Population bonuses/penalties? - Page 2

Soothsayer · 2012-06-20, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

The poll doesn't have an option to give the low population empire an XP bonus, which is what I would have voted.

The underdog doesn't necessarily need an advantage - not all fights are even. But he does need a reason to log in and fight anyway, that's what the XP bonus does.

Agree 100%. Long term imbalance need to be addressed at the source, but the XP bonus helps in the short term.

Dagron · 2012-06-20, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

The underdog doesn't necessarily need an advantage - not all fights are even. But he does need a reason to log in and fight anyway

This.

kaffis · 2012-06-20, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

The poll doesn't have an option to give the low population empire an XP bonus, which is what I would have voted.

The underdog doesn't necessarily need an advantage - not all fights are even. But he does need a reason to log in and fight anyway, that's what the XP bonus does.

Yeah, sorry. Had a lot of variations to include, and so I had to leave that out.

The statement I bolded is an interesting perspective, and I like how you've spun it. I still think it probably doesn't work very well on a long-time veteran (who presumably has established his playstyle and earned the certs to support it), but perhaps by then, you get empire pride kicking in to replace the mechanical incentive.

Khrakhan · 2012-06-20, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

The poll doesn't have an option to give the low population empire an XP bonus, which is what I would have voted.

The underdog doesn't necessarily need an advantage - not all fights are even. But he does need a reason to log in and fight anyway, that's what the XP bonus does.

Underdog doesn't necessarily 'need' an advantage, but it would balance the issue somewhat if a faction happens to get a significant more amount of players. Nothing more frustrating than constantly losing battles just because your team is a undermanned.

XP bonuses could be alright, I wouldnt really complain if they implement it, but it would still feel like a bit of a cop out and 'unfair' to those who are having to level up at the 'slow' rate.

And with only being allowed to play one faction per server, you cant really rely on trying to give players an incentive to play an underdog, because they cant if not already.

With respawn timer fluctuations it should balance the playing field well enough to make up for the difference in numbers, since essentially the underdog will be getting more soldiers, even if just not all at the same time. I also support altering capture times as well.

Those on the overdog team may not like having to wait longer to respawn (could just make it to where overdogs dont have to wait longer than normal, but underdogs just go faster) but atleast dying and whatnot is still linked to a players skill, same as xp earned; to where as health/damage modifiers detract from skill and not to mention very unfair to other players, and resource and cost manipulations will put those suffering at a disadvantage as well.

Dagron · 2012-06-20, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by kaffis

but perhaps by then, you get empire pride kicking in to replace the mechanical incentive.

Ideally.

Zolan · 2012-06-20, 04:59 PM

I'll vote for re-spawn times, because it's the only bonus that makes any sense whatsoever.

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 05:01 PM

If anyone has played Endwar online, when you choose a nation to fight for, it shows the percentage in each faction, and if you choose the underdog, (for some reason is Russia, but only by 2-3%) then you get bonus credits (sometimes 1,000,000 credits) and maybe even your forces starting at a higher level (level 2 or 3 instead of 1).

So to translate that into Planetside 2 terms...

If you join underdog, you start with extra cert points and extra resources maybe. Would encourage choosing the underdog a bit.

Edit: Probably sounds unfair or over powered, but just throwing around ideas.

SixShooter · 2012-06-20, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by QuantumMechanic

The poll doesn't have an option to give the low population empire an XP bonus, which is what I would have voted.

The underdog doesn't necessarily need an advantage - not all fights are even. But he does need a reason to log in and fight anyway, that's what the XP bonus does.

I totally agree with this. It's just an incentive to stay in the fight rather than move to a different server leaving your team to rot (which is why I hate the idea of server jumping). I did not vote since I don't like any of the optoins in the poll. Maybe a (very) slightly respawn increase for the underdog but nothing as far as resources or vehicle cost or anything like that. I always like playing as the underdog anyway since it gives more opportunity to get into a good fight.

There should never be any kind of penalty in being the larger population, that's just a bad idea.

PoisonTaco · 2012-06-20, 05:08 PM

XP, cert points and resource bonuses are great because it encourages people to switch and gets them back to where they were before. Or it gives incentives to try another faction on another server.

