Prince_of_all_Pugs wrote: »Just make it show the exact number of players , i dont see what the big issue is.
I really do believe there are those who get on a certain alliance to just take a spot and basically not do anything to actually help that alliance when they have other characters on the winning alliance as their mains.
Joy_Division wrote: »It wouldn't serve any purpose giving the exact number. Because even if they did and it said AD is at 110 and EP is at 96, you'll still come onto these forums and claim that AD is outnumbered and screwed because that number is inaccurate and the 96 EP are all running Cheat Engine.
what would be nice is if the que was locked to whichever alliance has the least amount of members
like a cap
so if there is only 20 AD players on, EP and DC can only have 20 as well, as the lowest pop # grows, so it does for other alliances
but that means opening up more servers so everyone can play, or something, more thought may be required
BUT as far as seeing and not seeing bars - people with lower pop - especially when they watch the bars - will get distraught and turtle up if there isn't a PVP group/raid playing at the moment - anyone who has played for a while knows this is true - not being able to see the #'s is not a bad thing at all, especially since we can all agree - without knowing actual numbers or even ranges - they are meaningless anyway
Lets look at faction pop indicators in detail.
The basics: There are 4 possible indicators for each faction pop, 1 bar, 2 bars, 3 bars and a lock. Going with common sense a lock means that the faction is full, or at 100%. So that leaves the bars. There are 3 bars so common sense again would say that each bar takes up an equal ratio. Therefore, assuming that zos have distributed the numbers in a logical manner the indicators should be as follows:
1 bar = 0 to 33%
2 bars = 33 to 66%
3 bars = 66 to 99%
Lock = 100%
Pretty simple right??
Now lets look at a common misconception that these pop indicators can be used to rebalance the score.
- If one faction is just under the threshold of achieving 3 bars with 65% and the other has 3 bars with 67% is it fair to award the smaller faction more points?
- Another example would be if there is a large number of players from one faction in IC. Is it fair to penalise that faction?
- Another example is the pve aspect. Cyrodiil is not a pure pvp map so we cannot control if players decide to come in to collect shards or quests or achievements and offset the pvp side of things.
Score balancing is not something that can simply be resolved using one basic tool. I agree that the score/rewards system for Cyrodiil needs a lot of work, potentially a whole new concept, but that is a whole different discussion outside this topic.
Vilestride wrote: »But we are weighing population on numbers alone. If a faction has equal people but less organization because it's mostly solo players or whatever then it deserves to be getting smashed on the scoreboard. There should be a system that mitigates population imbalance and 'night capping' uncontested. But not one that provides a handicap to factions with equal pop but poor map work.
If a faction can dominate the map during prime time they deserve to be dominating there is no excuse.
Vilestride wrote: »But we are weighing population on numbers alone. If a faction has equal people but less organization because it's mostly solo players or whatever then it deserves to be getting smashed on the scoreboard. There should be a system that mitigates population imbalance and 'night capping' uncontested. But not one that provides a handicap to factions with equal pop but poor map work.
If a faction can dominate the map during prime time they deserve to be dominating there is no excuse.
I guess the only counter argument that can be made here is pugs people who don't join, but can faction switch to a winning alliance just because that's where organized groups are ATM and make AP surfing
and this does happen more often then people would admit
in this sence, 1 Tamriel killed Cyrodil
Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO wrote: »Vilestride wrote: »But we are weighing population on numbers alone. If a faction has equal people but less organization because it's mostly solo players or whatever then it deserves to be getting smashed on the scoreboard. There should be a system that mitigates population imbalance and 'night capping' uncontested. But not one that provides a handicap to factions with equal pop but poor map work.
If a faction can dominate the map during prime time they deserve to be dominating there is no excuse.
I guess the only counter argument that can be made here is pugs people who don't join, but can faction switch to a winning alliance just because that's where organized groups are ATM and make AP surfing
and this does happen more often then people would admit
in this sence, 1 Tamriel killed Cyrodil
The more pugs who join the winning faction the less populated it is of strong groups and so the harder it is for those groups to join. But I agree with you. That's why we also suggested that cyro be changed to account based. So you pick a home campaign and faction or your account. That would be the only one which you get rewards and items from but can still play others factions/campaigns and earn AP (just not "rewards")
Vilestride wrote: »But we are weighing population on numbers alone. If a faction has equal people but less organization because it's mostly solo players or whatever then it deserves to be getting smashed on the scoreboard. There should be a system that mitigates population imbalance and 'night capping' uncontested. But not one that provides a handicap to factions with equal pop but poor map work.
If a faction can dominate the map during prime time they deserve to be dominating there is no excuse.