[PTS] CP Only Battlegrounds

Taylor_MB

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Battlegrounds

• Battleground queues are now divided into 10-49 and 50. This means you will only have level 50 players playing against other level 50 players.
• The level 50 Battleground queue is now CP-enabled.

So for the 9 people that actually read this forum, what are your thoughts?

A few of my personal thoughts on the proposal:
1) Why force CP1 players (or however many you start with) to go up against 660CP players? That gear AND CP difference is just so insane...
2) Why force everyone into CP BG's? Why currently force everyone into no-CP BG's?
3) Is the BG population really that low they can't split the the queue 3 ways?

I went into Vivec the other night on my full glass cannon StambBlade and I could dodge roll for days, my empowered heavy attack from stealth almost 1-shot a dozen people and then I saw a MagDK tank a group of 10 for 2+mins with their HP never dipping below 95% before the 10 gave up and left. I don't want this for BG's....

Disclaimer: Didn't think it appropriate for me to make a post in PTS sub-forum when I don't have the hard drive space to download it.

imredneckson

I like chocolate

Chocolate...Did you say chocolate? ..... Chocolate! CHOCOLATE! CHOCOLATE!! CHOCOLATE!!!!!!!!!! *fades off into the distance*

LokoMatic

I like the status quo!

Terrible idea. If a group of 4 can farm 20 people and not die, then you probably shouldn't put them in a 1 for 1 setting. Just all around a terrible idea. I can't wait until the people who asked for this actually go into BG's and get wrecked. Que the sweaty aids groups.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

I like the status quo!

LokoMatic wrote: »

Terrible idea. If a group of 4 can farm 20 people and not die, then you probably shouldn't put them in a 1 for 1 setting. Just all around a terrible idea. I can't wait until the people who asked for this actually go into BG's and get wrecked. Que the sweaty aids groups.

Pretty much all of this ^.

Awful change for many of the reasons already stated here. The fights are going to become drawn out stalemates of tanks / self healing and no one will ever die. The gameplay is going to be so boring and I'm dreading that this makes it to live. BGs were the one bright spot this game had had to keep me playing and this would basically kill that. Not that I wouldn't do just fine, but I don't want / enjoy the CP gameplay after having it for 2+ years and it just keeps getting more and more dull. Just my 2 cents but I hope all of this feedback doesn't fall on deaf ears.

idk

The issue is probably overall appeal. Just look at Cyrodiil. Significantly more players are interested in the CP campaigns than non-CP. it would make sense BGs would have similar levels of interest.

Tyrion87

I like the status quo!

idk wrote: »

The issue is probably overall appeal. Just look at Cyrodiil. Significantly more players are interested in the CP campaigns than non-CP. it would make sense BGs would have similar levels of interest.

BGs are a totally different type of gameplay than open Cyrodiil. I wonder why they want to push CPs into BGs if most people are opposed to it. It will desert BGs even more. Personally I won't be playing BGs if this change goes live. BGs mechanics already encourage people to play tanky builds there (chaosball, capture the relic, domination) and now imagine to fight against these tanky builds, especially templars in heavy armor, in BGs with CPs-enabled. If 10+ people can't beat them now in CP Cyrodiil, how 4-man groups in BGs can deal with them?

ZOS please, if you want to introduce CP BGs so much, please give us a choice and leave non-CP BGs as well.

Mihael

Alternative: CP queue | non-CP queue | under 50 queue

This change is going to kill chaosball already in no cp a premade can dominate as long as they have a guardplar with cp it will be even worse

Drakkdjinn

I like the status quo!

idk wrote: »

The issue is probably overall appeal. Just look at Cyrodiil. Significantly more players are interested in the CP campaigns than non-CP. it would make sense BGs would have similar levels of interest.

Sometimes it's better for everyone if you don't give in to what uninformed people think they want, because in this case they'd hate it. At best you can give them the choice, but even then it's just going to be an exercise in "oh rite this sucks and I won't be doing it again, at least noCP is still there" waste of resources kind of deal.

Riggsy

I like the status quo!

