For the love of god implement dynamic population caps!

FireCowCommando · May 2015

For me, usually the PvP is painful.

- Too few players to attack mildly defended keeps
- Too few organized players to attack mildly defended keeps
- The small organized force is hopelessly outmatched 3:1, 4:1. or worse
- Prime time, where populations are relatively balanced is immediately wrecked by the 'elite' group that run every single strongest AoE spell they can slot, Critting the server for over 9000 ping.
- Removal of soft caps allows glass cannon builds to 2 or 3 shot any player in the game, if you dont agree with this you just have not encountered it yet.

If i spent 14 hours in PvP land, usually only 2 or 3 of them were really fun.

However, all of this is in Vet PvP. NONE of these issues exist in Blackwater Blade. In truth everything done to help PvP in 1.6 and beyond was a mistake.

If you want more even populations, id suggest for them to make it more enjoyable, that way theres more players throughout the day on all campaigns.

Sharee · May 2015

BrassRazoo wrote: »

So basically you want people to not be able to play PvP?

The opposite. I want people to play PvP against each other (as opposed to against NPC guards).

Sharee wrote: »

Those 4 defenders were outnumbered because their potential teammates were busy outnumbering the EP on another campaign.

And quoting myself to prove the point, current map on thornblade EU:

...and current map of Azura EU:

kkravaritieb17_ESO · May 2015

Give back ground oil and we shall destroy the zerg

SC0TY999 · May 2015

WarlordGrievous wrote: »

SC0TY999 wrote: »

WarlordGrievous wrote: »

I get what you want and why,but In all honesty I don't think this game the way its pvp is set up will ever work around dynamic population caps due to how the campaign system is done because let me ask you this if people set home to one campaign and its full for them what the hell they going to do?wait *** that I mean some people pay to play/its just unfair to punish people's choice of faction you going to make them wait?Also if you say just go to guest campaign let me say this no rewards besides ap,so that wouldn't work.Sorry if this comes across as too heavy handed,but I just don't see how this would work unless pvp is redone almost and since we haven't had any real pvp content it is very very unlikely that they will overhaul pvp.

I take it your EP?

I play every faction for your information and I'm just giving criticism that's all.Your idea seems bias and directed at one faction.

Apologies the view seems biased but all I ever see on thorn is a massive EP zerg steamrolling everything, which in turn is creating a lot of lag. I was a bit heated when making this post due to it being 8am in the morning and EP were already zerging the map and that's what the screenshots are showing with there population.

The fact of the matter is this post is aimed at the devs to try and do something to help the PvP for everyone in every faction, if everyone gets good PvP then we will have a happy PvP player base in theory?

We did a very good job yesterday at attacking targets elsewhere away from the zergs and spreading everyone out I never encountered as much lag as there usually is in Thorn.

To be honest I'd be happy if they had an experimental campaign where the could test dynamic pop caps or whatever else they got in mind and leave the others as currently is until they find something that works.

But at the end of the day I would like to see us all get some good PvP regardless of which faction you are

!

SC0TY999 · May 2015

Lava_Croft wrote: »

The idea of letting the enemy have control over how many of my own faction are allowed in a given campaign doesn't sound all that great to me. There must be a better solution.

I agree Lava this post is mainly to address the situation, dynamic pop caps might not be the answer but if nothing is tried and tested then we're stuck with PvP the way it is!

I remember @ZOS_BrianWheeler mentioning some ideas quite a few months back during an ESO Live (I think, but may have been elsewhere) some of them sounded great but yet nothing has been done.

SC0TY999 · May 2015

At this present moment in time 13:50GMT

Reds locked thorn map is all red! Medium blues yet I haven't seen 1 other, we are 5 people.

Cannot do anything because 5 get steamrolled by no lie 50 I got a video to prove it.

We decide to go to another campaign, azura all blue all low pop cannot PvP there.

Chilrend all blue no PvP there.

Haderus all yellow and yellows locked wouldn't be able to get PvP there!

What's the point of PvP in this game if you can't PvP?

