Trending Games | ArcheAge | Guild Wars 2 | WildStar | Warhammer 40K: Eternal Crusade

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,788,142 Users Online:0
Games:723  Posts:6,193,439
City State Entertainment | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel N/A)  | Pub:City State Entertainment
PVP:Yes | Distribution: | Retail Price:n/a | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

Camelot Unchained Forum » General Discussion » Server faction population ballance, any thoughts?

2 Pages 1 2 » Search
32 posts found
  grogstorm

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/05/07
Posts: 287

If it ain't broke, dont fix it!

 
OP  3/23/13 2:53:07 AM#1

Any thoughts on server faction population balance when we get 45% Viking’s, 35% Arthurian and 20% Tuatha De Danann.  A good guess I may add.  

I was thinking they might was to give bonuses to the lower population factions.  Based on this scenario the bonus may be 5% damage and defense for the Arthurian and 10% damage and defense for the Danann.

Then as the populations balance out the bonuses are dropped.

Grog

  PerfArt

Novice Member

Joined: 2/16/13
Posts: 863

3/23/13 4:30:24 AM#2
I am the weirdo that likes players to work it out themselves. Playing the underdog can lead to very different gameplay experiences, and I like Mark's outlook on not hand-holding.

If your realm us less-populated, get creative. Engage in guerilla warfare. Sabotage supply points and disapppear. Organize your smaller forces into a more organized force, which small forces lend themselves to as opposed to huge zerg realms.

Be better, faster, and smarter than those damn foreigners.

This actually helps create scenarios where players are finally dictating fundamental gameplay dynamics rather than just settling in to existing ones.

That is my view on the subject. YMMV :)

http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt

  meddyck

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/18/08
Posts: 1130

3/23/13 5:24:15 AM#3

I think they need to enforce some loose population caps at release plus always allow free transfers to underpopulated realms (<30% server population). IOW don't let a realm get over, say, 36% of the server population from the beginning. Of course it'll be possible for a server to become more unbalanced later on due to players leaving.

The fact that there are 3 realms should partly help to prevent one realm from completely dominating and killing a server. But they also have to make sure that the RvR system itself makes it more difficult the more you dominate. In DAOC this was done by reducing guards at the relic keep and varying keep levels based on realm strength.

Hopefully they'll avoid the most successful population balancing measure Mythic did in DAOC: adding ridiculously overpowered expansion classes to the smaller realms.

Camelot Unchained Founder
DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  drakon3

Novice Member

Joined: 3/04/13
Posts: 114

3/23/13 5:54:51 AM#4
I don't think server transfers is the answer.  If you recall DAoC at release Albion had a population advantage (sometimes massive) on every single server except one, and even then it was close.  Server transfers are never going to fix that kind of population problems. 
  meddyck

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/18/08
Posts: 1130

3/23/13 6:07:38 AM#5
Originally posted by drakon3
I don't think server transfers is the answer.  If you recall DAoC at release Albion had a population advantage (sometimes massive) on every single server except one, and even then it was close.  Server transfers are never going to fix that kind of population problems. 

Yeah it won't work if population follows the same pattern as DAOC. Let's hope in CU it'll be more varied. I could see many former DAOC players avoiding Arthurian for exactly that reason and if that happens, which realm has the highest population could vary a lot in CU.

Camelot Unchained Founder
DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  WW4BW

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/03/06
Posts: 479

3/23/13 6:12:23 AM#6

When I played  Midgard on EU/Excalibur it seemed to me that We dominated the server most of the time.

That was with approx. 45% Albion 35% Midgard and 20% Hirbernia.

Hibernia had some of the best gank squads though so they werent helpless. Also they must have had some good realm leaders, because they piggiebacked on Midgard/Albion Relic raids and often got away with taking 3 relics.

There were periods where Albion seemed to dominate by sheer weight of numbers, and I was happy to have some PvE to do for some of that time, so I didnt have to join random groups just to play. I still came out for the realm when I could run with my guild though.

Most of the time though it seemed like we controlled most of the Relics and DF. If that was due to supperior tactics and leadership, or class imbalances I cannot say. But it certainly seemed like we had to use way more convoluted strategies than the Albs did. I mean we could rarely stand up to a full on alb zerg. Unless the servers crashed... which they did a lot in Old Frontiers when the albs came in force to take our relics.

I think it is important to make the celtic realm a little cooler or sexier or however you want to put it.

It seems like more people identify with the "english" and viking faction.. 

Maybe they should launch it around st. Patricks day or something. and offer free drinks for every recruit.

  BowbowDAoC

Novice Member

Joined: 5/11/10
Posts: 482

3/23/13 6:52:45 AM#7

i did think of a way to prevent server imbalances once, it had its flaws and downsides of course, but i suggested that part of this could be solved right when the game launch.

There could be lets say a max population of 1000 per realm at start. Then, once one realm reached that 1000, no one can create a character on that realm until the 2 other realms reach that 1000 too. Once they all reached it, you allow i.e 200 more for each realm again, and so on.

now obviously it wouldnt solve everything, because eventually some will switch servert because they decided to play mainly on another realm, some will stop playing etc.

