I still don't understand why one faction is allowed to have 3 bars while the other factions can be at one. I just don't understand why this has been allowed to go on for a year now.
AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »I still don't understand why one faction is allowed to have 3 bars while the other factions can be at one. I just don't understand why this has been allowed to go on for a year now.
I get frustration and complaints but not sure how this should work where it wouldn't *** off a larger group of players than the smaller one it would benefit. In the end they will likely not do anything to *** off a large group of players to appease a small one for obvious business reasons.
DisgracefulMind wrote: »This really, really needs to be looked into, and a solution needs to be provided. It's ruining PvP more than lag.
DisgracefulMind wrote: »AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »I still don't understand why one faction is allowed to have 3 bars while the other factions can be at one. I just don't understand why this has been allowed to go on for a year now.
I get frustration and complaints but not sure how this should work where it wouldn't *** off a larger group of players than the smaller one it would benefit. In the end they will likely not do anything to *** off a large group of players to appease a small one for obvious business reasons.
But if they don't do something to appease the smaller group of players, and most of those players leave, following the second smallest faction, what will the original large group of players that they didn't want to *** off do?
Ideally, pop-capping a campaign in a proper way would force groups to go to other campaigns, which would solve a lot of problems anyways. This should be implemented. There is no reason why an alliance should be able to be three-barred while the other two are 1-barred.
DisgracefulMind wrote: »This really, really needs to be looked into, and a solution needs to be provided. It's ruining PvP more than lag.
Heh, I would much rather see lag gone. Without lag, blue MIGHT get their players back. Right now they are all in other servers farming. Same with AD just to a different degree. Fix lag = Get population back
AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »DisgracefulMind wrote: »AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »I still don't understand why one faction is allowed to have 3 bars while the other factions can be at one. I just don't understand why this has been allowed to go on for a year now.
I get frustration and complaints but not sure how this should work where it wouldn't *** off a larger group of players than the smaller one it would benefit. In the end they will likely not do anything to *** off a large group of players to appease a small one for obvious business reasons.
But if they don't do something to appease the smaller group of players, and most of those players leave, following the second smallest faction, what will the original large group of players that they didn't want to *** off do?
Ideally, pop-capping a campaign in a proper way would force groups to go to other campaigns, which would solve a lot of problems anyways. This should be implemented. There is no reason why an alliance should be able to be three-barred while the other two are 1-barred.
The only way I could see that happening is if you could "home" all the campaigns with all your characters across all factions, and have a "priority" campaign where you can get in based on your server ranking and would just bump someone off below you when you wanted to get in. That way at least one server could remain competitive and spaces wouldn't be wasted by non-productive players.
As to your other point, from a business perspective, erosion is better than avalanche. It is the same reason these changes never went into play when AD was rolling everyone with their super-massive zerg. You don't want to do something that makes half of them leave today, better to *** off a small loyal group that has a slower net negative effect.
Perphection wrote: »I think it was confirmed in a thread last night that he doesn't have the balls to address real concerns.Princess_Asgari wrote: »Any bets I if he will post in here?
Princess_Asgari wrote: »Any bets I if he will post in here?
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We have looked at population imbalances throughout the release of the game and have seen it change from campaign to campaign, month to month with Ebonheart, Aldmeri and Daggerfall all taking top population spots. As a snap shot, the past three days show the following:
- Haderus has swapped highest population between all three alliances.
- Azura has a steady stream of Aldmeri and Ebonheart, but not much Daggerfall.
- Blackwater has mainly Ebonheart with the highest with Aldmeri slightly behind and again, Daggerfall the lowest.
- Chillrend has Daggerfall with the highest population and Aldmeri/Ebonheart around the same
- Thornblade has Aldmeri and Ebonheart with roughly the same population with a slight edge towards Ebonheart, and Daggerfall trailing.
There are ongoing discussions about how to address population imbalances in the campaigns. Some of the possible solutions include the following:
- Limiting population per alliance to match the lowest or median population of the lowest population.