You may as well say that PvP Campaigns are there to provide PvE buffs!

@ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_GinaBruno Please do something we cannot get any PvP!

AhPook_Is_Here · May 2015

Sharee wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Take your group for example, your 4 man scroll defense. Are you saying that EP should be limited to 4 players as well on the server?

But that's the beauty of dynamic caps. With them, there would not be only 4 people defending in the firstplace.

The issue is not that there are more EP than DC in the game as a whole. The issue is that EP plays on a different server than DC. Those 4 defenders were outnumbered because their potential teammates were busy outnumbering the EP on another campaign. With dynamic caps, those DC would be playing with me defending the temple, because the other campaign would have a queue for them.

After a while, dynamic caps would cause people to naturally migrate/spread out to campaigns that would give them the shortest queues, and the population would be spread out evenly across all campaigns, on all sides.

I don't see what you are promising here that can't just be fixed by removing 2 servers.

Also I'm not sure your premise is right. How does the server handle it when one faction logs for the night? Does the server close when one faction outnumbers another by X% or does the server start to kick the dominate faction in some specific order off the server till more opposition logs in? When does a server have enough people to actually start? Will there still be static servers with this new system or when a campaign becomes underpopulated by one faction will it simply reset completely? How is group queuing handled so that a large group of friends can queue together, say a dozen? What happens to the other factions when one faction is defeated and the others decide to log for the night? Since there will be no guesting with this system i suppose, what alternative to defeat is there for those getting dominated than to leave the game temporarily or longer?

I guess I don't really understand how you intend this to work, if it is a system on top of the static servers, an additional limiter system will by definition limit player liquidity. If you remove guesting that also lowers player liquidity dramatically. Now you have players chasing action because there are way too many servers in NA. If they can't chase that action they will log when Cyrodiil becomes dead, and likely not log back in till the other side forced to play on one server does the same. In fact with this system, on top of the static server system, they wouldn't even be able to.

If Cyrodiil goes away as we know it today and becomes a kind of Alterac Valley where it exists till X events have occurred or population becomes unbalanced and the server closes till sufficient liquidity exists to start an instance that might work. If one becomes "full" another could start till the maximum number of matched players were paired. Group queuing would be possible and grouped players could be prioritized into instances with other grouped players to foster competition. I could see THIS working, but not a filtration system on top of the existing static servers.

Finally if this was done they should remove all the PVE aspects of Cyrodiil and put them into some static PVE only version of Cyrodiil that is faction specific like the other zones so players can finish their achievements without interfering with the game play of PVPers by removing active participants from the liquidity pool. Not only would this remove the % of players that aren't participating in a campaign from it, but it would also maintain the integrity of the achievements for those players and ones who have already completed them.

bertenburnyb16_ESO · May 2015

Sharee wrote: »

1, Being outnumbered the vast majority of time is more frustrating than having to spend some time in queue before entering cyrodiil.

uhu spending on average 3h in Q is awsome.... -_-
most times I spend more time in Q then in Cyro
not everybody can play when they want, most are forced to play prime time (as why its called prime time) and Q's are already between 150-200 average, this so called 'dynamic population' would only make it alot worse.
terrrrrible idea

Agrippa_Invisus · May 2015

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

1, Being outnumbered the vast majority of time is more frustrating than having to spend some time in queue before entering cyrodiil.

uhu spending on average 3h in Q is awsome.... -_-
most times I spend more time in Q then in Cyro
not everybody can play when they want, most are forced to play prime time (as why its called prime time) and Q's are already between 150-200 average, this so called 'dynamic population' would only make it alot worse.
terrrrrible idea

Go to another server and reinforce the flagging population of your faction there.

Selfishly sticking to one campaign, no matter the cost, is putting ESO in the position it's in -- with a bunch of monotone campaigns where there is no PVP.