Give extra resources because well, the empire has less people to split them up for right? Cert points helps them gain a competitive edge and xp helps bring in new players to bolster their ranks.

The Kush · 2012-06-20, 05:22 PM

This poll fails because as Bags said it was not a damage/health modifier; it was merely an increased amount of exp gained for the empires with a lower population. Now with that said, PS2 should have a similar approach. Modifying damage, health, gameplay mechanics, ect. based on population is wrong and will not work.

SKYeXile · 2012-06-20, 05:29 PM

the theory is an empire with less pop that holds the same land as a more populated empire would be getting more resources per person than the large pop empire.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-20, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

Yeah, because everyone switching servers when they are outnumbered will fix things.

The thing is I believe people will gravitate towards servers where there are good fights, and if you dont want a very busy server that option would be open to you. Allowing an individual/group/entire outfit to move from server to server would allow those people to enjoy the fight they want and not necessarily what is dictated by a stagnant locked server.

If my empire is overpowering everyone because we have the most people, this isnt necessarily the kind of fun I would want.
If my empire is outnumbered and the killwhores are destroying us with impunity again this isnt necessarily fun if its going to be an everyday occurance if my side doesnt have enough people. I ran into this playing warhammer online which is a pvp dominated game. My side was greatly outnumbered and we got our asses beat daily. This wasnt any fun and couldnt be avoided because we were server locked.

OutlawDr · 2012-06-20, 05:46 PM

XP bonus, and maybe a respawn bonus. Thats as close of a gameplay bonus I'd feel comfortable with.

Otleaz · 2012-06-20, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

The thing is I believe people will gravitate towards servers where there are good fights, and if you dont want a very busy server that option would be open to you. Allowing an individual/group/entire outfit to move from server to server would allow those people to enjoy the fight they want and not necessarily what is dictated by a stagnant locked server.

If my empire is overpowering everyone because we have the most people, this isnt necessarily the kind of fun I would want.
If my empire is outnumbered and the killwhores are destroying us with impunity again this isnt necessarily fun if its going to be an everyday occurance if my side doesnt have enough people. I ran into this playing warhammer online which is a pvp dominated game. My side was greatly outnumbered and we got our asses beat daily. This wasnt any fun and couldnt be avoided because we were server locked.

"If it is 75vs100, why stick around?" Says the casual gamer.
"If it is 50vs100, why stick around?" Says the weekend warrior.
"If it is 25vs100, why stick around?" Says the hardcore gamer.
"If it will be 1vs100, why should I join?" Says the one browsing the server list.

This is exactly how Guild wars 2 WvW turned out, and it is very similar to the way this will work. You can say people won't stick around if there is no real fight, but you would be DEAD wrong. If you don't force players into one server, or limit their ability to switch, this WILL happen.

The best they could do imo would be to make it so you can switch to a server every 24 hours unless your team is underpopulated.

Noivad · 2012-06-20, 05:59 PM

PS 1 has Xp pop modifers. They only spoiled the game as these modifers also applied to each planet a fight was going on. A lot of people played the the conts based on the XP they could get. They even left to start other fights that would give them better XP, but would have no or very limited value to the war effort of their empire.

Xp should be based on how good you are. NOT based on the size of your pop at any given moment in game time. I'm not fond of the XP boosts you can buy either in PS2. Thats all for lazy non dedicated players. You want XP go out an earn it by fighting legimately for your empire and doing the time.

View Poll Results: How should population modifiers work?
No pop modifiers.	16	19.51%
Pop modifiers for Equipment Cost	26	31.71%
Pop modifiers for Resource Collection Rate	28	34.15%
Pop modifiers for Respawn Timers	30	36.59%
Pop modifiers for Equipment Timers	22	26.83%
Pop modifiers for Health	9	10.98%
Pop modifiers for Damage	5	6.10%
Pop modifiers should be based on floating averages calculated over the most recent day to week	9	10.98%
Pop modifiers should be based on floating averages calculated over the most recent day or less	15	18.29%
Pop modifers should be based on instant player-counts	34	41.46%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll