Population bonuses/penalties?

[kaffis]

In Planetside, there were bonuses and penalties based on relative empire population as a percentage of the total pop.

Empires fighting outnumbered would get bonus health and damage (IIRC), empires with a population advantage would get a penalty to health and damage.

Should such a practice continue into Planetside 2, and if so, what kinds of systems should it entail?

Should bonuses be offered to disadvantaged empires? Or penalties applied to advantaged ones? Or both?

What form should the modifiers take? Bonuses or penalties applied to resources gain? Equipment cost (in resources)? Health? Damage? Equipment timers? Respawn timers?

How should the populations be counted for such metrics -- should it be instant (who has more players on RIGHT NOW)? Should it be a floating average, or a weighted floating average (who has more unique players over the last day/week? Or who has the most player-hours over the last day/week?)?

Should there be no modifiers based on population at all, and just rely on statistics or recruitment to balance it out? Should the modifiers have an effect only for new players, to encourage the balance to be upheld by skewing the preferences of new players, or should it apply to everybody, as a sort of handicap?

[Bags]

In Planetside, there were bonuses and penalties based on relative empire population as a percentage of the total pop.

Empires fighting outnumbered would get bonus health and damage (IIRC), empires with a population advantage would get a penalty to health and damage.



I don't recall this happening at all. :doh: I just remember the underdog getting more XP. I think bonus health came from having a cave mod, but there was never bonus damage.

And the game should never penalize or buff in the form of damage or health due to faction imbalance.

[kaffis]

Hrm. Okay, you might be right. My memory's hazy, I haven't played in over 5 years. Either way, XP or Health/Damage...

[Otleaz]

Troop distribution is part of the game so you can't make it based off of anything but players per continent.

I think the best way to handle it is capture times are increased based on how many more players you have. If you have two times as many players, increase the capture time by 200%.

[jabber]

only thing i see possible is a small xp bonus, like ps1. the individual soldier should never be more powerfull because his playing the underdog. includes respawn/resource income and equipment cost.

[kaffis]

Troop distribution is part of the game so you can't make it based off of anything but players per continent.

I think the best way to handle it is capture times are increased based on how many more players you have. If you have two times as many players, increase the capture time by 200%.
This is a means I hadn't considered. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about it aside from that, yet.

[kaffis]

only thing i see possible is a small xp bonus, like ps1. the individual soldier should never be more powerfull because his playing the underdog. includes respawn/resource income and equipment cost.
I tend not to favor XP bonuses, because they have no influence or effect in the immediate term, nor do they operate as an incentive for max-rank characters.

The latter part may not be an issue based on the claimed depth of the cert tree, but we can't really judge that yet. It's also worth noting that xp bonuses aren't good incentives for players who have certed everything they *care* about, even if they're not max rank yet.

[Khrakhan]

Respawn timers I feel are the only viable option here. That way the underdogs will respawn faster making up for the fact that they are outnumbered and make it to where the 'overdog' feels as if they're still fighting against an empire and not just the stragglin remains of one.

[Saifoda]

I don't think there should be any negative modifiers for population -- there shouldn't be anything that punishes people for playing just because other people are playing, but if you are playing for the underdog empire then you should get xp or resource boost (dunno about the health thing) and/or maybe reduced resource costs for equipment and vehicles.

[kaffis]

Respawn timers I feel are the only viable option here. That way the underdogs will respawn faster making up for the fact that they are outnumbered and make it to where the 'overdog' feels as if they're still fighting against an empire and not just the stragglin remains of one.
This is, indeed, the reason I think they have the potential to be the most effective modifier. However, equipment timers and equipment costs (or rates of resource gain, as the inverse of equipment cost) follow similar arguments, just to point out. ;)

[Sledgecrushr]

I voted no population modifiers because I still have hope that we will be able to move servers whenever we want to.

[indirect]

There was never a penalty.
There was only +XP% for lowest pop.
The health was from lattice benefits.

[Otleaz]

I voted no population modifiers because I still have hope that we will be able to move servers whenever we want to.

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

[Khrakhan]

This is, indeed, the reason I think they have the potential to be the most effective modifier. However, equipment timers and equipment costs (or rates of resource gain, as the inverse of equipment cost) follow similar arguments, just to point out. ;)

Yeah but the problem with that is that it hinders players a little more than just the respawn timers. I dont want to have to pay more resources just because my team happens to have more players

[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.

[Soothsayer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Ideally. :)

[Zolan]

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

[Toppopia]

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]

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.:doh:

[PoisonTaco]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Otleaz]

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]

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. :evil:

[SKYeXile]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Dougnifico]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Toppopia]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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...

[Sledgecrushr]

In games like WoW or EQ population imbalance really is never an issue. And if the facilities are built like PS1 where its just a huge bottleneck then a smaller force could defend against a larger force for some time. But it seems that the open base design will not do anything to slow down a larger force. I believe that in PS2 that the empire with the largest zerg is going to dominate. Again it would be nice to be able to pull in fighters from other servers. If a big outfit would like to come and help when your empire is in dire need that could be fun.

[Grognard]

I went with a simple supply and demand approach, calculated on the fly. So, too many people (high population) will cause high equipment demand (higher equipment cost), and lots equipment delivery delays (longer equip timers). Conversely, the costs and timers could be lowered for low population. Seems logical...


Check - Pop modifers should be based on instant player-counts.
Check - Pop modifiers for Equipment Cost.
Check - Pop modifiers for Equipment Timers.

Edit: ie. Smaller more well equiped army, facing off against a larger, less well equiped army. Thats about as balanced as I can see it getting, without using less savory methods...