My take, posted in another thread:

non-CP = more fair play and build diversity, requires skill and working with less
CP = play favoring a handful of builds and play-styles, requires less skill to do more

MurderMostFoul

I like the status quo!

I hate it.

I really only play this game for the BGs now. I took a few breaks and never got to max CP. Now I'm going to have to grind my ass off to compete? Looks like I'll be spending even more time with Destiny 2.

Also, no-CP pvp is a better experience anyways.

Lexxypwns

Alternative: CP queue | non-CP queue | under 50 queue

We need more choice not less, level 50 BGs should keep an no-cp option as well as a cp option

DeadlyRecluse

I'm holding out hope that IF the addition of CP goes to live, it helps lead to a meaningful adjustment of CP to true horizontal progression.

Barring that, it seems like an odd choice. If the population can support it, a 3queue system seems ideal.

arkansas_ESO

Good Change

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_Yj5adBJFg

CP lets you make builds like these. If 8 pugs can't kill him, then how will a 4-man team? If this guy gets a hold of a relic or the chaosball, how do you kill him before he scores?

IMO BGs need to be the same as Cyrodiil, whether that's no CP or CP, so that players can move back and forth between the two without having to completely rethink their build (and farm gear), but no CP is definitely more balanced.

XxBIGWASS101xX

I like the status quo!

LokoMatic wrote: »

Terrible idea. If a group of 4 can farm 20 people and not die, then you probably shouldn't put them in a 1 for 1 setting. Just all around a terrible idea. I can't wait until the people who asked for this actually go into BG's and get wrecked. Que the sweaty aids groups.

The funny thing about this, is that a lot of the people who asked for this change are people who play cyrodiil in zergs and then step into BG's and get destroyed because they don't have a zerg to hide behind. They for some reason think they're getting beat because they don't have their CP enabled. They'll still get wrecked, lower CP players will have no chance to play and 4-man premades will reign.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

I like the status quo!

XxBIGWASS101xX wrote: »

LokoMatic wrote: »

Terrible idea. If a group of 4 can farm 20 people and not die, then you probably shouldn't put them in a 1 for 1 setting. Just all around a terrible idea. I can't wait until the people who asked for this actually go into BG's and get wrecked. Que the sweaty aids groups.

The funny thing about this, is that a lot of the people who asked for this change are people who play cyrodiil in zergs and then step into BG's and get destroyed because they don't have a zerg to hide behind. They for some reason think they're getting beat because they don't have their CP enabled. They'll still get wrecked, lower CP players will have no chance to play and 4-man premades will reign.

Exactly..they won't just reign they're going to be absolutely dominant. Nothing will change with who's at the top of the food chain but it is veteran players pleading, for the sake of competitive play, keep CP out of battlegrounds. It has no place and will disrupt any semblance of balance we currently have in battlegrounds.

paulsimonps

Alternative: CP queue | non-CP + under 50 queue

Miss clicked, I wish there to be 2 lvl 50 options 1 CP and 1 non CP, and obviously lvl 1-49 should be no CP.

davey1107

Good Change

I don't believe non-CP play functions well, for this reason. The dev team has attempted to balance the game (some successes, some failures.) They do so by adjusting abilities, gear and CPs. These all relate to one another.

For example, the damage done by the Viper's Sting set has been honed through extensive data mining from CP play. The recent change took into consideration the item's power with CPs invested into mighty and other passives, and took into consideration defensive CPs of the defender/victim. When you eliminate CPs, Viper's Sting is performing in an untested way, and whether that's good or bad is entirely random...this applies to every single ability and set.

Likewise, ability costs and regen are all established with CPs in mind, as well as resource-returning abilities and gear sets. Some classes rely on CPs for resource balance...others get it through class abilities. Classes that rely on CPs are disadvantaged in non-CP play...those who have built in regen via abilities are helped. Example...in non-CP play my two sorcs still get the same advantage from exchange. They're not hit very hard in resource sustain. Other classes that don't have good resource return abilities are hit harder...so they're more disadvantaged than my sorcs in non-CP play.

