they're gonna need to make one campaign and pop lock it according to the lowest population. there's not enough EP to fill one server right now.

That's the state of your game @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

Thanks for the support, guys.
I hope this can be at least a good brainstorming source for the devs to find a solution to our problems.

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

Tintinabula wrote: »

they're gonna need to make one campaign and pop lock it according to the lowest population. there's not enough EP to fill one server right now.

That's the state of your game @ZOS_BrianWheeler‌

Agreed. @Sharee‌ posted a thread about sliding scale pop locks, and if the population is unwilling to police itself, it'll need to be policed by ZOS.

You want to faction stack (looking at you, AD), then you get to sit in a viciously awful queue until you reroll or do something else.

This thread is actually what motivated me to open this one.
I'm going into more details over there, but sliding caps won't work.
They don't address the issue and would actually punish players on both sides.

Greed and positive reinforcement are always the strongest driving forces of players behaviors, not punishement.

Admitting that your assumption is true, and that there is one faction with too little representation, the addition of the cross character champion points system should fix it.
Creating an alt in a faction where fighting outnumbered against stronger opponents is the norm would actually be profitable for the entire account, helping to unlock new "perks" for all chars.

Even without such a system, the population would naturally balance each other out, or at the very least, the smaller factions will always have some heat redirected from it towards the larger ones thanks to proprotional rewards.

@Dleatherus‌
Did you get to touch on those points during the guild summit?
I'm still catching up on all the streams, but feels like it didn't get addressed much.

Was there any input?

Naw I don't agree with it because it creates several potential problems trying to address the main problem.

1)Guesting causes population imbalances
2)Buffs are activated through AP gains. If you're bad you won't be unlocking anything and are being punished for it.
3)It doesn't actually stop population imbalances it just addresses buffs being used out of home campaigns

I'm still all-in for dynamic population caps. OP, your heart is in the right place, I just don't agree with your solutions is all.

It's nice to see a constructive, well thought out, and respectful post, OP, versus the far more frequent argument-by-insulting-your-adversary approach. Thank you, OP.

Or... or... you pick up half the ad pop. Make them EP and AD, put in a pay to change factions choice. bam.

My guild have already raised the 'Paid Faction Change' option a few times in here. We would all happily do it.

You'd think it would be an appealing option for the executives.

I was thinking of something along these lines but the OP did a better job than I could have done.

/signed

Wow, thanks for the support.
I'm happy to see this is getting some traction and hopefuly it will serve, at the very least, as inspiration for an eventual solution.

driosketch wrote: »

One thing I would also like to see is added AP for destroying enemy siege and camps. And maybe close the gap a bit between the cost of materials and the AP gained repairing. These are vital, though often under valued roles in PvP. Under the proposed system, I think players providing the support roles would deserve to have that time rewarded towards earning their buffs. Otherwise good ideas OP.

I agree.
But it would be an entirely different discussion.
For instance, I have believed since launch that there was too much of an emphasis on killing, and the entire ap gain reward structure needed an overhaul.
One step at a time.

Holycannoli wrote: »

So if you want pve buffs but don't want to outlevel your pve zones by participating too much in cyrodiil you're screwed.

I actually don't like the idea of buffs at all. Just get rid of them.

This is an "issue" with the game in general.
There is too much to do and it is imposible not to outlevel the content.
By being a completionist, I always was 2 to 3 levels above content and 1/3rd of my Coldharbor experience gave me no benefits.
But it isn't an issue, it's just that the game offers a variety of avenues to progress, and you shouldn't see it as a fault.

Buffs are hardly necessary to progress untill high end PvE, and even then, they are just a slight improvement for hardcore trial runners.
However it is necessary that PvP has a meaning. It needs to appeal to the greed of players for them to act in a predictable pattern.
Xp/ap/gold gains are one way of doing it, but aren't sufficient.

