Three teams (4v4v4) will almost never lead to an enjoyable gameplay experience

ecru

Magdalina wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

bubbygink wrote: »

I quite enjoy the 4v4v4. Creates some interesting games. To each his own, I guess.

There's nothing interesting about two teams fighting 4v4 over an objective whilst the third team runs around and caps everything else.

There's almost no incentive to engage in combat in CTF or DOM and that's sad.

There is actually plenty of incentive to PvP in CTF. I agree it's super confusing at first, they really need to put in a better explanation of the mode, but basically you cannot cash in a captured relic(but you can capture it) if your own relic is missing. So if team Red has Purple's relic but team Purple has Red's relic neither Reds nor Purples can turn their trophies in. If Red has Purple's relic, Purple has Green's relic and Green has Red's relic, it's perfect - NO ONE can turn relics in and THEN PvP ensues It can actually be a very fun and strategic mode if everyone understands the rules(it is pretty sad when people just don't get it - like I admittedly didn't at first and waste time fighting elsewhere as their relic gets stolen and turned in 5 times and 500-100-0 victory follows).

I...don't actually have a definitive opinion on 3-way combat right now. I thought it'd be all chaotic and bad but after giving it some chance it doesn't seem so bad at all. In fact I'm not sure that 2-way combat would work better right now, it'd likely serve to underline the disbalance between teams/build which now matters slightly less due to chaotic nature of 3-way combat. Imagine having the full pressure of a 4 man stambuilds premade on you full time x_x

Perhaps OP shouldn't be so quick to dismiss opinion that's different from his/her own.

What you say about having the full pressure of a 4 man stambuild premade doesn't necessarily have to be true if you don't limit teams to 4 people each. 4v4 is very likely to be a miserable experience when it's a premade group vs a group of pugs, but 8v8 or 12v12 (on larger maps) is not. Premade groups being limited to 4 people when queueing would mean that all premades would queue in with pugs, and hopefully if two premades were queueing, each team would get a premade group, so you would end up with one premade and one or two pug groups vs one premade and one or two pug groups.

Rift did this very well. Despite the game's shortcomings in a lot of areas and it's population that was a fraction of what ESO has now (even years ago), it's instanced pvp was wildly more popular than BG's in ESO and a major reason (or the only reason) a lot of people logged on.

I spent over a few years interacting with the developers from Rift along with a handful of other serious, active PVPers in the game via a skype channel to help with balance changes, and that gave me a good chance to learn the ins and outs of what does and does not lead to balanced matchmaking in MMO PVP, and they ended up with a very reliable ELO system that kept everyone besides a few outliers (like myself) very close to a 50% win rate. My comments above are a reflection of my experience there, and IMO ZOS could learn a lot from that them, or players like myself, if they took the chance and listened.

Eventually having larger maps and two team game modes, while opening up instanced pvp to people who haven't bought Morrowind, would also be a step forward to hugely increasing the popularity of this kind of game mode and player retention in general. In Rift, simply queueing for bg's over and over again was a viable way to level and get experience. Even with matchmaking brackets every 10 levels or so (10-20, 21-30, etc), queues were instant 24 hours out of the day for years. More things to do/different ways to level and play with others is always a good thing for any MMO when it comes to player retention.

sorry for the wall of text lol

Feanor

4v4v4 is a great idea if people actually play the objective. That way in theory a strong group could be overcome by 8 players focusing them. The reality of course is that PuGs are essentially 4 players trying a free for all with a focus on kills regardless of the game mode. If Team Red holds a Chaos Ball for 3 minutes you would expect the other two teams do something about it.

My experience is though that you'll see the other two teams fight each other so often. It's a mixture of design flaws and people just wanting to play Deathmatch all the time.

Sylosi

Trashkan wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

bubbygink wrote: »

I quite enjoy the 4v4v4. Creates some interesting games. To each his own, I guess.

You only have to look at just about every other game, sport, or even games like Chess and Go to realize that all of these things have only two sides for a good reason, and the same goes for maps, arenas, or boards that are mirrored. Different doesn't necessarily mean better or more enjoyable and it's never really going to be possible to have consistent balanced matches with three teams.

