Make the objectives worth 10 points a piece instead of 1 point a piece.
They would be worth this amount of points when all factions were pop locked.
Every bar under all 3 being pop locked would reduce the value by 10 %.
So all 3 pop locked has a value of 12 bars (4 bars per faction) and no one on has a value of 3 bars (1 bar per faction).
Scoring weight would be thus
12 bars 100%
11 bars 90%
10 bars 80%
9 bars 70%
8 bars 60%
7 bars 50%
6 bars 40%
5 bars 30%
4 bars 20%
3 bars 10%

The more people that are participating the more weight it should carry toward the scoreboard.

When the Ottoman hordes had the Romans completely sieged by land and sea, the Romans got an outnumbered handicap and that’s why Constantinople didn’t fall in 1453.

Oh wait that’s not how war works.

(before someone comes in and makes a comment about small scale and solo pvp in context of real war, this thread is about campaign scoring and alliance war, not real pvp)

Change points to reflect who you are against, not total pop. This doesn't screw over people fighting overwhelming forces. So if you are at 1 bar, and the faction you steal resource or keep from is pop locked, you get 4x the points.

VaranisArano wrote: »

The best way to address population imbalance over time zones in a 24/7 Cyrodiil campaign is for all factions to have enough players to have balanced populations. When the populations are naturally balanced, you don't see one faction sweeping the map for long periods of time.

But honestly, that's not something that ZOS can or should enforce. They can't, without privileging certain time zones over other time zones or artificially keeping a low pop faction in the game even more than they already do. If we players want balanced factions at all times, we need to recruit and get players in game at all times.

The answer to "My faction is getting zerged at oceanic primetime (or whenever)!" isn't "ZOS, make them stop!" like ZOS is the teacher on the playground and your team is losing. You've got the ability to recruit more players, to strengthen the faction, and contest the map.

That's a solution you can work toward, regardless of what ZOS chooses to do or not to do.

Timezone issue is not the players fault. You cannot force someone to play at 4AM. Its a global issue and game should add a workaround to this problem. Yes factions can try to recruit players at all times. But why would they? There are 3 different campaigns to choose from and every faction chose theirs. Its easy to just join the faction which is outnumbering others from start.

So either make a single large instance of cyrodiil so this never happens OR remove the incentive to perma zerg a campaign.

The least Oceanic players can do when playing on NA during offhours is to not run 24men ballgroups against disorganized pugs. At least reduce your number, split your group in 2 halves and maybe you will find some resemblance of challenge.

So if the real problem here is guilds PvDooring empty campaigns for the sake of PvDooring empty or nearly empty campaigns, why not deal with those guilds?

I realize that easier said that done, perhaps, but its a lot easier to get together some competition for those guilds than it is for ZOS to rework how scoring is done on Cyrodiil. On smaller campaigns, it may be as easy as asking some of the other faction guilds to switch campaigns for a bit, long enough to force the enemy guilds to actually work at it. I've been on the receiving end of that - my guild raided regularly on Haderus and were pretty dominant in primetime, and eventually a couple of enemy guilds came over from Trueflame and hammered us for a couple of weeks. It was great practice for moving over to Trueflame ourselves.

I've been on the receiving end of enemy zergs during low population times, and its really frustrating. However, the thing that fixes the problem? Getting more players on the server to fight them. Getting more players on the server is something players can do, regardless of what ZOS does.

frozywozy wrote: »

The least Oceanic players can do when playing on NA during offhours is to not run 24men ballgroups against disorganized pugs. At least reduce your number, split your group in 2 halves and maybe you will find some resemblance of challenge.

