58 replies to this topic

[QueenBlade]

Did you read this part?

"Idea: Allow X Faction to increase by #% more population than smallest Y Faction, the population formula would not be implemented unless the total population of CW is above Z total population."

Unless the total population is above a certain number, the mechanic would not be active.

Edit: removed BBC code

Edited by QueenBlade, 12 April 2016 - 02:39 PM.

[vocifer]

QueenBlade, on 12 April 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

Unless the total population is above a certain number, the mechanic would not be active.

I've already replied to this.

QueenBlade, on 12 April 2016 - 02:39 PM, said:

total population

Just change this to "#of active players at a time" and I would agree.

Still, PGI are more likely to tweak the numbers on their current passive mechanic. Development wise. Let them start from automating the cbill/lp bonus tweaks first and we'll see how it goes.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

QueenBlade, on 12 April 2016 - 11:29 AM, said:

Why is this not something on the design board? I've yet to hear this be brought up in any Town Hall or Road Map. The idea that a faction can only out size the smallest populated faction by a certain percentage before being closed off to new contracts.

Idea: Allow X Faction to increase by #% more population than smallest Y Faction, the population formula would not be implemented unless the total population of CW is above Z total population.

Rewards: (multiple ideas) for Factions that are smaller than the largest faction or a median % of 10% total population (10 faction / 100% = 10%)
1) Increase XP gains by %
2) Increase Cbill gains by %
3) Increase Loyalty gains by %
4) Increase All gains (XP, Cbill, LP)
5) Increase a mix (XP and Cbill, or Cbill and LP, etc)

*Note: Loyalist/Large Mercs are not limited to a certain % of a faction, the faction is limited by a % of the total population. Units can take up 100% of a faction for all I care, as long as the total population is not heavily in favor of said faction.

Example:
10 Factions, perfect spread would be 10% of total population for each faction. A faction can only support being 10% more than the smallest faction percentage. To keep it simple in explanation.
CW - 10%
CJF - 10%
CGB - 10%
CSJ - 10%
Steiner - 10%
Kurita - 10%
Davion - 15%
Liao - 5%
Marik - 10%

So all those factions with 10% of the population would have normal rewards, but Liao since they have a low population their rewards would be increased, while Davion with 15% would have their rewards lowered. Idea being they have to support more troops thus their funds have to spread out more, think having to ration. Now with a population cap due to being 10% higher than the smallest faction, Davion contracts would be turned off to units that hold a contract with anyone other than Davion. Current loyalist Davion units could stay, and mercs that are currently contracted with Davion would get first dibs when their contract ended for x amount of hours. After which their % would open to any unit. This would keep all factions' population within close percentage of one another and it would automatically adjust as the total population increased or decreased. Unit's themselves would have to keep their own size in check. While it isn't something that PGI had to control directly, it is now something that Unit leader's will have to control themselves depending on where they want to operate. A faction they couldn't go to before may not be open now, but as the total population of CW changes, then more contract opportunities will open up. This would mean more freedom for smaller units to move around, but it would also mean more control/choices for larger units.



*Numbers taken from a post made by XKineticX, but to put real data numbers into reference:

CW would have to release ~612 players (22.63% of their faction population) from their pool to come in line with the 10% idea. More than likely those 612 players will join another Clan faction.
CJF can hold 119 until it hits their cap but CSJ and CGB could hold all 612.
But perhaps the rewards increase for Liao, Marik, CSJ, and CGB are enough to bring their numbers up.

A 306 increase for both Liao and Marik would increase their population by a couple percentage and also increase battles coming from difference sources. If this happens, then CW's ability to take on more pilots increases by roughly 2%, or ~300 pilots.

The difference is ~1500 players under the total population for 14774 contracted players. As more players contract themselves the number that a faction can maintain increases as well, as long as the 10% split is maintained.

Whereas rewards from CW, CJF, Steiner, and Rasalhague would see a much larger drop. Davion would see a small drop, perhaps still keeping their mercs happy.

