PVP entry needs capped by % of lowest population

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

This is why pvp entry needs to be capped not just by total pop allowed but also within a certain percentage of the lowest population's numbers. Say 10%, that's fair enough. AD is full everyone else has one bar and gets rolled. So what do people do because they have no backbone it gets worse and they all go roll the winning side. The more it stays like this the worse it will get or they quit altogether. Entry to campaign should be capped within 10% of whoever has the lowest number atm and let it fill evenly to the total cap at which point it gets a lock. Then when all these people that have rolled a toon just to be on what they thought was the winning side in pvp get tired of not being able to get in to pvp they will roll on either DC or EP so they can actually get in to pvp or flip to another campaign where it will still fill evenly as a result.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Surprised this has been up here this long with no nasty AD comments lol Oh well I'm sure the hate will come along with the supporters.

Ragnar_Lodbrok · April 2014

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

Ragnar_Lodbrok · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

If someones friends/guild is on a campaign and they join a little later you are preventing them from playing.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

If someones friends/guild is on a campaign and they join a little later you are preventing them from playing.

Campaigns rotate every 90 days pick one together.

Malediktus · April 2014

Plus you can switch campaigns at any time for a small fee

Custos91 · April 2014

My whole guild is playing we are 300 people now all pvp players, 50 % of my firend list is in the same campaign...
I won't even enter Cyrodill without a guild group there, and if I do I am out after like 20 minutes...
You see what would happen?

Ragnar_Lodbrok · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

If someones friends/guild is on a campaign and they join a little later you are preventing them from playing.

Campaigns rotate every 90 days pick one together.

SO you are saying they cant play with friends for 3 months? That wont be acceptable to anyone but you

stuartoatleyeb17_ESO · April 2014

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

If someones friends/guild is on a campaign and they join a little later you are preventing them from playing.

Campaigns rotate every 90 days pick one together.

SO you are saying they cant play with friends for 3 months? That wont be acceptable to anyone but you

As already pointed out, you can change your home campaign

Ragnar_Lodbrok · April 2014

stuartoatleyeb17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

If someones friends/guild is on a campaign and they join a little later you are preventing them from playing.

Campaigns rotate every 90 days pick one together.

SO you are saying they cant play with friends for 3 months? That wont be acceptable to anyone but you

As already pointed out, you can change your home campaign

So can you, you have the choice to join a different campaign rather than changing the whole game for your preference. People would call that entitlement.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

If someones friends/guild is on a campaign and they join a little later you are preventing them from playing.

Campaigns rotate every 90 days pick one together.

SO you are saying they cant play with friends for 3 months? That wont be acceptable to anyone but you

That doesn't make any sense. You know very well one can guest till they can officially change. You aren't being prevented from anything. You have no argument other than I don't want to.

Either way they need address in some way a moderation for population balance. My suggestion doesn't eliminate anyone from a campaign only mediates entry. If you choose to play an overpopulated campaign just to be on the winning team that is your own fault and you can deal with having to wait to enter. Keeping populations within a reasonable margin of each other for competitiveness is healthy for the game. People quit when they feel they have no chance or they all go roll the winning team then there are few left to kill and it becomes less fun for them as well even. Their own actions take away their own fun eventually though they don't recognize it.

maholi · April 2014

The problem with your solution is that then people would NEVER log out or leave Cyrodiil. They would macro jumping or w/e in a remote corner to stay in there.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

maholi wrote: »

The problem with your solution is that then people would NEVER log out or leave Cyrodiil. They would macro jumping or w/e in a remote corner to stay in there.

That doesn't work their system recognizes it. I tried keeping my guy running once against a wall on release for fear of not being able to get back on and it knew.

Brakkar · April 2014

<input nasty AD comment here>

I am a part of AD and in my campaign balance is completely different.
There is considerably more DC players and still a lot more EP.
Looks like there may be some changes that help the underdog alliance, if you read the pts patch notes.
They are not final but show some hope.

maholi · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

maholi wrote: »

The problem with your solution is that then people would NEVER log out or leave Cyrodiil. They would macro jumping or w/e in a remote corner to stay in there.