Be part of the solution, stop being stuck in that queue, and move.

bertenburnyb16_ESO · May 2015

Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »

bertenburnyb16_ESO wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

1, Being outnumbered the vast majority of time is more frustrating than having to spend some time in queue before entering cyrodiil.

uhu spending on average 3h in Q is awsome.... -_-
most times I spend more time in Q then in Cyro
not everybody can play when they want, most are forced to play prime time (as why its called prime time) and Q's are already between 150-200 average, this so called 'dynamic population' would only make it alot worse.
terrrrrible idea

Go to another server and reinforce the flagging population of your faction there.

Selfishly sticking to one campaign, no matter the cost, is putting ESO in the position it's in -- with a bunch of monotone campaigns where there is no PVP.

Be part of the solution, stop being stuck in that queue, and move.

well I play with a pvp guild, we tried changing campaigns once after 1.6 since thorn lagg was even more out of wack then now, just before ftp, following happened:
- half of the guild didn't want to leave the original campain due to friends and such (also saying thorn is the only on that matters, the only competitive one, but well that hasnt been really true last match up xd)
- guilds we organized with on thorn were angry we abandoned them
- other servers were as good as dead it was a cakewalk over everything (also not fun fyi)
- ftp hit and there were Q's and insane lagg on every campain (also in pve at the same time I heard from other people)

so we came back to thorn since it was bad everywhere and trying to save the guild
fyi unbalanced populations has been a problem in every realm vs realm oriented pvp game, its not the solution to not let people play the game since the other faction is lacking, what about oceanic players, should they not be able to play if another server has no oceanic players and thus almost no population at night... I'm not saying its ideal, hey not even good, but dynamic population is certainly not the solution

Ghostbane · May 2015

Dynamic Population Caps will never work.

Its been explained in several threads over the past year. Too much room for things to go wrong for a minority faction, population exploiting etc

ToRelax · May 2015

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Take your group for example, your 4 man scroll defense. Are you saying that EP should be limited to 4 players as well on the server?

But that's the beauty of dynamic caps. With them, there would not be only 4 people defending in the firstplace.

The issue is not that there are more EP than DC in the game as a whole. The issue is that EP plays on a different server than DC. Those 4 defenders were outnumbered because their potential teammates were busy outnumbering the EP on another campaign. With dynamic caps, those DC would be playing with me defending the temple, because the other campaign would have a queue for them.

After a while, dynamic caps would cause people to naturally migrate/spread out to campaigns that would give them the shortest queues, and the population would be spread out evenly across all campaigns, on all sides.

I don't see what you are promising here that can't just be fixed by removing 2 servers.

Also I'm not sure your premise is right. How does the server handle it when one faction logs for the night? Does the server close when one faction outnumbers another by X% or does the server start to kick the dominate faction in some specific order off the server till more opposition logs in? When does a server have enough people to actually start? Will there still be static servers with this new system or when a campaign becomes underpopulated by one faction will it simply reset completely? How is group queuing handled so that a large group of friends can queue together, say a dozen? What happens to the other factions when one faction is defeated and the others decide to log for the night? Since there will be no guesting with this system i suppose, what alternative to defeat is there for those getting dominated than to leave the game temporarily or longer?

I guess I don't really understand how you intend this to work, if it is a system on top of the static servers, an additional limiter system will by definition limit player liquidity. If you remove guesting that also lowers player liquidity dramatically. Now you have players chasing action because there are way too many servers in NA. If they can't chase that action they will log when Cyrodiil becomes dead, and likely not log back in till the other side forced to play on one server does the same. In fact with this system, on top of the static server system, they wouldn't even be able to.

If Cyrodiil goes away as we know it today and becomes a kind of Alterac Valley where it exists till X events have occurred or population becomes unbalanced and the server closes till sufficient liquidity exists to start an instance that might work. If one becomes "full" another could start till the maximum number of matched players were paired. Group queuing would be possible and grouped players could be prioritized into instances with other grouped players to foster competition. I could see THIS working, but not a filtration system on top of the existing static servers.

Finally if this was done they should remove all the PVE aspects of Cyrodiil and put them into some static PVE only version of Cyrodiil that is faction specific like the other zones so players can finish their achievements without interfering with the game play of PVPers by removing active participants from the liquidity pool. Not only would this remove the % of players that aren't participating in a campaign from it, but it would also maintain the integrity of the achievements for those players and ones who have already completed them.