This may also bring the idea of the community paying units to stay with a certain faction when rewards are lower due to population. Idea being what Prussian Havoc did back in Phase 2, paying units to take on contracts with certain factions. Granted the population balance would still be enforced, but I'm talking about a situation where say, a faction was nearing the contract cut-off population and was looking to relocate for more rewards, but then get approached by a loyalist unit that offers to cover the lost in rewards due to the increase in population.

Not a fan of the hard-cap (negative incentives) so I'm in always in favor of increasing the earnings (positive incentives) in under populated factions. PS2 does this and often I would log out of my current profile to log in as one of my others due to a population imbalance for increased certs (like logging out of my Vanu alt that is overpopulated, to play my NC main that has a 35% XP bonus due to low pop for NC).

[UberStuka]

^^ saint you ever plan on reading that PM I sent you "cough" yesterday?

also PGI tried the increase rewards for low population factions..... all of the mercs would swap for 1-2 weeks and reap the rewards

Edited by UberStuka, 12 April 2016 - 03:34 PM.

[Adamski]

As long as the population #s are measured by player drops in that faction, then have it average out daily and weekly.

Then remove the contract break cooldown, or lower it to something like 4 hours.

Don't implement any hard caps, just start implementing reward penalties.

[QueenBlade]

Under the population balance mechanic, this would create a possible 123+, 12 man groups for each faction. Split evenly, 41 for each time zone (obviously not, but you get a general idea).

On average, each faction has 2-4 attack lane planets, and 6-8 defense lane planets (under the current CW).
With 13 sectors for each planet, 156 players are needed to fill up one Planet's queue for one faction.
8-12 planets to queue on, 1248-1872 players needed to fill up every available slot and planet.

With the current numbers it is possible to have battles on every planet that is active, but without some sort of balancing mechanic we, the community put ourselves into these imbalanced situations because we can.

[Carl Vickers]

I like the idea but I notice that the factions most populated are the factions most written about in the books. People want to live out their fantasy and some peeps will not play for certain factions cause RP reasons.

Everyone should just turn merc and rotate through the factions, make use of the shineys on both Clan and IS and then there can be no complaints.

[QueenBlade]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 12 April 2016 - 03:08 PM, said:

Not a fan of the hard-cap (negative incentives) so I'm in always in favor of increasing the earnings (positive incentives) in under populated factions. PS2 does this and often I would log out of my current profile to log in as one of my others due to a population imbalance for increased certs (like logging out of my Vanu alt that is overpopulated, to play my NC main that has a 35% XP bonus due to low pop for NC).

What hard-cap? Only cap I'm asking for is a percentage cap (10%) that can be adjusted on the fly from the smallest faction to the largest faction in terms of population.

Also I assisted in the creation of the Planetside 2 balance mechanic. I was a software engineer for SoE back in 2011 to 2013 before the company needed to cut a large portion of the work force to try and keep the lights on.

Edited by QueenBlade, 12 April 2016 - 05:12 PM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

QueenBlade, on 12 April 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

What hard-cap? Only cap I'm asking for is a percentage cap (10%) that can be adjusted on the fly from the smallest faction to the largest faction in terms of population.

Also I assisted in the creation of the Planetside 2 balance mechanic. I was a software engineer for SoE back in 2011 to 2013 before the company needed to cut a large portion of the work force to try and keep the lights on.

Ah, I misunderstood. My bad!

[QueenBlade]

No problem, just wanted to make sure I clear up any confusion.

[Deathlike]

I don't think PGI will have a working faction balance mechanic like this in time for CW Phase 3...

Great idea, but I deal in Lostech.

Maybe it'll happen someday.

Edited by Deathlike, 12 April 2016 - 06:20 PM.

[QueenBlade]

Oh I agree, there isn't enough time to implement this mechanic into Phase 3, but I would like to at least see/hear that PGI is working on a population mechanic. Cause right now, there is nothing.