This is what you call tunnel vision. Why can't there be three sides? It actually takes a lot of really lame tactics those other games promote. Like let's hide in this corner and make it impossible for anyone to kill us. In a 3 way team dm you can't just hide because the other teams will just duke it out.

No it's called logic.

To take one of the massive flaws with a 3 team system, if someone is playing a game based on say conquest and a player plays exceptionally well for a period holding a 1v2 stallling a cap on an objective much longer than he should do in that situation, so he outplays his opponents, in a 2 team game this gives his team a +1 player advantage on the rest of the map that they can take advantage of.

Now do the same thing in a 3 man team game and what often occurs is that a player in Team A playing really well and holding 2 players from Team B he actually creates an advantage for Team C to take advantage of, which is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs in anything that is supposed to be a competitive, skilled game.

Which is the reason games and sports are built around 2 teams not 3, because 3 team games are simply not competitive, balanced or skillful to the same level, and that is without even taking into account things like matchmaking which is much easier for a 2 team game.

BG's are a joke.

CatchMeTrolling

The current design is fine, don't get caught up with what you're accustomed to. People are under the impression that if it's 2 team's suddenly that'll make people want to play objectives more but no that'll just be one team less to act like every match is a deathmatch with.

When all 3 teams are actively doing what they're meant to do whether it's intentionally or unintentionally it makes a really good game.

Thogard

Sylosi wrote: »

Trashkan wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

bubbygink wrote: »

I quite enjoy the 4v4v4. Creates some interesting games. To each his own, I guess.

You only have to look at just about every other game, sport, or even games like Chess and Go to realize that all of these things have only two sides for a good reason, and the same goes for maps, arenas, or boards that are mirrored. Different doesn't necessarily mean better or more enjoyable and it's never really going to be possible to have consistent balanced matches with three teams.

This is what you call tunnel vision. Why can't there be three sides? It actually takes a lot of really lame tactics those other games promote. Like let's hide in this corner and make it impossible for anyone to kill us. In a 3 way team dm you can't just hide because the other teams will just duke it out.

No it's called logic.

To take one of the massive flaws with a 3 team system, if someone is playing a game based on say conquest and a player plays exceptionally well for a period holding a 1v2 stallling a cap on an objective much longer than he should do in that situation, so he outplays his opponents, in a 2 team game this gives his team his team a +1 player advantage on the rest of the map that they can take advantage of.

Now do the same thing in a 3 man team game and what often occurs is that a player in Team A playing really well and holding 2 players from Team B he actually creates an advantage for Team C to take advantage of, which is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs in anything that is supposed to be a competitive, skilled game.

Which is the reason games and sports are built around 2 teams not 3, because 3 team games are simply not competitive, balanced or skillful to the same level, and that is without even taking into account things like matchmaking which is much easier for a 2 team game.

BG's are a joke.

Learning the dynamics in a 3 team mode is definitely harder to learn than for a 2 team mode. Far more variables to consider.

But it's still very doable for intelligent players that know how to work together.

The fact is, there's only one team you need to worry about, and that's the team other than yours that's closest to winning. There are plenty of great strategies you can use to win every time, assuming you're the best 4v4 group. Just because you don't know what those are, doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, I would be really surprised if a Stamblade had any real familiarity with group strategies, considering the solo nature of the playstyle. There are some exceptions, but you are not one of them.

Sylphie

100% agree that having three teams will never lead to a competitive game mode. Just had a deathmatch yesterday against a 4 man premade with my 3man where the 4 man just farmed the pug team and ran from us in a team fight. No qualms against them, they were all solid players that took the advantage of the game mode but it really shows how poorly thought out battlegrounds are.

Toc de Malsvi

I've had lots of competitive games, where score was 400-400-300 or something of the like before someone capped to win. Most of the complaints I see here come from people who don't want to think beyond just one opponent. Winning a 1v2 is always a plus, its just not as hugely advantageous as it is in a two team match.