Just like crafting is necessary for high end PvE (consumable and gear), PvP needs to be a core component of the game for everyone in order to provide a virtual world experience rather than just a collection of game modes.
Just look at the imperial city and how it is mainly a PvE addition, but one that many PvPers welcome with glee because they know it will impact PvP positively.

Insurrektion wrote: »

Naw I don't agree with it because it creates several potential problems trying to address the main problem.

1)Guesting causes population imbalances
2)Buffs are activated through AP gains. If you're bad you won't be unlocking anything and are being punished for it.
3)It doesn't actually stop population imbalances it just addresses buffs being used out of home campaigns

I'm still all-in for dynamic population caps. OP, your heart is in the right place, I just don't agree with your solutions is all.

1) Without buffs, this is limited to going on a campaign where you are weaker than the native population.
However, with increased ap gains (currency you bring back to your campaign) and increased xp gains, you enable people to join a losing faction and personaly gain from it.

Currently, not many people will guest on a losing side, but if you reward them for doing so, then there can be inter campaign alliances for when a faction actually needs help.

This is how guesting becomes a positive thing and how it reduces population imbalance.

At the very least, it removes the current pattern of guesting in a campaign your faction ualready dominates for easy gains to spend on your losing campaign.

2) If you're bad, you'll just unlock things slower, or unlock less potent buffs.
This won't change the game. it will always be easy to gain AP. Even easier now if you fight the proper enemies.

What it will do is reward players for being useful rather than just selecting the proper campaign and benefit.

Also, there is never anything wrong with rewarding player for their abilities. Especially in a linear fashion like I suggested. it gives a sense of progression and something to strive for.
In essence, motivating someone to get better and giving him metrics to see its progress increases the long term appeal of games.

3)This part should also answer @Giahh‌ 's comment.
I didn't want to discuss dynamic caps here at first, as there was another thread about them, but now I guess it is appropriate.

Tailoring a proper reward system addresses head on the root cause of population imbalance rather than only the symptoms.
Perhaps my ideas aren't enough, and that is something we should discuss if you feel like that, but they are in the proper realm of concepts.

The issue isn't that it is possible to have double the amount of people registered than the other faction but that it is profitable to have so.
It is also not profitable to fight back, there are absolutely no reasons, aside from pride and stupidity, to stay on a losing campaign.

For a possible solution to be viable, it needs to address at the very least both those points.

Dynamic caps are not a solution, as it adresses neither.
It is still better to have a buff campaign but now you have an excuse to not log in on it and participate.
Also, for statistical reasons, those that do login despite the caps will always be the more hardcore/experienced players.
They may have only 10%, or whatever margin, more players but they'll win consistently and still drive away the opposing factions.

On the other front, it doesn't prevent people from leaving the campaign, it doesn't give any reasons to stay and it doesn't stop the vicious circle.
Not only that, byt hardcore players are the first ones to recognise when a situation is hopeless and make the proper min maxing choice to leave and join a buff campaign.
Making the proportion of strong players even lower in a losing faction.

In short, it would not only not address the unterlying issues, but it will also make the situation worse.

With added issues like punishing "regular" players because the other faction didn't show up or already gave up.
It wouldn't make factions balance each other out by going after the strongest one. It would encourage going after the weakest one to make their players log off in order to get a pop advantage.
Unless of course you chose to kick players when they are beyond the cap, which is effectively punishing them arbitrarily for winning.
And finally it would cement forever guesting as a negative aspect of the game rather than changing it to a positive tool.

So much changes in this game. It's amazing.
Last time was getting FC disabled and soon we're finally getting aoe target caps looked at and fixed.

The last fundamental design flaw for AvA now is population balance tools, or lack of them.

Some people are asking for pve buffs to be removed without understanding that buff servers is a symptom rather than the issue itself.

@ZOS_GinaBruno‌ , you mentioned in another thread that this was currently discussed internaly. Could you please make sure to relay that not everyone is having a kneejerk reaction against pve buffs.
Instead, some would love them become the tool they could/should be.

And happy new year!