- Giving more XP/AP than we currently do
- Giving alternate siege weapons to the underdog\low-population alliance(s) that do more damage while they have the underdog\low pop bonus.
- Altering Cyrodiil's landscape
- Changing/removing scoring and showing that other campaigns have underdog/low-population bonuses on the Campaign Selection UI
- Doing away with Home and Guest campaign options, so Campaign Reward tiers roll with a character instead of being tied to a campaign so you can play in any campaign you want.
All of these have their pros and cons, some of which may not be immediately apparent but we still have to consider. The last one, for example, would result in all the campaigns having the same duration (so people can't earn tier 3 then hop to a short campaign and get a reward when it ends), and scoring and would be better suited as a meta-score across all campaigns. We would also need to remove the limitation on the accounts which don't let players have characters from opposing alliances in the same campaign (and yes I know that "jump to buddy" circumvents this rule already).
I agree there are many solutions we can explore, and that population imbalances are always a challenge for PVP games in which battles are not instanced to launch on demand. Thanks again for your continued patience in this and many other matters that the PVP community and myself care about deeply
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »Ah yeah this is US population and not EU. And yup, server performance is always top priority.
ZOS_BrianWheeler wrote: »We have looked at population imbalances throughout the release of the game and have seen it change from campaign to campaign, month to month with Ebonheart, Aldmeri and Daggerfall all taking top population spots. As a snap shot, the past three days show the following:
- Haderus has swapped highest population between all three alliances.
- Azura has a steady stream of Aldmeri and Ebonheart, but not much Daggerfall.
- Blackwater has mainly Ebonheart with the highest with Aldmeri slightly behind and again, Daggerfall the lowest.
- Chillrend has Daggerfall with the highest population and Aldmeri/Ebonheart around the same
- Thornblade has Aldmeri and Ebonheart with roughly the same population with a slight edge towards Ebonheart, and Daggerfall trailing.
There are ongoing discussions about how to address population imbalances in the campaigns. Some of the possible solutions include the following:
- Limiting population per alliance to match the lowest or median population of the lowest population.
- Giving more XP/AP than we currently do
- Giving alternate siege weapons to the underdog\low-population alliance(s) that do more damage while they have the underdog\low pop bonus.
- Altering Cyrodiil's landscape
- Changing/removing scoring and showing that other campaigns have underdog/low-population bonuses on the Campaign Selection UI
- Doing away with Home and Guest campaign options, so Campaign Reward tiers roll with a character instead of being tied to a campaign so you can play in any campaign you want.
All of these have their pros and cons, some of which may not be immediately apparent but we still have to consider. The last one, for example, would result in all the campaigns having the same duration (so people can't earn tier 3 then hop to a short campaign and get a reward when it ends), and scoring and would be better suited as a meta-score across all campaigns. We would also need to remove the limitation on the accounts which don't let players have characters from opposing alliances in the same campaign (and yes I know that "jump to buddy" circumvents this rule already).
I agree there are many solutions we can explore, and that population imbalances are always a challenge for PVP games in which battles are not instanced to launch on demand. Thanks again for your continued patience in this and many other matters that the PVP community and myself care about deeply
Also I like your ideas Mr Wheeler . I like the first idea best .
ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »Also I like your ideas Mr Wheeler . I like the first idea best .
The first idea (Limiting population per alliance to match the lowest or median population of the lowest population) sounds good in practice, but there are some inherent problems with it. Let's say you're in a campaign where the lowest-population alliance has only 11 people on (this actually happens). That means the other two alliances would also be limited to 11 people, and no one is having fun at that point.
ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »Also I like your ideas Mr Wheeler . I like the first idea best .
The first idea (Limiting population per alliance to match the lowest or median population of the lowest population) sounds good in practice, but there are some inherent problems with it. Let's say you're in a campaign where the lowest-population alliance has only 11 people on (this actually happens). That means the other two alliances would also be limited to 11 people, and no one is having fun at that point.