Given you have a 1v2 at a flag at your position it is naive to only consider that the third team out numbers either side. That ignores that the third team is not facing just either side alone. Rather the third team is facing both sides and is still outnumbered 6v4. If said third team commits to one flag they leave two flags open to be taken by either of the other teams. If the third team engages vs the team with three they face the fact that they may significantly slow their cap in a prolonged 3v4 fight. If they split they lose their numbers advantage. If they collapse on the team with 2 left they have a significant advantage but the team with 3 can still cap open flags.

Adjusting to 4v4v4 means having to make strategic adjustments on the fly as the game progresses. A team that only sticks together can be easily avoided in domination but harder to deal with in death match, while limiting their battleground coverage in CTR. Facing two separate teams means an advantage at one point is not distinct enough to carry the match. It does not mean that the advantage is lost or squandered.

Strategy for 4v4v4 is actually quite complex, as you cannot simply focus on one team unless the other team has literally given up. You must consider the present need of your teams score as well as implications of your strategic choices and how each opponents may react. The failure I often see is of the players to consider beyond just the momentary kill. To be fair that failure may likely be cause positioning strategy has not been a strong active component of PVP in ESO.

In 4v4v4 your choice of movement is also very important as to what you leave open or closed for your opponent. Hesitation or aggression can both equally lead to losses. Three way fights actually diminish the inherent advantages of pre-made teams, note they do not eliminate those advantages, but they diminish them compared to two team formats. In three way fights the number one enemy is whoever is in the lead, both sides should gang up on whoever is in the lead.

Toc de Malsvi

Competitive:

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, involving, or decided by competition :
competitive sports; a competitive examination.
2.
well suited for competition; having a feature that makes for successful competition :

Competition:

noun
1.
the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.
2.
a contest for some prize, honor, or advantage:
Both girls entered the competition.
3.
the rivalry offered by a competitor:

Battlegrounds look pretty competitive to me.

Thogard

Sylphie wrote: »

100% agree that having three teams will never lead to a competitive game mode. Just had a deathmatch yesterday against a 4 man premade with my 3man where the 4 man just farmed the pug team and ran from us in a team fight. No qualms against them, they were all solid players that took the advantage of the game mode but it really shows how poorly thought out battlegrounds are.

How so? If my 4 man is up against a cheesy tank build that throws guard around, and a normal group, do you expect us to have to kill the tank group first?

I think you guys aren't really considering the alternative... it wouldn't be hard to make an unkillable group in the BGs if you stack enough healers, blockers, and guard bots. I've encountered groups like that and it's never fun.

Having three teams gives counterplay to that... ignore the unkillable team (which will be immobile and have low damage) and focus on the third team.

If it was 4v4, everyone would skew even further towards healers and a tank meta. With 4v4v4 you know you have to kill *** to win.

Dakmor_Kavu

As others have said opening team size to more than 4 while capping premade size is something I would very much be on board for. Rift had it right with this.

ecru

[quote=

Thogard wrote: »

Sylphie wrote: »

100% agree that having three teams will never lead to a competitive game mode. Just had a deathmatch yesterday against a 4 man premade with my 3man where the 4 man just farmed the pug team and ran from us in a team fight. No qualms against them, they were all solid players that took the advantage of the game mode but it really shows how poorly thought out battlegrounds are.

How so? If my 4 man is up against a cheesy tank build that throws guard around, and a normal group, do you expect us to have to kill the tank group first?

I think you guys aren't really considering the alternative... it wouldn't be hard to make an unkillable group in the BGs if you stack enough healers, blockers, and guard bots. I've encountered groups like that and it's never fun.

Having three teams gives counterplay to that... ignore the unkillable team (which will be immobile and have low damage) and focus on the third team.

If it was 4v4, everyone would skew even further towards healers and a tank meta. With 4v4v4 you know you have to kill *** to win.

It wouldn't be 4v4. Like I said in previous posts, people assuming two teams would mean 4v4 is thinking too small. 8v8 or 12v12 would be more suitable and would be more than enough to counter a 4 person premade like you described.

4v4 would lead to the absolute worst, most imbalanced matches you could imagine. The less people you have on either side, the more apparent skill gaps become, and matches can become incredibly lopsided often even due to minor skill gaps if one team has a dedicated healer and the other doesn't.