Other stuff could then also be put in place etc. but no matter what is done, i think its impossible to prevent it from happening at all, but reinforce a few things at launch could really help on the long run.

But i also recall that MJ mentionned somewhere that this matter should also be in the players'hands (i hope i recall correctly, if not, the i'm sorry Mark ! lol). I tried to remember where it was mentionned, didnt find it.

Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC
Thurka on WAR

  grimjakk

Novice Member

Joined: 1/01/06
Posts: 195

3/23/13 7:21:48 AM#8

I don't see caps happening.  Keeping people from being able to play with friends who just happend to roll on an imbalanced server is no good.  That's just not a reasonable situation to impose on players.

 

I think a better solution is the tried and true 'realm population bonus'.  Give the underdog realm bonuses to resource gathering, crafting, skill progression, etc.  I'd steer clear of giving them an actual direct bonus in combat, but everything else is fair game. 

  meddyck

Hard Core Member

Joined: 1/18/08
Posts: 1130

3/23/13 8:29:58 AM#9
Originally posted by grimjakk

I don't see caps happening.  Keeping people from being able to play with friends who just happend to roll on an imbalanced server is no good.  That's just not a reasonable situation to impose on players.

I think a better solution is the tried and true 'realm population bonus'.  Give the underdog realm bonuses to resource gathering, crafting, skill progression, etc.  I'd steer clear of giving them an actual direct bonus in combat, but everything else is fair game. 

If your realm is so overpopulated that your friends can't create toons there, roll on a different one with them. Since there is no PvE grind to level 50 in CU, it won't be a hardship.

I don't think bonuses like you mention really worked when Mythic tried them in DAOC. They were nice for people who wanted to reroll anyway but they didn't shift the overall balance on unbalanced servers noticeably.

Camelot Unchained Founder
DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  BowbowDAoC

Novice Member

Joined: 5/11/10
Posts: 482

3/23/13 8:35:56 AM#10


Originally posted by meddyck

Originally posted by grimjakk I don't see caps happening.  Keeping people from being able to play with friends who just happend to roll on an imbalanced server is no good.  That's just not a reasonable situation to impose on players. I think a better solution is the tried and true 'realm population bonus'.  Give the underdog realm bonuses to resource gathering, crafting, skill progression, etc.  I'd steer clear of giving them an actual direct bonus in combat, but everything else is fair game. 
If your realm is so overpopulated that your friends can't create toons there, roll on a different one with them. Since there is no PvE grind to level 50 in CU, it won't be a hardship.

I don't think bonuses like you mention really worked when Mythic tried them in DAOC. They were nice for people who wanted to reroll anyway but they didn't shift the overall balance on unbalanced servers noticeably.


Also, Caps wouldnt last forever either, especially at the beginning. when each realm would reach that 1000 "cap", more rooms would be then available on all 3 realms.

Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC
Thurka on WAR

  Arnfiarnunn

Novice Member

Joined: 3/03/13
Posts: 61

3/23/13 10:27:58 AM#11

Low pop realms have always the best communities, they use to help each others way more than other realms do.

 

They charge and fight together, even in a 1v3, and don't split until the last man standing. That's why I loved my underpoped realm (midgard / broceliande with maybe 45%alb, 35%hib, 20%mid)

 

I am almost certain to be in the viking's realm and I truly hope we'll be underpopulated.

 

By the way, the current population poll doesn't mean anything, like it doesn't before daoc realease where mids were suppose to be a crowd.

And even if the poll is true, I'm not worry about pop balance in a 3realm game.

  Tumblebutz

Novice Member

Joined: 2/20/13
Posts: 338

3/23/13 11:20:17 AM#12
Originally posted by PerfArt
I am the weirdo that likes players to work it out themselves. Playing the underdog can lead to very different gameplay experiences, and I like Mark's outlook on not hand-holding.

If your realm us less-populated, get creative. Engage in guerilla warfare. Sabotage supply points and disapppear. Organize your smaller forces into a more organized force, which small forces lend themselves to as opposed to huge zerg realms.

Be better, faster, and smarter than those damn foreigners.

This actually helps create scenarios where players are finally dictating fundamental gameplay dynamics rather than just settling in to existing ones.

That is my view on the subject. YMMV :)

This.  100% this.

On Percival, Albs had a large advantage in numbers over Mid and Hib for a while.  The answer was simple, an informal "truce" between Mid and Hib while Alb was in the field.  That is the true beauty of the 3-realm contest, imo.  Was so much fun tag-teaming with a Shadowblade to hunt down Albs in Sauvage or playing bait for an entire Mid zerg in Hadrians, not being able to really communicate other than through gestures and /emotes... great times!

Later, during the "left axe" era, Mid became the over-populated realm and Alb/Hib had to band together.  Made some great Infiltrator friends and tag-teamed on Mid.  It works.