This. I'm generally in favor of zergs, seeing them as a great way for new players to learn to PVP and knowing that most zergs form as a natural consequence of faction-oriented, strategic, objective-focused gameplay. But if you have 24 people on a nearly empty server, surely you don't need to bring that level of force to every fight (whether you want to is another matter - if you aren't in Cyrodiil for the fights but are there to take the map, zerging up makes the most sense, and there's no real way to change that). This is also one reason why population isn't all that matters. A 24-man zerg vs 24 disorganized players or small groups on the other factions is going to take the map even though the populations are equal (and if that's the only time they can play, their contributions to the faction shouldn't be diminished in a 24/7 campaign cycle). So again, a solution comes down to player behavior.

Its ZOS' job to stop cheating and exploiting. Zerging the map at low population and or having a low population to begin with aren't cheats or exploits. Nor is it ZOS' "job" to tell players "you can't zerg the map at low population" or to tell players "I'm sorry, DC decided not to log in this morning, so you can't log in as EP or AD because dynamic population caps." (Faction loyalty, despite evidence to the contrary, is a thing.) I mean, they could make it their job, and you seem to want them to, but I think that would be detrimental to people wanting to play in Cyrodiil.

The current design of Cyrodiil is a 24/7 server that experiences times of low and high population as well as times of population imbalance because of how and when players log in to play. Population locks for high population makes sense based on our experiences with ZOS' server quality. Artificial locks at other times in an attempt to enforce equality of forces (whether numbers or the score) either limit the population to the lowest common denominator (meaning players who want to play on other factions can't) or diminish the contributions of players playing at those times. Neither fits the current design, and neither is beneficial to the players who want to play at those times.

In other words, the price I pay for being able to log in at any time short of poplock with my EP toon is that AD and DC might outnumber my faction. Which, this is Cyrodiil, home of the Alliance War designed for groups of 8-24 players and supporting everything from solo players and small groups to zergs and faction stacks. Battlegrounds guarantees equal teams. Cyrodiil does not.

This won't work and the weakest solution put forth.

Easiest to argue against and little to back it up.

Your solution is one-sided and that is why you will get the same people say why they personally think its ok to pvdoor and play victim/(insert irrelevant strawman argument here) not only that it sounds difficult for ZOS to implement.

Rianai wrote: »

But what about those players that want to PvP (aka fighting other players) but can't because of those imbalances?
Dynamic population caps won't prevent a player from playing even if they don't want to change their faction, because everyone can play on at least 2 campaigns, and typically it isn't the same faction dominating on multiple campaigns. It would just prevent people from stacking on one side and PvDooring the whole map without resistance, which i doubt is the way this gamemode is meant to be.

There currently AREN'T two No CP campaigns. There are two CP campaigns, but again, I submit to you the problem of "Oh, I'm sorry, DC decided not to log in this morning, so you can't log in on EP or AD on your preferred server." Especially when there are already issues with queue times...

The price I pay for being able to log into whichever server I want, whenever I want (short of pop-lock) is that sometimes my faction might be outnumbered. If my faction is always outnumbered, clearly, some recruiting is in order. Recruiting is something I can do regardless of what ZOS does.

Ranger209 wrote: »

The weighted system I propose isn't directed strictly at day cappers, though that is the worst case scenario. It is incrementally based every step of the way from being pop locked to 1v1v1 bars. The less people that are on the less their actions should impact the score. It is a way to adjust the scoring of what is taking place in a very vast land when to few people are occupying it to maintain its balance on their own.

Let's math out your weighted system, shall we? For these purposes, I will grant that ZOS' population bars are always accurate and not vulnerable to certain exploits messing with other faction's queues.

Take Chalman Keep, a hotly contested keep between DC and EP (or Aleswell, or BRK, or Alessia, whatever). Currently Chalman is worth the same number of points regardless of what time of day it gets captured or held. It doesn't matter whether its primetime, poplocked, or dead of the night, oceanic, one bar, or massively imbalance population. Chalman is worth the same number of points 24/7.