As a result, non-CP play is a sort of "Wild West" arena of generally imbalanced play. Some classes fare better, and then because the same sets are available players can exploit the lack of CPs to take advantage. This isn't their fault, and it's not the end of the world, but it seems overly complicated to expect the dev team to balance both non-CP and CP play in a game that's already really complex.

I'm inclined to say there should be both options with Battlegrounds...but then I consider the problems this causes and am inclined to say there should only be CP Battlegrounds. If ZOS is going to expend resources trying to balance two systems like this, I'd rather they create a divide between pve and pvp play, not seek to create CP and non-CP play.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

I like the status quo!

davey1107 wrote: »

I don't believe non-CP play functions well, for this reason. The dev team has attempted to balance the game (some successes, some failures.) They do so by adjusting abilities, gear and CPs. These all relate to one another.

For example, the damage done by the Viper's Sting set has been honed through extensive data mining from CP play. The recent change took into consideration the item's power with CPs invested into mighty and other passives, and took into consideration defensive CPs of the defender/victim. When you eliminate CPs, Viper's Sting is performing in an untested way, and whether that's good or bad is entirely random...this applies to every single ability and set.

Likewise, ability costs and regen are all established with CPs in mind, as well as resource-returning abilities and gear sets. Some classes rely on CPs for resource balance...others get it through class abilities. Classes that rely on CPs are disadvantaged in non-CP play...those who have built in regen via abilities are helped. Example...in non-CP play my two sorcs still get the same advantage from exchange. They're not hit very hard in resource sustain. Other classes that don't have good resource return abilities are hit harder...so they're more disadvantaged than my sorcs in non-CP play.

As a result, non-CP play is a sort of "Wild West" arena of generally imbalanced play. Some classes fare better, and then because the same sets are available players can exploit the lack of CPs to take advantage. This isn't their fault, and it's not the end of the world, but it seems overly complicated to expect the dev team to balance both non-CP and CP play in a game that's already really complex.

I'm inclined to say there should be both options with Battlegrounds...but then I consider the problems this causes and am inclined to say there should only be CP Battlegrounds. If ZOS is going to expend resources trying to balance two systems like this, I'd rather they create a divide between pve and pvp play, not seek to create CP and non-CP play.

Davey, question for you and absolutely no offense is meant by this, solely curious. How many BG games have you played or you can see your achievement for BGs won as well?

I ask this because I am curious on your sample size for the game as a whole with these opinions. I have played cyrodill for 2 years and have around 250 BG games under my belt roughly, and have to say, in my experience, NonCP BGs are the most balanced and competitive I've felt in the game. I only play magblade which is far from a "meta class" as well. Again, no disrespect, just curious.

Crom_CCCXVI

I like the status quo!

CP is garbage.

90% of the population is on the same version of a sheild stacking Sorc or some no death tank build that will take way more than 4 people to kill it.
How will you do team deathmatch when no one actually dies?

I have been playing in BG a lot, because of those reasons. - and now thats ruined too. LOL.
Time for me to get a new game I guess. sad.

Turelus

Alternative: CP queue | non-CP + under 50 queue

I think both styles of PvP have their place, but I would rather we have a choice in the matter (even if that means longer queues).

Gulkrim-mur

other...

Instead of seperate ques forced based on level. Make it choice to go in cp or non cp. Like a norm or vet dungeon. Judt because i am cp doesnt mean i want to que vet everytime.

MurderMostFoul

I like the status quo!

Crom_CCCXVI wrote: »

CP is garbage.

90% of the population is on the same version of a sheild stacking Sorc or some no death tank build that will take way more than 4 people to kill it.

This is the inevitable future if BGs are CP enabled. It's going to be a hell of a lot less fun to play unfortunately.

Lexxypwns

Alternative: CP queue | non-CP queue | under 50 queue

HEBREWHAMMERRR wrote: »

davey1107 wrote: »

I don't believe non-CP play functions well, for this reason. The dev team has attempted to balance the game (some successes, some failures.) They do so by adjusting abilities, gear and CPs. These all relate to one another.

