Campaign population caps and locking full population campaigns

thankyourat · September 2016

There needs to be a way to keep campaign populations balanced. The current system breeds toxic gameplay. Even the so called "competitive" campaigns are still very imbalanced interns of population. As long as numbers are the number one deciding factor in this game there needs to be away to keep the numbers even

Dudis · September 2016

I don't siege/zerg often but I think there are two major issues with this games keep "system".

1) Attackers who die return too quickly

2) Defenders don't really have an advantage. There should be more chokepoints and easily defendable areas that the attackers have to push through. Moving one of the flags to the top floor would go long ways in helping with this issue.

Lets use Dark Age of Camelot (the granddaddy of AvA aka RvR back then) as an example. In that game you had to push a stairwell to the top floor of the keep and kill the keeps Lord to capture the it for your side. It was commonplace for a smaller number of defenders to hold off attackers while waiting for reinforcements. Defenders should after all have the upper hand. That's what keeps and castles are built for.
It also took much longer than the 1 minute it takes in ESO for a dead attacker to release, mount up and run back to the action (or instantly if there's a tent).
I'm not saying it should take 10 minutes because that's just boring, but it sure gave the defenders another advantage.

Sheuib · September 2016

Please not another request for dynamic population caps. And, I don't see how you can claim that a competitive campaign with all alliances pop locked is unbalanced. If you really want a balanced Cyrodiil fight we need a campaign with no IC.

fastolfv_ESO · September 2016

Yah TF shows all 3 locked, but when the IC event isnt going on theres never a Q DC side. The numbers imbalance is insane, why should each alliance have a different number that locks them? cap it and be done with it, if people wanna play with friends on a capped campaign then ask em to move or sit in the Q balance isnt worth sacrificing for convenience of the highest popped alliance

Jaronking · September 2016

We need this to balance out some of the campaign so people have reason to go to other campaign what's the point of fighting three bars every day when you don't even have 1 yea the AP is good but what's next fighting out numbered gets boring after a while.This will spread people out and have less strain on servers.This is a good chance for the game and only people who will be affected are the players who used numbers to kill people.

thankyourat · September 2016

Sheuib wrote: »

Please not another request for dynamic population caps. And, I don't see how you can claim that a competitive campaign with all alliances pop locked is unbalanced. If you really want a balanced Cyrodiil fight we need a campaign with no IC.

The game is almost unplayable after prime time I can't even take a resource at my home keep without the emp and his 50 man zerg coming to zerg me down. There needs to be something in place to prevent things like this from happening. Every campaign is basically a buff server now. If it's 3am and one alliance has full bars and the other two alliances only have one at most then there is a problem. And I play in a "competitive" campaign.

fastolfv_ESO · September 2016

if 2 alliances are at 1-2 bars and 1 locked underpop should kick in, no reason for it to just not kick in. Hell AD's won TF what 3 times in a row from just morning capping with pop lock while everyone else was 1-2. If zenimax cared they could just look at the numbers see the issue and act accordingly