses from PvDoor. And in that case it is deserved punishment.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

Keron wrote: »

@Rune_Relic
We've had that discussion. Don't penalize the player, penalize the faction. Personal AP gain and therefore "worthy" rewards and rank advance stays the same no matter how the pop distribution is.

You will get pvp bonuses if you fight players. If you fight robots or doors, you don't get them. The individual will not be punished except if he is used to reap the bonuses from PvDoor. And in that case it is deserved punishment.

Forgive me...I'm old. What the hell is this new in word PvDoor ? lol

Yes we agree on splitting faction vs player ap. Wont stop me getting my butt handed to me though, if one group decides they want to dominate.
Just saying!

The poplation control is left upto the players who are weak minded fools

..cant..resist...WIN BUTTON!

I will stop turn the map red/blue/yellow vs I will get more AP. Is it not a fracture of physical reality on the ground vs virtual reality on the scoreboard ? What exactly does the meaning of WIN become ?

Keron · September 2014

PvDoor means fighting against an empty keep where the only opposition is a couple doors and a few robots (NPC).

Yeah same as me, but the scenery is nice lying on the grassy hills of Cyrodiil

Sharee · September 2014

Keron wrote: »

The only thing that will alleviate this is making it useless to pile up on one faction because it gives no rewards.

The problem is that 'crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the lamentations of their women' is the best thing in life.

You cannot remove all rewards from piling on one faction, because piling on one faction is a reward in itself. When you give people the option to either lose, or win with no rewards, they will still choose the latter.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

..gotta love Arnie

... in a purely platonic way of course

Keron · September 2014

Sharee wrote: »

When you give people the option to either lose, or win with no rewards, they will still choose the latter.

Very true.

On the other hand, will pop caps result in skilled players of a faction aggregate on a specific server to make sure that they can retain their edge even without overpop? Will it be possible to find a compromise between restriction and leeway that will prevent night capping but still allow for enough variability to accomodate players that are forced to play during off hours (due to time zone, work, family, etc.)?

And all this is on top of:

Keron wrote: »

[...](people have already the possibility to reroll a lower pop faction or lower pop campaign - they don't use this option, they either wait & complain or leave, whether the game or pvp doesn't matter) [...] Pop caps will result in player loss. Whether the player loss is substantial or not and whether it is large enough to kill pvp or not[...]

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

The players see it as potential reward. Even if the odds of winning they will attempt it if the reward is worth it.

There is a reason why slot machines and national loteries are big earners for those that own them.

Except here, the jackpots would be much more attainable and serve as positive reinforcement.

You basically tell the player: Every kill earns you one hour of their gains.

If you fight underpopped1 to 5, against an enemy with double your points and 12 keeps when you have only 3 you would get per kills:
Ap x 5 x 2 x 4 = ap x 40.

At the same time, we remove the buffs from players that haven't loged in the past 24h.

And it will work. Because that's what make gamers tick. We'll take potential high gains as a certainty and keep going after them.
For the same reason people keep farming mobs with low drop chances, or repeat raids 20 times for an eventual upgrade.
Next time is the one!
Next assault we'll get the keep reward at x40 and maybe even x80 if it is our home keep!

They'll pile up, never leave when losinf and eventually reverse the cycle to balance the campaign.

Have faith in human greed and irrationality.

Rune_Relic · September 2014

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Have faith in human greed and irrationality.

I am a believer...amen lol.
They still wont win when outnumbered 3:1

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

frosth.darkomenb16_ESO wrote: »

Have faith in human greed and irrationality.

I am a believer...amen lol.
They still wont win when outnumbered 3:1

But they will fight instead of leave.
You lose 100% of the shots you don't take.

If more people feel like taking a shot, they'll eventually win as more and more people join to get their share of the farming. And once they'll have tasted the jackpot, they'll be hooked.

Not to mention those people will get better faster than the faction "zerging".
Not only through more gains, but also through getting used to fighting outnumbered.

Keron · September 2014

Rune_Relic wrote: »

I will stop turn the map red/blue/yellow vs I will get more AP. Is it not a fracture of physical reality on the ground vs virtual reality on the scoreboard ? What exactly does the meaning of WIN become ?

@Rune_Relic‌
Sorry didn't see your edit there. PvDoor actually punishes your personal AP gain in a way. The ticks for capturing an enemy keep without opposition are in the low 3 digit region and killing NPCs nets you zero.

The only thing you gain from it is the scroll/emp/enemy keep bonuses, that will then make it easier for you to farm AP once the opposition is back.

So if you remove those bonuses from the equation, there is literally no reason at all to PvDoor.