Caps will drive people away.  Other "incentives" to roll here or roll there come with a great potential for abuse.  Just let the player base handle the mismatch.

Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival

RED IS DEAD!

  Plastic-Metal

Novice Member

Joined: 2/20/13
Posts: 423

3/23/13 11:39:41 AM#13
Originally posted by meddyck

I think they need to enforce some loose population caps at release plus always allow free transfers to underpopulated realms (<30% server population). IOW don't let a realm get over, say, 36% of the server population from the beginning. Of course it'll be possible for a server to become more unbalanced later on due to players leaving.

The fact that there are 3 realms should partly help to prevent one realm from completely dominating and killing a server. But they also have to make sure that the RvR system itself makes it more difficult the more you dominate. In DAOC this was done by reducing guards at the relic keep and varying keep levels based on realm strength.

Hopefully they'll avoid the most successful population balancing measure Mythic did in DAOC: adding ridiculously overpowered expansion classes to the smaller realms.

+1

My name is Plastic-Metal and my name is an oxymoron.

  RealLifeGobbo

Novice Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 218

3/23/13 11:42:37 AM#14

I agree with all of you, but then thing that I do not want to see, is start off with say 8 servers and then the next month have 60.  This is partly the reason I think WAR and SW:TOR had this problem, and server populations dropped dramatically afterwards.

Just my 2 cents. :-)

Aspiring Game Musician <<>> Inquiring ears, feel free to visit: http://www.youtube.com/user/vagarylabs

  fanglo

Novice Member

Joined: 5/26/04
Posts: 280

3/23/13 11:58:28 AM#15
The only thIng I would be concerned about is the crafting aspect. If the larger realm is able to hold on to all the rare crafting nodes then they will end up having the best gear further I balancing them.

I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!

  grogstorm

Advanced Member

Joined: 7/05/07
Posts: 287

If it ain't broke, dont fix it!

 
OP  3/23/13 2:01:09 PM#16

Now that I understand the game mechanics better, I foresee that this will be a battle for resources.  And I think that is awesome.  But this will lead to further imbalances as the higher population factions will have an advantage on resource gathering.  Since they will have more materials their armor and weapons will be cheaper and soon better.  And eventually not only will you have to fight against higher numbers but they will have better gear.  At least initially. 

So a resource production bonus for under populated realms may be the answer.

Grog

  WellzyC

Novice Member

Joined: 10/04/11
Posts: 546

Ceaseless

3/23/13 2:06:13 PM#17

 

I loved playing the low Pop Hib on my server.

 

more for me to kill

The way mmo's were: Community, Exploration, Character Development, Conquest.

The way mmo's are now : Cut-Scenes,Cut-Scenes, Linear Questing, Cut-Scenes...


www.CeaselessGuild.com

  RealLifeGobbo

Novice Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 218

3/23/13 2:10:18 PM#18
Originally posted by grogstorm

Now that I understand the game mechanics better, I foresee that this will be a battle for resources.  And I think that is awesome.  But this will lead to further imbalances as the higher population factions will have an advantage on resource gathering.  Since they will have more materials their armor and weapons will be cheaper and soon better.  And eventually not only will you have to fight against higher numbers but they will have better gear.  At least initially. 

So a resource production bonus for under populated realms may be the answer.

Good idea!  A similar method worked great DAoC and I'm sure it would do well with CU.

Aspiring Game Musician <<>> Inquiring ears, feel free to visit: http://www.youtube.com/user/vagarylabs

  Alders

Elite Member

Joined: 1/28/10
Posts: 1653

I cannot fiddle but I can make a great state of a small city.

3/23/13 2:12:30 PM#19
Originally posted by PerfArt
I am the weirdo that likes players to work it out themselves. Playing the underdog can lead to very different gameplay experiences, and I like Mark's outlook on not hand-holding.

If your realm us less-populated, get creative. Engage in guerilla warfare. Sabotage supply points and disapppear. Organize your smaller forces into a more organized force, which small forces lend themselves to as opposed to huge zerg realms.

Be better, faster, and smarter than those damn foreigners.

This actually helps create scenarios where players are finally dictating fundamental gameplay dynamics rather than just settling in to existing ones.

That is my view on the subject. YMMV :)

 

Unfortunately it's not 10 years ago.  Players today don't care about good fights or thinking outside the box.  They want to win and will flock to the winning side in droves.

  PerfArt

Novice Member

Joined: 2/16/13
Posts: 863

3/23/13 2:16:56 PM#20
You guys really didn't like server imbalance? I had more fun going out with a few scattered 8mans and getting creative against larger forces than I did knowing every realm would be even. That may just be me, though.

As far as resource nodes being dominated by one realm... AWESOME! That provides real incentive for real rvr. That lends context to the struggle beyond that of arbitrary "we are teh enemiez lol pwned you noobs." That is the stuff that makes heroes. Don't we all want to be heroes?

Dare I say it would promote... Real... Realm... Pride?

Not trying at all to argue the point. Just providing perspective.

Cheers!

http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt

2 Pages 1 2 » Search