Population bonuses/penalties? - Page 3

SKYeXile · 2012-06-20, 06:01 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.

this might be your attitude, however alot of people would rather be on the winning team or server.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-20, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

this might be your attitude, however alot of people would rather be on the winning team or server.

Lol and this is why people by lottery tickets. Theres going to be pop limits, any continent you will be limited to only 666 of your own empire. If folks want to flter in and fight against your numeric superiority I say let them. If folks are tired of being outnumbered then the game should offer them succor and allow them to move to a place where the numbers might be in there favor. I know you dont want your enemies to get away when you have the advantage but to me that really is only fun for a while before it gets old. There could be limits on server switching. Server switching could be an interesting part of the game. Have an open mind brother.

Eyeklops · 2012-06-20, 10:52 PM

I can't ever remember a damage bonus, ever. But, LOL, I do remember the low pop health bonus. I can't remember the exact math, but fighting an empire with extremely low pop at an interlink with cave lock was a retarded affair. Not that the guys in Trx, AC, DT, and some others aren't already good players, but the health advantage made them gods. Eventually they got rid of the low-pop health bonus, but it did run for quite a few years.

super pretendo · 2012-06-20, 10:53 PM

I think additional respawn time is a fair trade. Maybe an additional few seconds

Dougnifico · 2012-06-20, 11:30 PM

I vote for XP bonus to low pop. Maybe a slight reduction on the squad spawn timer. If they deploy slightly faster it might keep the low pop empire from being totally slaughtered.

SKYeXile · 2012-06-20, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

I can't ever remember a damage bonus, ever. But, LOL, I do remember the low pop health bonus. I can't remember the exact math, but fighting an empire with extremely low pop at an interlink with cave lock was a retarded affair. Not that the guys in Trx, AC, DT, and some others aren't already good players, but the health advantage made them gods. Eventually they got rid of the low-pop health bonus, but it did run for quite a few years.

lol, zoning into a cont where you had no pop and you got like 70% more health. go take some germy tower, so lawls.

exLupo · 2012-06-21, 12:59 AM

Population imbalances in PvP games, first and foremost, go to who is perceived to be the winning team. Not the strongest but the one that people believe wins the most. Some players will go to the underdog, and some will go to the theme they like (flavor or mechanical). However, if you look at -any- PvP game, you will see rerolls and faction changes on a freaking whim whenever any power change goes into game or when public opinion falls for or against a side.

So if this is the case and if it is a problem (I believe it is), what's the best way to fix it? Give incentive to the underdog? The people playing the underdog are already there. The problem is the people who left to be more powerful. So do you make them more powerful by going back? That would work to a degree; however, what would be more effective is to disincentivize changing at all by putting a negative on whichever team is overburdened. It doesn't even have to mean anything, it can be 1% damage and it will put a dent in the bandwagon team swaps.

What needs to be considered isn't just that people are changing sides but why the ones who do so are. If you take the idea of "I'll switch to the winning team" and temper it with "If I switch, I'll have less hp than I do now." it blunts the desire and cuts the urge to change teams.

Still a proponent of token psychological tricks to keep pop balance after all these years.
Buffing the underdog has never worked to restore pop balance.

Gonefshn · 2012-06-21, 01:02 AM

Population modifiers shouldn't be an issue when the game launches! It should be locked and full for all empires! Hopefully atleast!

Toppopia · 2012-06-21, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by exLupo

Population imbalances in PvP games, first and foremost, go to who is perceived to be the winning team. Not the strongest but the one that people believe wins the most. Some players will go to the underdog, and some will go to the theme they like (flavor or mechanical). However, if you look at -any- PvP game, you will see rerolls and faction changes on a freaking whim whenever any power change goes into game or when public opinion falls for or against a side.

So if this is the case and if it is a problem (I believe it is), what's the best way to fix it? Give incentive to the underdog? The people playing the underdog are already there. The problem is the people who left to be more powerful. So do you make them more powerful by going back? That would work to a degree; however, what would be more effective is to disincentivize changing at all by putting a negative on whichever team is overburdened. It doesn't even have to mean anything, it can be 1% damage and it will put a dent in the bandwagon team swaps.

What needs to be considered isn't just that people are changing sides but why the ones who do so are. If you take the idea of "I'll switch to the winning team" and temper it with "If I switch, I'll have less hp than I do now." it blunts the desire and cuts the urge to change teams.

Still a proponent of token psychological tricks to keep pop balance after all these years.
Buffing the underdog has never worked to restore pop balance.

This could work better, nerfing the better faction. Would it add a double incentive to still buff the underdog still?

exLupo · 2012-06-21, 01:19 AM

Doubling up would probably be overkill. The idea is academic, tho. Nobody will ever do it. Good theory piece to bandy about but that's all.

xnorb · 2012-06-21, 01:27 AM

There shouldn't be any dynamic health/damage changes.
Gunfights need to stay reliable throughout the whole time.

For XP - i don't care the least.
This doesn't help you in battle and sooner or later you've farmed enough
and don't care about that anymore and rather quit/switch server than
getting raped by overwhelming amounts of enemies.

So i ticked both respawn timer options.

@Sledgecrushr:
Where hav you hidden the last years ?
Playing Planetside exclusive ?
You'll be shocked about the mentality of players nowadays.

Dart · 2012-06-21, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

"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.

We've yet to set how beta will play out but in PS1 terms you'd be DEAD won't. As a species the veteran PS players would actively seek fights where they were outnumbered. More enemies = more kills = more fun. That's why the concept of extra bonuses is dangerous one. Those types of fights were collectively known as farms in PS1 and were responsible for most of the bottlenecks in the game.

I'm not saying don't give a benefit to the defenders but to assume people will leave the under populated Empire simply because it is under populated is inaccurate. In fact my own Outfit, of which every single one of the 45 members was a VS CR5 will be waiting to see which has the lowest population before choosing that one!

Dougnifico · 2012-06-21, 04:19 AM

Most new players who are not with friends will go "Hey look, bonus XP!" and play for that faction. I did. Just make it so they can not switch factions without losing all progress unless they pay for it with real money. Even just $15 or $20 would deter people from following the winning team while also giving SOE cash. Also, remember for many empire loyalty has a large amount of pull. Its like some damned spell or something...

Dart · 2012-06-21, 05:31 AM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

Most new players who are not with friends will go "Hey look, bonus XP!" and play for that faction. I did. Just make it so they can not switch factions without losing all progress unless they pay for it with real money. Even just $15 or $20 would deter people from following the winning team while also giving SOE cash. Also, remember for many empire loyalty has a large amount of pull. Its like some damned spell or something...

You will not be able to transfer your character to other Empires for any amount of money.... Of course you wool have to start a new character. In fact considering the devs have said on empire per acct you'll have to log into a new acct.

Nasher · 2012-06-21, 05:49 AM

It should never be things that directly effect balance, like damage or health. Respawn time is the best option I think.

But also they should keep the 8 hour cooldown for switching factions that we had in planetside 1...

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