A separate ranked 4v4 mode would obviously be a good idea, but not for casual players.

WillhelmBlack

It'd be nice if we had 4v4 deathmatches and no RNG. It's not too much to ask.

Sylosi

Thogard wrote: »

Sylosi wrote: »

Trashkan wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

bubbygink wrote: »

I quite enjoy the 4v4v4. Creates some interesting games. To each his own, I guess.

You only have to look at just about every other game, sport, or even games like Chess and Go to realize that all of these things have only two sides for a good reason, and the same goes for maps, arenas, or boards that are mirrored. Different doesn't necessarily mean better or more enjoyable and it's never really going to be possible to have consistent balanced matches with three teams.

This is what you call tunnel vision. Why can't there be three sides? It actually takes a lot of really lame tactics those other games promote. Like let's hide in this corner and make it impossible for anyone to kill us. In a 3 way team dm you can't just hide because the other teams will just duke it out.

No it's called logic.

To take one of the massive flaws with a 3 team system, if someone is playing a game based on say conquest and a player plays exceptionally well for a period holding a 1v2 stallling a cap on an objective much longer than he should do in that situation, so he outplays his opponents, in a 2 team game this gives his team his team a +1 player advantage on the rest of the map that they can take advantage of.

Now do the same thing in a 3 man team game and what often occurs is that a player in Team A playing really well and holding 2 players from Team B he actually creates an advantage for Team C to take advantage of, which is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs in anything that is supposed to be a competitive, skilled game.

Which is the reason games and sports are built around 2 teams not 3, because 3 team games are simply not competitive, balanced or skillful to the same level, and that is without even taking into account things like matchmaking which is much easier for a 2 team game.

BG's are a joke.

Learning the dynamics in a 3 team mode is definitely harder to learn than for a 2 team mode. Far more variables to consider.

But it's still very doable for intelligent players that know how to work together.

The fact is, there's only one team you need to worry about, and that's the team other than yours that's closest to winning. There are plenty of great strategies you can use to win every time, assuming you're the best 4v4 group. Just because you don't know what those are, doesn't mean they don't exist. In fact, I would be really surprised if a Stamblade had any real familiarity with group strategies, considering the solo nature of the playstyle. There are some exceptions, but you are not one of them.

All I see is a lot of empty rhetoric with no logic or argument, no understanding of core concepts like risk vs reward, etc, and babbling on about stamblades for some unknown reason, and no the dynamics of a 3 team mode, simply don't work though typical clueless MMORPG players with no understanding of what competitive / skilled PvP entails might not understand that (which is why games based on competitive/skilled PvP don't use a 3 team setup, it is hopelessly flawed).

It is telling how you failed to address my example of one of the flaws with 3 teams as a competitive, balanced mode, and no, empty rhetoric is not addressing it.

Thogard wrote: »

There are plenty of great strategies you can use to win every time, assuming you're the best 4v4 group

This just shows your total lack of understanding.

A balanced, well designed game mode isn't based on one group being sufficiently better than the other(s) that it is able to negate the flaws and imbalances of the game mode because it is sufficiently better, it is about what happens when you have balanced teams, and that is why 3 teams does not work, that you need this explained, is well...

Toc de Malsvi

Sylphie wrote: »

100% agree that having three teams will never lead to a competitive game mode. Just had a deathmatch yesterday against a 4 man premade with my 3man where the 4 man just farmed the pug team and ran from us in a team fight. No qualms against them, they were all solid players that took the advantage of the game mode but it really shows how poorly thought out battlegrounds are.

All this highlights is where you failed to engage them first. The map is evenly split, no team has a shorter distance to reach another team. You can camp the weak team spawn just as much as they can. They have the same options class, skills, and sets available to them as you have to you. If they were able to kill the other team faster than you and out maneuver you around the map then they deserved the win, whether they could beat you 3v4 or not.

This would be no different than any other two team setup where one side gets healers and the other doesn't. Even providing you can set up your whole team, you cannot possibly fully address every theoretical opponent. Sometimes you face opponents that by happenstance are designed to exploit your only weakness.