Now under your system, at pop-locked times (Almost always at prime-time, but happens at other times), Chalman Keep is worth 10 points. At dead of the night times, Chalman, alas, is only worth one point. So in other words, a player during a time with only 3 total bars of population has to capture 10 keeps in order to equal the score contribution of a primetime player who captured 1 keep. That's a rather serious diminishing of their efforts.

Now, let's consider that PvDoor happens during primetime too! In fact, strategic movement and playing the map often gets groups to undefended keeps in ways that are good moves for the faction. One example, if DC and EP are locked into the Aleswell -> Bleakers -> Chalman rush, an EP group might break off to hit Fort Dragonclaw which is probably undefended even when the factions are poplocked. An AD group might hit Blue Road Keep or Drakelowe when most EP defenders are elsewhere. These are smart moves, that also happen to be likely PvDoor keep takes. If an organized raid does it right, they'll PvDoor keeps before the defenders can arrive, even with poplocked factions - adding more points will only encourage that behavior.

So in this case, an EP group PvDoors Dragonclaw, winning 10 points for their faction! An AD group PvDoors Drakelowe, wining 10 points for their faction. Meanwhile, in a few hours when the population plummets, those EP players who PvDoor a keep only get 1 point for that keep take. AD only gets 1 point for PvDooring Drake while the population is low. If the population is low, those players now are forced to capture more keeps in order to have the same impact as players who play in high population times. Why, that doesn't sound like something that would encourage zerging the map, does it? Even though those groups put forth the same effort and did the same things, one group gets rewarded solely based on the amount of players playing at the same time as them.

So what's the net result of this? Players who play at times of high population get a much greater reward for what they do than players who play at times of low population. When the server is 24/7 and those times of low population correspond pretty well to certain timezones, your method still works out to effectively diminishing the efforts of players who can only play when the population is lower as a whole. Your system also encourages PvDooring during primetime. Moreover, because PvDoor is prevalent at all levels of population, its quite obvious that players are just being rewarded with greater scores based on how many players are logged in at the time, not based on actual effort.

I don't disagree that low-population zerging isn't annoying and frustrating to be on the receiving end of. I've dealt with it and I don't appreciate it when it happens to my faction. I don't even disagree that its frustrating to feel like the primetime hours where there are so many players online doesn't have a huge impact on the score. I play primarily during primetime myself and sometimes in the afternoon, and yes, it does feel like I'm just making sure my faction doesn't lose ground instead of being able to rack up all the points because I face serious opposition. However, I STILL have yet to see a solution that doesn't diminish the efforts of players in less populated time zones in a 24/7 server, which your system effectively does, or tie the population locks to the lowest pop faction, i.e. the "DC didn't log in this morning, sorry, you can't play" problem.

For as long as Cyrodiil campaigns are 24/7 servers that don't turn off when the population drops, I oppose anything that diminishes the contributions that players from all time zones can make towards their faction. If they are logged in to Cyrodiil, their contributions are equal to that of any other player.

VaranisArano wrote: »

Ranger209 wrote: »

The weighted system I propose isn't directed strictly at day cappers, though that is the worst case scenario. It is incrementally based every step of the way from being pop locked to 1v1v1 bars. The less people that are on the less their actions should impact the score. It is a way to adjust the scoring of what is taking place in a very vast land when to few people are occupying it to maintain its balance on their own.

Let's math out your weighted system, shall we? For these purposes, I will grant that ZOS' population bars are always accurate and not vulnerable to certain exploits messing with other faction's queues.

Take Chalman Keep, a hotly contested keep between DC and EP (or Aleswell, or BRK, or Alessia, whatever). Currently Chalman is worth the same number of points regardless of what time of day it gets captured or held. It doesn't matter whether its primetime, poplocked, or dead of the night, oceanic, one bar, or massively imbalance population. Chalman is worth the same number of points 24/7.

Now under your system, at pop-locked times (Almost always at prime-time, but happens at other times), Chalman Keep is worth 10 points. At dead of the night times, Chalman, alas, is only worth one point. So in other words, a player during a time with only 3 total bars of population has to capture 10 keeps in order to equal the score contribution of a primetime player who captured 1 keep. That's a rather serious diminishing of their efforts.