That doesn't work their system recognizes it. I tried keeping my guy running once against a wall on release for fear of not being able to get back on and it knew.

You were doing it wrong, heh. Keyboard interaction would indeed work.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Brakkar wrote: »

<input nasty AD comment here>

I am a part of AD and in my campaign balance is completely different.
There is considerably more DC players and still a lot more EP.
Looks like there may be some changes that help the underdog alliance, if you read the pts patch notes.
They are not final but show some hope.

Good I didn't see that in the notes yet. I'll have to check those out. If they capped populations within a range of each as they enter so at no time does it get hugely unbalanced that could help campaigns like yours out. Ours has too many AD. One option instead of waiting in a que would be for them to go to other low pop campaigns like yours. Everyone wins. Fair fights a re much more fun than just steamrolling an opponent that doesn't have a chance due to numbers.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

I read those notes and that change does nothing to help. They are giving bonus points LOL Whoopty. How the world does that help you when outnumbered 3 to 1 at some times?

They need to even the population playing field and do what I said. As for the detractors claiming they won't be able to play together that simply isn't true. They just don't want to see anything happen to their advantage because they are afraid of fair fights. You can either wait together to enter if you choose to play the overpopulated side or play a campaign you can enter together as in this game you are never restricted to one campaign.

smosti · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

You're forgetting that there is quite a large cost involved in switching campaigns.....

Well for most lower level players anyway.

But then there is guesting hmm idk. I guess they just need to find a balanced solution. You add one thing it out balances another, you fix that and something else goes wrong lol.

JOHNHARDEE13_ESO · April 2014

DC on the Bow, and it's only this way at certain times of day. The Dominion rules from the time the buses drop them back home until their mothers put them to bed

and then we come on and undo all of their work while they're dreaming of kitty cats and Legolas. It's only frustrating/boring if one happens to only play during another faction's peak time.

You'll notice I left discussion of the Pact out of this. They're never a threat. Any keep they hold is a keep that either the Dominion or the Covenant doesn't want

It's balanced on the weekends, and the result is hours upon hours of great fun. Now, if only the elves would stop hiding behind their one-trick-vampire-pony...

Hodorius · April 2014

Every PvP game I ever played had something to balance the team numbers.
This is about fairness.

Of course, you cannot change your team that easy... queuing is the only solution left.

wrlifeboil · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

This is why pvp entry needs to be capped not just by total pop allowed but also within a certain percentage of the lowest population's numbers. Say 10%, that's fair enough. AD is full everyone else has one bar and gets rolled. So what do people do because they have no backbone it gets worse and they all go roll the winning side. The more it stays like this the worse it will get or they quit altogether. Entry to campaign should be capped within 10% of whoever has the lowest number atm and let it fill evenly to the total cap at which point it gets a lock. Then when all these people that have rolled a toon just to be on what they thought was the winning side in pvp get tired of not being able to get in to pvp they will roll on either DC or EP so they can actually get in to pvp or flip to another campaign where it will still fill evenly as a result.

This potential for faction imbalance was discussed on the eso beta forums last summer. The DAoC fan bois said it wouldn't happen in Cyrodiil because it didn't happen in DAoC. The megaserver fan bois said that ZOS could easily manage the populations on each Cyrodiil instance. Fan bois wrong, nothing surprising about that.

What really works well with Cyrodiil instance is that if I get stuck in a pve instance like the Molag Bal fight, I can use a guest Cyrodiil instance to port out. See? It's not all bad.

Gervis · April 2014

OP your comments on pop cap are a disgrace, you must have no friends to play with. There are always population issues in every MMO, get better and l2p on an underpopulated side. The underdog bonus will help grant better rewards or you can just go somewhere else and zerg harder.

Rakshat · April 2014

I'm against this suggestion for a somewhat stupid reason.