Remove guest campaigns, instead have one home campaign in that your AP are counted for the leaderboard but you still can queue for any campaign even if you didn't sign up.

If the dynamic caps would allow one faction to ounumber the others with a plus of 25-30 people, group queue can just be left alone. Alternatively, you could cap the number of people who can queue as one group to a small group (4 players).

If one faction is outnumbering other factions with more players than our cap (whatever number that may be) you can not start queuing anymore. No need to kick players out of the campaign.

We don't need a PvE version of Cyrodiil, if you want achievements, do what they ask of you, in this case entering a PvP zone and taking the "risk" to fight other players. I really wouldn't have a problem with some PvEers spread out across the map or even doing Dolmens and Quests with their raids.

And about just removing 2 servers... not on EU

.

Edit:
Since some people go on saying they don't want people to be locked out from PvP - if the "overflow cap" is not to small, people can still enter as long as no faction (or not two factions, could design it that way, too) is drastically outnumbered. If they were drastically outnumbered, you shouldn't join in the first place.

Methariorn · May 2015

IMHO the best option is to denny an home/guest change untill the end of that campain; and to prevent to jump on any other campain. After a couple of rounds people good sense should learn that it's not fun having a buff campain with no one to fight and no place to jump to do real pvp. I care less about night cap (every faction do it) or zerging (the same..every faction zerg, the more or the less. Maybe, one day, ppl will also learn that making lag is not that fun, and thay can zerg and fight without spamming useless skills

Common good sense would fix 80% of the pvp issue.

ps.: Elo'dryel where are you playing latley? Kalisha and me, seriusly, miss chasing you.

Sorry for my English.

cozmon3c_ESO · May 2015

Dynamic locks on factions i think is a good idea but you also have to look at how it can be abused.

lets say minimum lock is set to 24 players per factions because you cannot have 0 or no one will be able to join.

how this can be abused
-no matter the population size, and because you can have multiple characters on different factions, whats to stop a guild from say ep (because they have the most) from pushing the pop lock from the other factions with there alternate characters of the other factions just to be unimpeded with there own faction EP. In turn locking out the real fighting members of the other factions from even competing. when at locked capacity of all alliances at max population, the more this can be exploited.

AhPook_Is_Here · May 2015

ToRelax wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Take your group for example, your 4 man scroll defense. Are you saying that EP should be limited to 4 players as well on the server?

But that's the beauty of dynamic caps. With them, there would not be only 4 people defending in the firstplace.

The issue is not that there are more EP than DC in the game as a whole. The issue is that EP plays on a different server than DC. Those 4 defenders were outnumbered because their potential teammates were busy outnumbering the EP on another campaign. With dynamic caps, those DC would be playing with me defending the temple, because the other campaign would have a queue for them.

After a while, dynamic caps would cause people to naturally migrate/spread out to campaigns that would give them the shortest queues, and the population would be spread out evenly across all campaigns, on all sides.

I don't see what you are promising here that can't just be fixed by removing 2 servers.

Also I'm not sure your premise is right. How does the server handle it when one faction logs for the night? Does the server close when one faction outnumbers another by X% or does the server start to kick the dominate faction in some specific order off the server till more opposition logs in? When does a server have enough people to actually start? Will there still be static servers with this new system or when a campaign becomes underpopulated by one faction will it simply reset completely? How is group queuing handled so that a large group of friends can queue together, say a dozen? What happens to the other factions when one faction is defeated and the others decide to log for the night? Since there will be no guesting with this system i suppose, what alternative to defeat is there for those getting dominated than to leave the game temporarily or longer?

I guess I don't really understand how you intend this to work, if it is a system on top of the static servers, an additional limiter system will by definition limit player liquidity. If you remove guesting that also lowers player liquidity dramatically. Now you have players chasing action because there are way too many servers in NA. If they can't chase that action they will log when Cyrodiil becomes dead, and likely not log back in till the other side forced to play on one server does the same. In fact with this system, on top of the static server system, they wouldn't even be able to.

