Victory Points and un-balanced realms

[rynnor]

Seeing as normal Pve quests are going to generate Victory Points if you have an un-balanced population then the side with the most has a basic advantage in rvr before they even step foot in battle.

This seems like a bad idea that will only make im-balances worse - one thing I'm not clear on from the vid is that controlling a tier seems to consist of merely filling a bar - it looks like you wouldnt actually need to take the keeps to own a tier - that seems odd?

 

[IainC]

Mostly everything you do earns victory points but they don't all earn VPs at the same rate. PvE is generally quite a poor way to earn VPs, PvP earns a lot - scenarios especially. Since all the new stuff (like keeps) have been added, the VP balance is being worked on again to make sure that it's consistent and fair for both sides but generally speaking, if it's hard to do, then the reward is greater.

 

[Aesgir]

I'm hoping you have to fill the bar and take a keep to control the tier, but i guess we won't know til we're told. I think that yeah imbalanced realms are def gonna suffer in this game, compared to DAoC. In DAoC it WAS possible to hold enemy keeps and swipe relics to compete, i can see the contribution method being swayed just by overwhelming numbers.

The perfect example would of been in old Prydwen. In DAoC, Hibs could compete with Albion or Midgard by holding their keeps and swiping the relics. However in WAR...the sheer number of Albs or Mids doing quests or RVR would mean the Hibs were never going to compete on an even footing and participate in the end game (City siege) except to defend.

The only way i could see this being counteracted is by not just relying on Scenarios et al to bump up contribution. Not everyone on the underpopulated realm is gonna wanna do them constantly. I think it may need a population modifier. If it becomes apparent that one realm is badly outmatched in it's final RVR tier, the server GM could then boost contribution earnings for a short time.

It's either that or find some way to counteract the population imbalance like the balance meter that has been mentioned previously, showing roughly how many characters are of that particular race on the server choice screen. (Note...not enforcing an arbritrary limit on what people can roll, just a series of 3 dials showing the current balance between racial pairings.)

Sorry for long post, but just outing some ideas and concerns there.

 

[rynnor]

The only way i could see this being counteracted is by not just relying on Scenarios et al to bump up contribution. Not everyone on the underpopulated realm is gonna wanna do them constantly.

To play devils advocate there is an in built balance to scenarios since presumably you will need to find opposition to fight to play a scenario - so if realm A has 60 people wanting to play a scenario and realm B has 6 then a lot of those in realm A will be waiting a long time.

Cross server queues could alter this although from general MMO experience one realm will probably be played more heavily than the other on most servers so not a huge help.

Still - scenarios - DO give a well organised smaller realm a chance - if you form a decent group that knows what its doing you'll beat most randoms and with the lack of queue'ing you'll get better quickly.

Only downside is that in that last rvr vid they said Open Rvr and Scenarios now earn the same Victory points.

So side A may not get too many points from scenarios but they will be caning realm B on PVE Victory Points and also no doubt in open rvr victory points...

 

[Aqe]

My thoughts on VP.

Say you have 2000 people on each side.
500+500 of them doing PvE, these should be able to gain VP quite equally some people get more but weighted by some that do less should even up so both sides is generating same amount of VP.

1000+1000 doing scenarios. With hundreds scenarios running at same time and many thousands run on a day it should average out so both sides win and loose about the same amount.

Same as before with the rest in skirmish.

Keeps however has 3 ways they can be. 50/50 , 100/0 , 0/100. If both sides owns a few keeps then VP is balanced here also and none control the zone.
If 1 side get them all the VP will tip over the balance and that side control the zone.

To play devils advocate there is an in built balance to scenarios since presumably you will need to find opposition to fight to play a scenario - so if realm A has 60 people wanting to play a scenario and realm B has 6 then a lot of those in realm A will be waiting a long time.

Cross server queues could alter this although from general MMO experience one realm will probably be played more heavily than the other on most servers so not a huge help.