I play in Wabbajack EU (AD side). On an average day we have:
~20 DC
5-10 AD
~100 EP

So you're probably wondering why I don't want any population cap. Well, as it turns out, EP on our campaign have serious difficulties splitting their attention. As DC almost always have a larger pop than we do, all the fight happens at DC. We have to pretty much beg for attention as fighting honor guards all day tends to get somewhat tedious. Sometimes we travel all the way to Kingscrest, take the resources, leave two holes in the same wall just to get some EP players to come. If EP population was reduced, all three factions would end up fighting in one keep.
And no, I don't want to change campaigns, I enjoy being outnumbered-_-

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Gervis wrote: »

OP your comments on pop cap are a disgrace, you must have no friends to play with. There are always population issues in every MMO, get better and l2p on an underpopulated side. The underdog bonus will help grant better rewards or you can just go somewhere else and zerg harder.

Son the only disgrace is your attitude. Obvious AB AD comment. I'd bet your one of the 2-3 button wonder bat spammers too. Extra AP does nothing to fix the issues. Skill needs to determine battles not being outmanned 3 to 1. There are solutions and you can live with them instead of cowhering behind your zerg herd.

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

wrlifeboil wrote: »

This potential for faction imbalance was discussed on the eso beta forums last summer. The DAoC fan bois said it wouldn't happen in Cyrodiil because it didn't happen in DAoC. The megaserver fan bois said that ZOS could easily manage the populations on each Cyrodiil instance. Fan bois wrong, nothing surprising about that.
)

Odd they said it didn't happen in DAoC because it did. They had major Albion population imbalance. I recall they even after adding underdog buffs and some other things to even it also had to limit Alb character creation to only selected servers. They would open and close new character creation by server for factions based on its comparison to the others and there was a list you could look at to see what was open where. To spure creation on underpopulated realms they even gave a leveling bonus.

wrlifeboil · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

wrlifeboil wrote: »

This potential for faction imbalance was discussed on the eso beta forums last summer. The DAoC fan bois said it wouldn't happen in Cyrodiil because it didn't happen in DAoC. The megaserver fan bois said that ZOS could easily manage the populations on each Cyrodiil instance. Fan bois wrong, nothing surprising about that.
)

Odd they said it didn't happen in DAoC because it did. They had major Albion population imbalance. I recall they even after adding underdog buffs and some other things to even it also had to limit Alb character creation to only selected servers. They would open and close new character creation by server for factions based on its comparison to the others and there was a list you could look at to see what was open where. To spure creation on underpopulated realms they even gave a leveling bonus.

Strange. The past experiences of DAoC and the flexibility of the megaserver were held up as the example and reason why Cyrodiil wouldn't be dominated by one faction or guild. The alliance point cost/penalty was held up as the reason why players wouldn't quit the losing factions.

Guess someone, somewhere didn't think through that players in losing factions could be no-shows.

When I was stuck in the Molag Bal fight, I brought up the campaign screen to use to get out. One campaign had 3 bars AD and 1 bar each for DC and EP. The rest of the dozen or so campaigns were 1 bar each for the three factions. If I had been interested in joining a campaign as AD, guess which one I would have picked to accumulate the most alliance points in the quickest way possible.

pronkg · April 2014

They could have the npc and defenses power scale up if these is low population. Maybe a bold solution but it could work to some extent.

I'm an ebonheart pact and we seem to always be a minority. But I love a good challenge so np for me.

Nooblet · April 2014

Hodorius wrote: »

Every PvP game I ever played had something to balance the team numbers.
This is about fairness.

Of course, you cannot change your team that easy... queuing is the only solution left.

There is something, its called 3 alliances. AD gets pounded by both alliances afternoon/evening in AB. It's only the morning when they run wild. And I'm sorry but I am not changing campaigns from the most active one, simply because there are more of my alliance on in the morning, and it balances out during prime time.

Fairydragon3 · April 2014

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

The why not just change campaign if the AD is rolling you?

jeradlub17_ESO · April 2014

Fairydragon3 wrote: »

jeradlub17_ESO wrote: »

Ragnar_Lodbrok wrote: »

Um no, that would prevent people from playing with friends or their guild members. Just not a good idea to prevent people from playing.

No it wouldn't...there are multiple campaigns. Just stops population unbalance in any given campaign.

The why not just change campaign if the AD is rolling you?

How would that help the people you leave behind by doing that? Just puts them in a worse spot even more outnumbered if people do that. In addition, they really made too many of the pvp campaigns. Most of them are one bar a piece and I wouldn't want to join one of those only to find a barren landscape.