If Cyrodiil goes away as we know it today and becomes a kind of Alterac Valley where it exists till X events have occurred or population becomes unbalanced and the server closes till sufficient liquidity exists to start an instance that might work. If one becomes "full" another could start till the maximum number of matched players were paired. Group queuing would be possible and grouped players could be prioritized into instances with other grouped players to foster competition. I could see THIS working, but not a filtration system on top of the existing static servers.

Finally if this was done they should remove all the PVE aspects of Cyrodiil and put them into some static PVE only version of Cyrodiil that is faction specific like the other zones so players can finish their achievements without interfering with the game play of PVPers by removing active participants from the liquidity pool. Not only would this remove the % of players that aren't participating in a campaign from it, but it would also maintain the integrity of the achievements for those players and ones who have already completed them.

Remove guest campaigns, instead have one home campaign in that your AP are counted for the leaderboard but you still can queue for any campaign even if you didn't sign up.

If the dynamic caps would allow one faction to ounumber the others with a plus of 25-30 people, group queue can just be left alone. Alternatively, you could cap the number of people who can queue as one group to a small group (4 players).

If one faction is outnumbering other factions with more players than our cap (whatever number that may be) you can not start queuing anymore. No need to kick players out of the campaign.

We don't need a PvE version of Cyrodiil, if you want achievements, do what they ask of you, in this case entering a PvP zone and taking the "risk" to fight other players. I really wouldn't have a problem with some PvEers spread out across the map or even doing Dolmens and Quests with their raids.

And about just removing 2 servers... not on EU .

Edit:
Since some people go on saying they don't want people to be locked out from PvP - if the "overflow cap" is not to small, people can still enter as long as no faction (or not two factions, could design it that way, too) is drastically outnumbered. If they were drastically outnumbered, you shouldn't join in the first place.

I'm fine with most of that, removing guest campaigns will help liquidity as it will allow cross faction play more, it removes a limiter. having a 25-35 player floating gap isn't really that different than what we have now, and actually it won't really effect the map. one 24 man group against 4 defenders can flip the whole map one color, so you might want to ask for tighter limits.

The game is about large scale pvp so you can't set a 4 man limit on group queue unless it is a PUG only server. Guilds are bigger than 4 people and they keep their community glue from playing together.

I think you will need to boot people when on side starts to log off or you will have night or day capping still.

Personally I have done all the PVE stuff on 2 or 3 characters, but we don't need PVE players in Cyrodiil if there will be population filters. They just damage competition by filling slots that remain unused in objective play. I'd think making a PVE cyrodiil for them would be a fair solution but if too much work just remove the PVE from Cyrodiil and remove everyone's completed achievements as well.

Having said that, other than removing the PVE players I don't think any of this will have any effect on map color at the end of the day. For NA we really have 2 too many servers and that is the problem.

ToRelax · May 2015

Methariorn wrote: »

IMHO the best option is to denny an home/guest change untill the end of that campain; and to prevent to jump on any other campain. After a couple of rounds people good sense should learn that it's not fun having a buff campain with no one to fight and no place to jump to do real pvp. I care less about night cap (every faction do it) or zerging (the same..every faction zerg, the more or the less. Maybe, one day, ppl will also learn that making lag is not that fun, and thay can zerg and fight without spamming useless skills Common good sense would fix 80% of the pvp issue.

ps.: Elo'dryel where are you playing latley? Kalisha and me, seriusly, miss chasing you.

Sorry for my English.

Ehm... urm... I can't play right now. But hope to be back soon.

Sharee · May 2015

cozmon3c_ESO wrote: »

Dynamic locks on factions i think is a good idea but you also have to look at how it can be abused.

lets say minimum lock is set to 24 players per factions because you cannot have 0 or no one will be able to join.

how this can be abused
-no matter the population size, and because you can have multiple characters on different factions, whats to stop a guild from say ep (because they have the most) from pushing the pop lock from the other factions with there alternate characters of the other factions just to be unimpeded with there own faction EP. In turn locking out the real fighting members of the other factions from even competing. when at locked capacity of all alliances at max population, the more this can be exploited.