Now, let's consider that PvDoor happens during primetime too! In fact, strategic movement and playing the map often gets groups to undefended keeps in ways that are good moves for the faction. One example, if DC and EP are locked into the Aleswell -> Bleakers -> Chalman rush, an EP group might break off to hit Fort Dragonclaw which is probably undefended even when the factions are poplocked. An AD group might hit Blue Road Keep or Drakelowe when most EP defenders are elsewhere. These are smart moves, that also happen to be likely PvDoor keep takes. If an organized raid does it right, they'll PvDoor keeps before the defenders can arrive, even with poplocked factions - adding more points will only encourage that behavior.

So in this case, an EP group PvDoors Dragonclaw, winning 10 points for their faction! An AD group PvDoors Drakelowe, wining 10 points for their faction. Meanwhile, in a few hours when the population plummets, those EP players who PvDoor a keep only get 1 point for that keep take. AD only gets 1 point for PvDooring Drake while the population is low. If the population is low, those players now are forced to capture more keeps in order to have the same impact as players who play in high population times. Why, that doesn't sound like something that would encourage zerging the map, does it? Even though those groups put forth the same effort and did the same things, one group gets rewarded solely based on the amount of players playing at the same time as them.

So what's the net result of this? Players who play at times of high population get a much greater reward for what they do than players who play at times of low population. When the server is 24/7 and those times of low population correspond pretty well to certain timezones, your method still works out to effectively diminishing the efforts of players who can only play when the population is lower as a whole. Your system also encourages PvDooring during primetime. Moreover, because PvDoor is prevalent at all levels of population, its quite obvious that players are just being rewarded with greater scores based on how many players are logged in at the time, not based on actual effort.

I don't disagree that low-population zerging isn't annoying and frustrating to be on the receiving end of. I've dealt with it and I don't appreciate it when it happens to my faction. I don't even disagree that its frustrating to feel like the primetime hours where there are so many players online doesn't have a huge impact on the score. I play primarily during primetime myself and sometimes in the afternoon, and yes, it does feel like I'm just making sure my faction doesn't lose ground instead of being able to rack up all the points because I face serious opposition. However, I STILL have yet to see a solution that doesn't diminish the efforts of players in less populated time zones in a 24/7 server, which your system effectively does, or tie the population locks to the lowest pop faction, i.e. the "DC didn't log in this morning, sorry, you can't play" problem.

For as long as Cyrodiil campaigns are 24/7 servers that don't turn off when the population drops, I oppose anything that diminishes the contributions that players from all time zones can make towards their faction. If they are logged in to Cyrodiil, their contributions are equal to that of any other player.

I don't think it does diminish the efforts.
Primetime keep-takes usually involve 60+ players on each side for an hour or more. Off-peak pvdoor takes are generally 15 players vs 3-5 taking a keep in 5 minutes.

Your mistake is thinking that the two involve the same efforts both individually and collectively. They obviously don't.

Let's go a step further and apply an 'effort value' to these examples. Let's say 1 effort point = 1 players efforts for 5inutes.
For the off-peak example, that's 1 point of effort per player, and 15 points of 'effort' for the faction.
For the preak-time example, if the siege takes 1 hour, then its 12 points of effort per player and 720 for the faction.
The two really do not compare.

The score adjustment may not be the best out there, but something IS needed.
Perhaps link the campaign score for a keep to the ap rewards for its capture? Perhaps also reduce the scores over time to reduce the impact of the 'last faction to log off', or the impact of long-duration off-peak faction domination.

The overriding point that needs addressing is, though that the 'collective effort' of peak-time players is much higher than off-peak players simply because there are more of them. But they have the least impact on campaign score.
That simply isnt right.