Still - scenarios - DO give a well organised smaller realm a chance - if you form a decent group that knows what its doing you'll beat most randoms and with the lack of queue'ing you'll get better quickly.

Only downside is that in that last rvr vid they said Open Rvr and Scenarios now earn the same Victory points.

So side A may not get too many points from scenarios but they will be caning realm B on PVE Victory Points and also no doubt in open rvr victory points...

Things get even worse in open rvr and pve with scenarios.

If A got 1000 people that want to PvP, 500 of those scenarios. Side B got 500 people 250 that want to do scenarios. The 250 from side A that is waiting in queue will probably go to the open PvP area while waiting. So instead of having 2:1 you now got 3:1 or 750 vs 250.

 

[rynnor]

Things get even worse in open rvr and pve with scenarios.

If A got 1000 people that want to PvP, 500 of those scenarios. Side B got 500 people 250 that want to do scenarios. The 250 from side A that is waiting in queue will probably go to the open PvP area while waiting. So instead of having 2:1 you now got 3:1 or 750 vs 250.

My thoughts exactly

From the look of the game there wont be the complete overpowering that you had for dedicated rvr/ML'ers over people without them in Daoc - so whoever has most will generally win.

My expectation is that one side will dominate numbers wise in retail - probably the side of order at a guess - I'm hoping that Mythic realise this and look very carefully at these Victory Point mechanisms so that one side doesnt just get hammered with little chance of fighting back.

 

[Lexa]

Ok in that example it's a little extreme but there is a point. Remember though that there will be three race pairs each with 4 areas, even with a population imbalance I doubt you will reach that kind of out numbering.

Also there will be things like keeps to help the outnumbered defend more effectively, and smaller groups tend to be better organised than zergs.

All in all I don't think there will be much of a problem.

 

[rynnor]

Ok in that example it's a little extreme but there is a point. Remember though that there will be three race pairs each with 4 areas, even with a population imbalance I doubt you will reach that kind of out numbering.

But you can transfer from one battleground to another so people will just zerg up and clear the dwarf/orc one - then the empire v chaos one etc. etc.

I am unsure how un-balanced things will be in retail - its a tough one to call - I just hope they make the system compensate a bit because at the moment it doesnt.

Also there will be things like keeps to help the outnumbered defend more effectively, and smaller groups tend to be better organised than zergs.

Tier 1 has no keeps so its just a dash n grab - zergable very quickly.

Tier 2 onwards have increasingly better keeps but its still going to be extremely hard to defend against a larger force.

WAR is not Daoc - the thing that helped small groups defeat large ones in Daoc was crowd control but you just wont find much cc in war so zerging will be a lot more powerfull.

Tactics are good but a 2:1 advantage is better...

 

[Reza]

Ive submited grab bag question to clarify what plans are being made to address population balance issues.

In a game with 2 armies instead of 3 realms, i think the problems is also potentially even more worrying, since with 3 realms we had a natural self balancing mechanism (with the 2 lesser populated often concentrating their efforts on the over popped realm).

Having said that it wouldnt be hard to imagine them taking a leaf out of their Daoc book, and using population bonuses/penalties. Adjusting rate of lvling as well as maybe even having a pop adjustment element to the VP awarded.

What i would be interested in seeing is any analysis on the inherent bias/differneces in the relative attractiveness of the 6 armies (and then by inference the relative attractiveness of the the 2 broader armies).

In Daoc it didnt take a rocket scientist to work out that the realm linked to the name of the game, as well as being the realm with the mythology of the three choices that was most widley reknown would be the overpopulated choice.

 

[Lexa]

But you can transfer from one battleground to another so people will just zerg up and clear the dwarf/orc one - then the empire v chaos one etc. etc.

That is highly unlikely you are talking about an origanised zerg which is an oxymoron, whilst some might go to dwarf/orc others may goto empire/chaos and some will probably stay.

Tier 1 has no keeps so its just a dash n grab - zergable very quickly.