You can have multiple characters on different factions, but it is not possible for them to play in the same campaign. Your EP characters have to play in a different one than your DC alts.

Sharee · May 2015

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Take your group for example, your 4 man scroll defense. Are you saying that EP should be limited to 4 players as well on the server?

But that's the beauty of dynamic caps. With them, there would not be only 4 people defending in the firstplace.

The issue is not that there are more EP than DC in the game as a whole. The issue is that EP plays on a different server than DC. Those 4 defenders were outnumbered because their potential teammates were busy outnumbering the EP on another campaign. With dynamic caps, those DC would be playing with me defending the temple, because the other campaign would have a queue for them.

After a while, dynamic caps would cause people to naturally migrate/spread out to campaigns that would give them the shortest queues, and the population would be spread out evenly across all campaigns, on all sides.

I don't see what you are promising here that can't just be fixed by removing 2 servers.

That would work as well, yes. One single campaign for all would handle the 'avoiding each other' issue quite nicely. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a minimum of three campaigns, because it is currently not possible to play the same campaign with two characters, each on a different faction. So you need a minimum of 3 campaigns, for the players who have alts on 3 different factions and wish to pvp with all of them.

Also I'm not sure your premise is right. How does the server handle it when one faction logs for the night?
Does the server close when one faction outnumbers another by X% or does the server start to kick the dominate faction in some specific order off the server till more opposition logs in? When does a server have enough people to actually start? Will there still be static servers with this new system or when a campaign becomes underpopulated by one faction will it simply reset completely? How is group queuing handled so that a large group of friends can queue together, say a dozen? What happens to the other factions when one faction is defeated and the others decide to log for the night? Since there will be no guesting with this system i suppose, what alternative to defeat is there for those getting dominated than to leave the game temporarily or longer?

One side losing players will simply lower the cap for the other side. It won't kick anyone, it just won't allow new players to replace any that log out until the numbers are roughly even again. Other than that, the campaign will work exactly as it does now.

cozmon3c_ESO · May 2015

Sharee wrote: »

cozmon3c_ESO wrote: »

Dynamic locks on factions i think is a good idea but you also have to look at how it can be abused.

lets say minimum lock is set to 24 players per factions because you cannot have 0 or no one will be able to join.

how this can be abused
-no matter the population size, and because you can have multiple characters on different factions, whats to stop a guild from say ep (because they have the most) from pushing the pop lock from the other factions with there alternate characters of the other factions just to be unimpeded with there own faction EP. In turn locking out the real fighting members of the other factions from even competing. when at locked capacity of all alliances at max population, the more this can be exploited.

You can have multiple characters on different factions, but it is not possible for them to play in the same campaign. Your EP characters have to play in a different one than your DC alts.

yes you can, its called travel to player.

AhPook_Is_Here · May 2015

Sharee wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

AhPook_Is_Here wrote: »

Take your group for example, your 4 man scroll defense. Are you saying that EP should be limited to 4 players as well on the server?

But that's the beauty of dynamic caps. With them, there would not be only 4 people defending in the firstplace.

The issue is not that there are more EP than DC in the game as a whole. The issue is that EP plays on a different server than DC. Those 4 defenders were outnumbered because their potential teammates were busy outnumbering the EP on another campaign. With dynamic caps, those DC would be playing with me defending the temple, because the other campaign would have a queue for them.

After a while, dynamic caps would cause people to naturally migrate/spread out to campaigns that would give them the shortest queues, and the population would be spread out evenly across all campaigns, on all sides.

I don't see what you are promising here that can't just be fixed by removing 2 servers.

That would work as well, yes. One single campaign for all would handle the 'avoiding each other' issue quite nicely. Unfortunately, we are stuck with a minimum of three campaigns, because it is currently not possible to play the same campaign with two characters, each on a different faction. So you need a minimum of 3 campaigns, for the players who have alts on 3 different factions and wish to pvp with all of them.