For example, the damage done by the Viper's Sting set has been honed through extensive data mining from CP play. The recent change took into consideration the item's power with CPs invested into mighty and other passives, and took into consideration defensive CPs of the defender/victim. When you eliminate CPs, Viper's Sting is performing in an untested way, and whether that's good or bad is entirely random...this applies to every single ability and set.

Likewise, ability costs and regen are all established with CPs in mind, as well as resource-returning abilities and gear sets. Some classes rely on CPs for resource balance...others get it through class abilities. Classes that rely on CPs are disadvantaged in non-CP play...those who have built in regen via abilities are helped. Example...in non-CP play my two sorcs still get the same advantage from exchange. They're not hit very hard in resource sustain. Other classes that don't have good resource return abilities are hit harder...so they're more disadvantaged than my sorcs in non-CP play.

As a result, non-CP play is a sort of "Wild West" arena of generally imbalanced play. Some classes fare better, and then because the same sets are available players can exploit the lack of CPs to take advantage. This isn't their fault, and it's not the end of the world, but it seems overly complicated to expect the dev team to balance both non-CP and CP play in a game that's already really complex.

I'm inclined to say there should be both options with Battlegrounds...but then I consider the problems this causes and am inclined to say there should only be CP Battlegrounds. If ZOS is going to expend resources trying to balance two systems like this, I'd rather they create a divide between pve and pvp play, not seek to create CP and non-CP play.

Davey, question for you and absolutely no offense is meant by this, solely curious. How many BG games have you played or you can see your achievement for BGs won as well?

I ask this because I am curious on your sample size for the game as a whole with these opinions. I have played cyrodill for 2 years and have around 250 BG games under my belt roughly, and have to say, in my experience, NonCP BGs are the most balanced and competitive I've felt in the game. I only play magblade which is far from a "meta class" as well. Again, no disrespect, just curious.

Agreed, so much. Giving me and the people I like to play with our CPs is only going to add to the advantage you already feel bringing a pre-made into BGs. I can't tell you how many good matches I've had against players in the 200-300 CP range, now they'll just be a cake walk.

I think I ran like 15 BGs with @LokoMatic and a rotating cast of other players and we lost 2 of them, both of which were CTR matches where we just skirmished the whole time instead of playing the objective. Mageblade here too, I'm kinda scared how strong its going to perform with CPs enabled, I'll probably end up losing interest pretty quickly. At this point its already solo queue until pre-mades start forming then you better get your own pre-made or get stomped, add in the CP handicap and you can't just grab a couple people who are playing well without putting yourself at a disadvantage.

@davey1107 I'm curious what classes/specs you think perform relatively different in CP enabled environments vs non-CP environments. I don't know of any build that fares drastically better in one than the other, relative to how the other classes perform and I'm curious to know your basis for this particular claim.

LokoMatic

I like the status quo!

@Lexxypwns Agreed man. Once you start introducing pre-made groups, BG's get much more competitive. I couldn't imagine the types of groups one would run into with CP enabled. I am scared as well, I might have to switch from dps to support / debuff simply to thwart the tanky builds that we would frequently run into.

People need to realize that the Veteran PVP'ers will only perform better with CP enabled, and the skill gap would only increase even more. I found it very refreshing to see sub 660 CP players perform well in BG's, really putting an emphasis on the skill required to participate. With that being said, I have also seen many high ranking 660 CP's get demolished, because they aren't used to fighting outside of their fluffy zergs. This somehow gives the inclination that this magically wouldn't be the case if they had their CPs.

Lexxypwns

Alternative: CP queue | non-CP queue | under 50 queue

LokoMatic wrote: »

@Lexxypwns Agreed man. Once you start introducing pre-made groups, BG's get much more competitive. I couldn't imagine the types of groups one would run into with CP enabled. I am scared as well, I might have to switch from dps to support / debuff simply to thwart the tanky builds that we would frequently run into.