You ignored my entire point about PvDoor happening at all times on the map. Prime-time keep taking involves plenty of PvDoor as well - I play on PC/NA Vivec and the back home keeps get PvDoored all the time, and with the right movement, a raid can PvDoor an emp ring keep and have the place repaired and sewn up before the defenders arrive.

If you do it right, you can have 15 players vs 3-5 defenders taking a keep in 5 minutes in prime-time on NA'a most populated server. I've been there, done that regularly, had it done to me regularly. Its simply a matter of reading the map and striking out away from the main zergs (who are dealing with those hour long keep takes you pointed out). Which is where your system breaks down, because I'm doing the exact same thing as low pop groups and getting a much greater reward simply by virtue of more players being online. Its not on the same scale as it happens during low pop times, but your system would definitely encourage PvDoor on primetime.

But whatever. Debating your system isn't my real point.

ZOS has chosen to make every player's effort equal at all times of the day. If you take a keep, your points count that same as everyone else's on a steady time frame. Does that make for out-sized effects on the score? Yes. Does it mean that everyone can log on at any time and have the exact same point value for their efforts? Yes. You take a keep, you get the points. Not, you take a keep, you get less points because there are less players or you take a keep, you get more points because there are more players. ZOS has chosen to reward players for their efforts, not balance the campaign score, and in a 24/7 server where you can log on at any time of the day and push for your faction, players should be rewarded with the exact same point gain in the score, not be punished for only being able to play at low-pop times in the name of balancing the score.

The current Cyrodiil score is about the collective effort of players spread out over a 24/7 period of time, where every single player who logs in gets the same rewards for taking keeps and resources, regardless of the time they can play. You want the efforts of primetime players to get special rewards because there are more of you in a short amount of time, and the efforts of players in less populated time zones to get less because there are less of them over a longer period of time. ZOS has instead chosen to make it fair for all players that they get equal rewards for the faction points regardless of of what time they log in, because this is a 24/7 server with players in all timezones.

My real point is this. As long as Cyrodiil is a 24/7 server open to players of all time zones, players of all time zones have to be able to log in and contribute to the faction equally. ZOS has chosen the simplest method - keeps and resources award the same number of points no matter what time of day it is or how high or low the population is. This isn't perhaps the most fair way of figuring the campaign score, but its is the most fair way of dealing with all players of all time zones. If you log in and take a keep or a resource, your contribution is the same, no matter the time you play.

Population imbalance and low population times (both of which are being discussed on this thread) happens because of timezones. There's no way to talk about times of major population imbalance or the impact that low population times have on the faction score without effectively talking about timezones. "Primetime" is a timezone where the majority of NA players can play after work. Low population times track pretty well to certain timezones.

From a certain standpoint, PVP is broken and unfair because, as you say, the vast majority of players have less impact on the score.

From a certain standpoint, PVP is fair because every player, regardless of timezone or faction population, can log in, take a keep or resource, and score the same amount of points.

ZOS has chosen to to give every player in a 24/7 server the same number of points for doing the same things. You take a keep, you get the same points. Every player gets the same rewards for the same objectives, 24/7.

In short, Cyrodiil is currently a 24/7 server. If you want players who only play for 3-5 hours to make the biggest difference, maybe you need a server that isn't 24/7.

Maybe the other alliances should work together and do something in order to keep up. Just cause one alliance communicates and works together in order to win doesn't mean changes need to be made to give the others a chance.

techprince wrote: »

O_LYKOS wrote: »

Maybe the other alliances should work together and do something in order to keep up. Just cause one alliance communicates and works together in order to win doesn't mean changes need to be made to give the others a chance.

Other alliances zerg other campaigns, thats what they do. Why would an alliance play 4 vs 25 in an already lost map? makes 0 sense. And lol at "communication".

To be fair, I've definitely been on when we had equal numbers to the other factions, but they were running in a 24-man raid and we were in 3 eight-man groups that weren't working together. Guess how that turned out for us?