One more test. Reduce Campaign Population to 50 per faction.
thegreat_one
✭✭✭✭
I think you should try to limit the amount of people in a campaign to 50 a faction.
Quite frankly, Large scale battles as promised are causing more issues for players than spamming any one skill.
-groups of 12
- Whatever AOE CD you want.
1. A faction cannot stack all of it forces in one spot. It would leave too much open.
2. Small man groups could accomplish more than running around a tower.
3. Smarter groups who know when things happen could actually stop a huge push by a faction simply because they cannot afford to have everyone in one spot.
4. No more Zerg surfing. You will actually need to contribute to your group.
I believe its the population on the server causing the issues.
Quite frankly, Large scale battles as promised are causing more issues for players than spamming any one skill.
-groups of 12
- Whatever AOE CD you want.
1. A faction cannot stack all of it forces in one spot. It would leave too much open.
2. Small man groups could accomplish more than running around a tower.
3. Smarter groups who know when things happen could actually stop a huge push by a faction simply because they cannot afford to have everyone in one spot.
4. No more Zerg surfing. You will actually need to contribute to your group.
I believe its the population on the server causing the issues.
2
-
DigitalHype✭✭✭✭They can't do that without creating more campaigns and additional server capacity (something they are clearly trying to avoid).
Otherwise players would be greeted with "Position in Queue: 623". That would be more detrimental to the playerbase than the poor performance is. People would just uninstall when they saw that every day.5 -
TineaCruris✭✭✭✭✭thegreat_one wrote: »I think you should try to limit the amount of people in a campaign to 50 a faction.
Quite frankly, Large scale battles as promised are causing more issues for players than spamming any one skill.
-groups of 12
- Whatever AOE CD you want.
1. A faction cannot stack all of it forces in one spot. It would leave too much open.
2. Small man groups could accomplish more than running around a tower.
3. Smarter groups who know when things happen could actually stop a huge push by a faction simply because they cannot afford to have everyone in one spot.
4. No more Zerg surfing. You will actually need to contribute to your group.
I believe its the population on the server causing the issues.
No.
If they do another test, it should be to test better/increased server capacity. That is the only thing they haven't tried yet, and likely why they haven't hit on a solution yet.9 -
TequilaFire✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭They won't do an increased server capacity test because it would prove what is already known.
8 -
Sanctum74✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭No, they’ve already reduced the population cap several times already. Reducing it even more would result in boring gameplay and people not being able to play with their friends and guilds.
They’ve made millions from the game maybe it’s time they finally invest some money back into it instead of all these tests which are not the cause of the problem.
7 -
Grianasteri✭✭✭✭✭
✭The next test should be drastically increasing server capacity/power...
Silly me, that would solve many of the issues so nah.3 -
Vlad9425✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭50 would be way too low but they should definitely try reducing the capacity maybe 2 bars per alliance. Just as a test.0 -
SirAndy✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭thegreat_one wrote: »I think you should try to limit the amount of people in a campaign to 50 a faction.
Wow, we have fallen a long way. I remember when campaign population was counted by the thousands.
0 -
EdmondDontes✭✭✭✭✭
✭thegreat_one wrote: »I think you should try to limit the amount of people in a campaign to 50 a faction.
Wow, we have fallen a long way. I remember when campaign population was counted by the thousands.
Yep, they've already reduced the the populaiton cap in cyro to somewhere around 1/3rd of what it used to be.2