People need to realize that the Veteran PVP'ers will only perform better with CP enabled, and the skill gap would only increase even more. I found it very refreshing to see sub 660 CP players perform well in BG's, really putting an emphasis on the skill required to participate. With that being said, I have also seen many high ranking 660 CP's get demolished, because they aren't used to fighting outside of their fluffy zergs. This somehow gives the inclination that this magically wouldn't be the case if they had their CPs.

There's a few people on our server in the 200-300 CP range who are incredibly dangerous foes to deal with on live. With this change, players like Zerg Me Down become nothing more than a speed bump on the road to victory instead of a fun, interesting challenge to deal with from the other team. That really, really, makes me sad.

Furthermore, this actually makes BGs less accessible since you need to grind for months to compete. This is going to result in a lot of veteran players gearing out sub 50 toons repeatedly seeking the old non-CP battlegrounds. These veteran players are then going to diminish the value of having a sub-50 campaign as a way to face off against other new players since you will often times end up fighting veteran PVPers.

LokoMatic

I like the status quo!

It is so true. They just need to either add a CP enabled BG or just leave it as it is. BG's are literally the only thing keeping myself, among many others interested in ESO.

Olupajmibanan

other...

BG population isn't big enough to make split CP and non-CP queue.
But changing non-CP to CP what ZoS did, will not help anyhow. BG playerbase will be increased for like two weeks than it will be dead again until 2018 Q1.

Rather focus on increasing BG popularity first, by adding ranking system or tweaking current leaderboards. There isn't competition to keep players playing. Ranked brackets would help a lot.

bigelle.x3_ESO

As someone who isnt even close to max cp, this will probably end my battleground days. I like competitive pvp and i already play with a handicap with my gear and skill, or lack thereof. Now i have to go in there and play against people who have massively inflated damage, defense, and sustain stats. Nah. I'm not going to do that, and, quite frankly, i would rather play the new games coming out than attempt the monstrous grind for max cp just so i can be on an even footing in a competitive game mode.

Imagine one soccer team gets to play with cleats and shin guards one without. That'd probably be a bad game.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

I like the status quo!

bigelle.x3_ESO wrote: »

As someone who isnt even close to max cp, this will probably end my battleground days. I like competitive pvp and i already play with a handicap with my gear and skill, or lack thereof. Now i have to go in there and play against people who have massively inflated damage, defense, and sustain stats. Nah. I'm not going to do that, and, quite frankly, i would rather play the new games coming out than attempt the monstrous grind for max cp just so i can be on an even footing in a competitive game mode.

Imagine one soccer team gets to play with cleats and shin guards one without. That'd probably be a bad game.

Exactly. As someone with max CP I'm openly campaigning against this decision. It would turn off so many people and create such a terrible environment for people looking for a even playing field and competitive atmosphere. I hate seeing posts like this because I know there are a ton more players in the exact same boat. BGs in live are so much fun and as balanced as it's been in quite some time.

Riggsy

I like the status quo!

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

BG population isn't big enough to make split CP and non-CP queue.
But changing non-CP to CP what ZoS did, will not help anyhow. BG playerbase will be increased for like two weeks than it will be dead again until 2018 Q1.

Rather focus on increasing BG popularity first, by adding ranking system or tweaking current leaderboards. There isn't competition to keep players playing. Ranked brackets would help a lot.

I would like to see them do what WoW did and have BG seasons. With a leaderboard over the month(s) the season runs, and specialty gear obtained for gaining rank each season (along with titles you can earn for placing).

HEBREWHAMMERRR

I like the status quo!

Riggsy wrote: »

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

BG population isn't big enough to make split CP and non-CP queue.
But changing non-CP to CP what ZoS did, will not help anyhow. BG playerbase will be increased for like two weeks than it will be dead again until 2018 Q1.

Rather focus on increasing BG popularity first, by adding ranking system or tweaking current leaderboards. There isn't competition to keep players playing. Ranked brackets would help a lot.

I would like to see them do what WoW did and have BG seasons. With a leaderboard over the month(s) the season runs, and specialty gear obtained for gaining rank each season (along with titles you can earn for placing).

And a super fast special flying mount...ok enough with the pipe dreams