Also I'm not sure your premise is right. How does the server handle it when one faction logs for the night?
Does the server close when one faction outnumbers another by X% or does the server start to kick the dominate faction in some specific order off the server till more opposition logs in? When does a server have enough people to actually start? Will there still be static servers with this new system or when a campaign becomes underpopulated by one faction will it simply reset completely? How is group queuing handled so that a large group of friends can queue together, say a dozen? What happens to the other factions when one faction is defeated and the others decide to log for the night? Since there will be no guesting with this system i suppose, what alternative to defeat is there for those getting dominated than to leave the game temporarily or longer?

One side losing players will simply lower the cap for the other side. It won't kick anyone, it just won't allow new players to replace any that log out until the numbers are roughly even again. Other than that, the campaign will work exactly as it does now.

I think you make some good points; I also think this is going to take some work on their part to implement, which of course I'd prefer to see over another pony in the cash store. Today I logged in to see the server pops, every server (NA) was 1 bar x3 except for Chillrend that was 2 AD/EP and 3 DC. Not a lot of player liquidity there, and maybe having a volatile server makes more sense than any static ones, since even having 3 that seem populated isn't happening during the day. If they do make some changes other than removing servers, I hope they have better luck with it than say their Dungeon LFG tool.

frozywozy · May 2015

Like @Agrippa_Invisus stated couple times in this thread, there is an easy easy easy way to fix the population problems we are experiencing since months ago. As a guild leader of a major and well known guild you have the power to create a big impact on this matter. Stop waiting for ZOS to find a solution and to code something to balance the populations, do us all a great favor and move your organized guild where your faction needs you the most (a.k.a where there is alot of AP to earn, a.k.a where there is alot of objectives to complete, a.k.a where there is not that much lag since the campaign is stacked on one side most certainly).

- Thornblade needs desperately more blues and yellows.
- Azura's Star needs desperetely more yellows.
- Chillrend needs desperetely more reds.
- Haderus needs desperetely more blues.

To all the guild leaders of the major guilds out there (the ones who use aoe and intensify the lag), here is my suggestion :

Pick up a campaign where your faction needs you the most and try it for one cycle, see how it goes, learn which guilds are already fighting there (on your side and on the other sides). DON'T bring 3 other guilds you were used to play with. This switch has to be done one guild at a time to figure out the best balance possible. In the end, the best scenario would be the following :

- Two major guilds per faction per campaign
- One guild playing during the day and one during the night (EST)

Stop stacking where you can have an easy win encouraging all the pve-ers to come secure their buff campaigns. We need people to use their judgement and to unstack their max pop campaign. This is exactly what I have done when I moved my EP toon from Thornblade to Chillrend, months ago. Still, today we need a strong guild who could play during the day.

Think about it!

In the meantime, my suggestion to ZOS remains the same :

Make it so anytime a new campaign starts, you have to register to get into it. A campaign accepts only a certain amount of players equal for each faction. If someone decide to change his home campaign, a slot becomes opened for that faction and others are free to join it. When a campaign is over, at a certain time of the day, you have to re-apply again to join the same campaign again. When all factions reach the required population, the campaign starts.

Bodycounter · May 2015

Most problems are made by the community and the big guilds. They want easy AP and to play versus NPCs instead of enemy players. There are options for Zenimax to handle overpopulation, but most would restrict to play in Cyrodiil for exact that players, that don't deserve a restriction. In my opinion the biggest fault lies within ignorant people, that don't want real PvP.

My solution: Delete all ranks including emperor, delete gold in cyrodiil. Delete PvP items and everything concerning. Delete the rank system. Just keep items made to defend and attack locations for AP. Make it about PvP only. As long as there's something bigger to win, people will abuse it. This is sadly the truth and you people have proven this for months (how braindead do people have to be to stand in an aoe zerg? Im serious, what kind of frustration compensation is this?)

SneaK · March 2016

Similar...........
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en-GB/discussion/218020/incremental-caps-to-alliance-populations-in-campaigns#latest