Coaches across the world know you cannot possibly prepare for every single theoretical strategy from opponents. You prepare for what you think is likely, then you adjust your strategy in game based on what is actually happening. Sometimes you get beat because you were not ready and unable to adjust to the strategy employed by your opponent.

The only differences in a three way fight is the number of unknowns and variance of outcomes. Now that you know that someone can and may run from you while killing the opposing team, perhaps you should change strategy, group composition, gear, skills. Perhaps just create an alternate set of gear and skill setup to swap to in the event that you encounter that again.

ecru

Toc de Malsvi wrote: »

Coaches across the world know you cannot possibly prepare for every single theoretical strategy from opponents. You prepare for what you think is likely, then you adjust your strategy in game based on what is actually happening.

What is likely: getting rear ended by a stacked premade while in a pug, while fighting the other pug.

How I adjust my strategy: not queueing for BG's.

Sylphie

Thogard wrote: »

Sylphie wrote: »

100% agree that having three teams will never lead to a competitive game mode. Just had a deathmatch yesterday against a 4 man premade with my 3man where the 4 man just farmed the pug team and ran from us in a team fight. No qualms against them, they were all solid players that took the advantage of the game mode but it really shows how poorly thought out battlegrounds are.

How so? If my 4 man is up against a cheesy tank build that throws guard around, and a normal group, do you expect us to have to kill the tank group first?

I think you guys aren't really considering the alternative... it wouldn't be hard to make an unkillable group in the BGs if you stack enough healers, blockers, and guard bots. I've encountered groups like that and it's never fun.

Having three teams gives counterplay to that... ignore the unkillable team (which will be immobile and have low damage) and focus on the third team.

If it was 4v4, everyone would skew even further towards healers and a tank meta. With 4v4v4 you know you have to kill *** to win.

The 4 man did not want to fight us because we ran cheesy comp (we generally run 3 dps that can offheal), they just decided to go for the weaker pug team. On that note, if a 4v4 fight is stalemating and unkillable groups exists, that fault lies more towards the game balance and not the game mode. By having 4v4s, players and developers can see which team comps are over performing in those situations and properly balance the game, which I doubt will ever be done properly until they seperate pvp and pve.

I stress again that as long as there are 3 teams, it will be hard to develop a competitive pvp scene. Guilds want to GvG in even grounds, not GvGvPugs. I know that my group of friends and other smallscale guilds that we know would rather organise 3v3s, 4v4s, ect in open world rather than queue up for BGs.

Baconlad

At very least zenimax should open their options...every battleground might look different or have a slightly different mid...but lets get real, every match feels the exact same. In contrast to games that ive played and enjoyed BGs, other games dont have this problem. In WoW for example, there a map thats really large, meant for a raid, encourages sticking with your raid. Theres another map that its better to split up into smaller fights. Even though WoWs BGs were only 2 team fights, the number team members changed drastically depending on what BG you were in.

They have a map based on starting as a defending team and offending team.
All i think most of us are asking for is not another 4v4v4 small circular battleground. Zeni can do it....but heres the catch, they are affraid.

They are affraid that their combat system will make for indestructable teams ruining the experience for everyone. They seem to think that if they always do three teams of 4, there will always be a situtation of being outnumbered, lessening ur chances of having a hard time with indestructable groups...but the issue is, 90% of BG players arent indestructable...and it means that every time you pug a battleground...you will be outnumbered. Non CP gameplay is already known to be rediculously hard to win outnumbered, couple these factors and you have a very unenjoyable experience for the non meta, non grouped players. The point is to have fun. But due to the nature of these battlegrounds, you can be on a rediculous lose streak, and the odds are literally against you every time you play.

Always fun to get the kill...never fun to be close to getting the kill and having more enemies come from behind and kill you and take your kill, which seems to happen more often than not in Zenis BGs....

Heres to hoping they are building a NEW type of battleground to add to the roster. Not the same old crap players have been complaining about since PTS. Even then, if they do introduce a new BG, BGs will remain dead until they revamp the old maps...or include BGs into all of the playerbase