Dynamic population caps are needed.
-
Anethum✭✭✭✭MerlinPendragon wrote: »Every faction in every campaign has ups and downs. ZOS should not over regulate, as that will likely create a bigger problem.
This is not such case. just step by step limits to prevent 200 v 5 v 10 populations in campagns. it can't be bigger problem than it is.
and, as was said before, players can go another characters for fraction, which is low on campagn, for balancing the battle and open next level of limits for campagn.
Smart systemsEdited by Anethum on August 3, 2018 11:46PM@Anethum from .ua0 -
Delphinia✭✭✭✭✭On PC/NA, there have been players who have moved to another faction in order to help balance the game. If ZOS won’t, at least some players have taken it upon themselves to assist in creating a more fair and balanced playing field. Otherwise, it may lead to one faction dominating for long enough to finally drive players away, the competition is gone and a campaign is destroyed. Some players don’t mind it this way, but from what I’ve seen, most do and the result is a dead campaign.Edited by Delphinia on August 4, 2018 4:07PM2 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »Back before I left the game for a while, I floated this idea several times. I'm glad to see it's still making the rounds.
You want even campaigns?
The playerbase has proven after a year of 'trusting' them it won't happen naturally?
Force it.
Imagine a Thornblade that was all skirmishes and small man's due to no DC presence.
Imagine a 2 bar, Dawnbreakeresque Haderus as that's what the opposition to AD usually is.
Imagine an Azura's and Chillrend without the off hours capping because those teams couldn't get their full raids in to flip the map while people slept.
But, Agrippa, what about the Ozzies/Late shift guys, you cry?
Well, guess they need to roll alts or split up and stop stacking one faction in some instances or they need to all get the off hour guys from different factions into one campaign (I vote Thornblade).
Oh, they don't want to do that?
Well. Suffer.
Or we could merge Europe and NA, to give a better mix around the clock... there wont be any night capping, and we would get a few full campaigns... and those that dont get in when its pop locked need to go, small side campaigns, or wait in que1 -
elfantasmo✭✭✭Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »Back before I left the game for a while, I floated this idea several times. I'm glad to see it's still making the rounds.
You want even campaigns?
The playerbase has proven after a year of 'trusting' them it won't happen naturally?
Force it.
Imagine a Thornblade that was all skirmishes and small man's due to no DC presence.
Imagine a 2 bar, Dawnbreakeresque Haderus as that's what the opposition to AD usually is.
Imagine an Azura's and Chillrend without the off hours capping because those teams couldn't get their full raids in to flip the map while people slept.
But, Agrippa, what about the Ozzies/Late shift guys, you cry?
Well, guess they need to roll alts or split up and stop stacking one faction in some instances or they need to all get the off hour guys from different factions into one campaign (I vote Thornblade).
Oh, they don't want to do that?
Well. Suffer.
Or we could merge Europe and NA, to give a better mix around the clock... there wont be any night capping, and we would get a few full campaigns... and those that dont get in when its pop locked need to go, small side campaigns, or wait in que
If ZOS could architect this across global data centres then this is a great idea. I have doubts that they could with the current game engine. As it is the ping in prime time EU is just pathetic for 2k18 online service, so to have that ping plus additional latency due to the additional regions would kill it for real. So no.
1 -
Miriel✭✭✭✭elfantasmo wrote: »Agrippa_Invisus wrote: »Back before I left the game for a while, I floated this idea several times. I'm glad to see it's still making the rounds.
You want even campaigns?
The playerbase has proven after a year of 'trusting' them it won't happen naturally?
Force it.
Imagine a Thornblade that was all skirmishes and small man's due to no DC presence.
Imagine a 2 bar, Dawnbreakeresque Haderus as that's what the opposition to AD usually is.
Imagine an Azura's and Chillrend without the off hours capping because those teams couldn't get their full raids in to flip the map while people slept.
But, Agrippa, what about the Ozzies/Late shift guys, you cry?
Well, guess they need to roll alts or split up and stop stacking one faction in some instances or they need to all get the off hour guys from different factions into one campaign (I vote Thornblade).
Oh, they don't want to do that?
Well. Suffer.
Or we could merge Europe and NA, to give a better mix around the clock... there wont be any night capping, and we would get a few full campaigns... and those that dont get in when its pop locked need to go, small side campaigns, or wait in que
If ZOS could architect this across global data centres then this is a great idea. I have doubts that they could with the current game engine. As it is the ping in prime time EU is just pathetic for 2k18 online service, so to have that ping plus additional latency due to the additional regions would kill it for real. So no.
I play from europe in the NA server, and i honestly dont have worse ping then many asian players, infact i at times have better performance then some US players... It can never be fully fully fair regardless since alot is dependent on net, rig, and from where you play, that will allways matter... but i rather have servers with a fair population around the clock, then night cappers that play pvd !Edited by Miriel on August 4, 2018 9:17PM0 -
Xai_Zi✭✭✭YAAAAAS, dynamic pop locks please.Frequent target of racially motivated censoring by mods.1 -
Totally agree.
For example, most populated Alliance pop should be locked at equal of 2nd + 3rd Alliance total pop.
Weak Alliance players need a possibility of fighting back to continue the fight instead of just giving up and logging off.
When your Alliance is 1 bar and zerg coming from pop locked Alliance, who want to fight a hopeless losing battle ?
1