Tier 2 onwards have increasingly better keeps but its still going to be extremely hard to defend against a larger force.

WAR is not Daoc - the thing that helped small groups defeat large ones in Daoc was crowd control but you just wont find much cc in war so zerging will be a lot more powerfull.

Tactics are good but a 2:1 advantage is better...

True but I still don't think you will be that greatly outnumbered unless it's 16 v 8. Also many people will level via pve (old habits), so you probably won't see zergs till tier 4

Still may as well wait and see, if a imbalance occurs I'm sure steps will be taken by the players or the developers to fix it.

 

[rynnor]

Still may as well wait and see, if a imbalance occurs I'm sure steps will be taken by the players or the developers to fix it.

By the players? No way - once people have chosen a main they wont switch until they are bored of it and thats months down the line.

Mythic havent been able to balance populations in daoc so why would this be different?

I'd rather see something in from the start than have something hacked on later - some of Mythics last solutions were awfull like instant level 30 if you had a 50 - that killed grouping for any poor new people to that realm etc.

 

[SonicBorg]

i'm just kinda guessing that if there is IMBA on the population, then the lower populated side will earn more VP for doing the same task than the higher populated side would get ? helps you catch up on points and keep it even.

 

[rynnor]

i'm just kinda guessing that if there is IMBA on the population, then the lower populated side will earn more VP for doing the same task than the higher populated side would get ? helps you catch up on points and keep it even.

I'm told in the current design the best gear is meant to drop from raiding the enemy capital - if thats true theres really a built in imbalance - there will be no reward for gallant defenders outnumbered by the foe but the guys who zerg get a chance of epic loot.

Thats not really going to encourage balance...

 

[Aqe]

i'm just kinda guessing that if there is IMBA on the population, then the lower populated side will earn more VP for doing the same task than the higher populated side would get ? helps you catch up on points and keep it even.

Yea think this will be a easy way to fix it. Do a server check every hour. look how many Order and Destruction players there is online. Increase VP gain on the side with fewest with a few %.

 

[Ctuchik]

Cross server queues could alter this although from general MMO experience one realm will probably be played more heavily than the other on most servers so not a huge help.

i really hope that if they DO have cross server battlegrounds, that they will leave some servers out of that. its the thing i hate the most about WoW.

u get so many ppl from other realms that usually dont care how its going because his personal reputation towards other players wont get overly affected so its more or less "free to grief".

while if its only ppl from the same server that meet u usually have alot better competition because people know who the others are, or know someone in their guild and if they aint in a guild they will just get blacklisted when they do try to join one. having pl try their best insted of just go "meh, whatever" as it usualy is in WoW.


so yeah, would be nice if they had a number of servers only fight ppl on that one, without the cross server crap.

 

[Aqe]

i really hope that if they DO have cross server battlegrounds, that they will leave some servers out of that. its the thing i hate the most about WoW.

u get so many ppl from other realms that usually dont care how its going because his personal reputation towards other players wont get overly affected so its more or less "free to grief".

while if its only ppl from the same server that meet u usually have alot better competition because people know who the others are, or know someone in their guild and if they aint in a guild they will just get blacklisted when they do try to join one. having pl try their best insted of just go "meh, whatever" as it usualy is in WoW.


so yeah, would be nice if they had a number of servers only fight ppl on that one, without the cross server crap.

Thing is that in WoW you get rewarded 1 for losing and 3 for winning. Better to lose very fast and get 1 than win slowly and get 3.

In WAR you will get rewarded 0 if you don't help. You get some Renown if helping but lose, and get more renown if you win + Victory Points.

 

[SonicBorg]

WoW is very bad attempt of MMO PvPing. its just a "last minute thing" that they threw in.

Personally i would love to see the only cross-server (cluster warfare?) to be done on tournament basis.
So maybe once every 3 months, tournaments are setup which guilds sign in for, and battle it out to show the top teams.
Having it 24/7 will just cause more stability problems i reckon.