[Duke Einholt]

Intersting idea but I have a few questions, In your system everyone faction with its mercs has 10% facing off on 10% say but that is not how it works. Phase 3 cw and map reset Frr as alway will face 2- 3 clans attacking it so 10% Frr against 20-30% clans by population doesnt seem workable.

The other question I have is tottal population registered to a faction be it merc or loyalist never work out to a as working guide as to how many are actaully signed in and attacking/defending in cw for any one faction -Just becuase somone takes a loyalist permanent contract does not mean that they even play cw any longer. In fact I know quite a few poeple that have Loyalist faction tags that dont even play Cw anymore. I think the game balance has to be adjusted to numbers actaully playing in cw on a faction vs faction on an hourly basis -I put forward an idea to deal with that in my post about ending Ghost drops - sorry not trying to hijack your post.

True numbers playing for Loyalist factions or mercs units need to be checked if you hope to even try and balance the populations. Unlike mercs Once a person signs a loyalist contract their tag never disappears unless they sign in and break contract. It might not be a bad idea for Phase 3 that all units be they Loyalist or Mercinarys should be disbanded with only the officers left in them as place holders.

If nothing else it would be fun to watch the recruitment scramble for a few weeks those that are happy with who they play with would return rest would join or form other units - it would make for some fun matches over the next few months seeing who were the top dogs.

Sorry getting little off topic. I agree any system that would shorten times to get a match and eliminate ghost drops would make us all a lot happier.

Edited by Duke Einholt, 12 April 2016 - 11:31 PM.

[Karl Marlow]

If the playerbase gave a crap about faction balance they would already be doing it. Its no mystery which factions are over or under populated.

[KinLuu]

Factions on the Clan / IS border need more population.

[vocifer]

KinLuu, on 13 April 2016 - 12:38 AM, said:

Factions on the Clan / IS border need more population.

Why? We should have IS v IS and Clan v Clan battles too.

What QueenBlade is not taking into account is different number of borders in each faction. Liao has only two borders and therefore will need less population to fill all it's queues than FRR with it's 4-6 on average. But still it should not fall below 5% or so.

[KinLuu]

Why?

Because Phase 1 and 2 suggest, that way more people are interested in the asymmetrical Clan vs. IS fights.

This is also evidenced by the numerous NAPs both amongst IS and Clan factions.

[vocifer]

KinLuu, on 13 April 2016 - 02:35 AM, said:

Why?

Because Phase 1 and 2 suggest, that way more people are interested in the asymmetrical Clan vs. IS fights.

This is also evidenced by the numerous NAPs both amongst IS and Clan factions.

Phase 1 and 2 suggest, that mixed defense queues in Clan v IS make them more available for pugs. It is not an interest, it is about getting a drop.

[DarklightCA]

UberStuka, on 12 April 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

also PGI tried the increase rewards for low population factions..... all of the mercs would swap for 1-2 weeks and reap the rewards

PGI gave increased LP earnings for factions losing a lot of planets, not based on population. Those factions needed more loyalist population and the only thing increased LP earnings attracts are mercs as loyalists already had a lot of LP earning.

It also did not help that PGI manually controlled this and never shut off the rewards when the factions were recovering, made those factions really stacked with mercs that created a temporary inbalance, I think Queenblade is suggesting a more automated system.

[vocifer]

DarklightCA, on 13 April 2016 - 06:06 AM, said:

PGI gave increased LP earnings for factions losing a lot of planets, not based on population. Those factions needed more loyalist population and the only thing increased LP earnings attracts are mercs as loyalists already had a lot of LP earning.

It also did not help that PGI manually controlled this and never shut off the rewards when the factions were recovering, made those factions really stacked with mercs that created a temporary inbalance, I think Queenblade is suggesting a more automated system.

I guess, we are not talking about the territory balance here, but the population balance.