Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues

Araneae6537

I don’t hate Deathmatch but I like the other game modes more. It’s especially when you queue and get plopped into a match in progress as the single player on a third team against a full team busy decimated the other (I have no idea whether the second team was full or not). No fun nor hardly any medals to be had. I queued again solo but gave up waiting more than half an hour.

I would like to see something like:
Default queue option: Single-player, any mode
Team, Deathmatch
Team, any mode

Daggerlock

Don't leave Battlegrounds DM only. ITS BORING. Give us back the other modes and increase them if possible.

Thanks

Merforum

WHEN are they going to tell us when the ridiculous test is supposed to END?
How long does it take to figure out there are only 30 dudes playing over and over?

Why don't they;

Make Queue with 2 sets of check boxes for group/solo where you select 1 or both, and for deathmatch, (dom/crazy), (relic/chaos) where you can select 1, 2 or all 3 and get put into first match fitting criteria

Then bring back the SOLO only RANDOM Queue (no backfill) and add the 10 transmute geode to the rewards.

npuk

Daggerlock wrote: »

Don't leave Battlegrounds DM only. ITS BORING. Give us back the other modes and increase them if possible.

Thanks

Really enjoying the DM only, I find the others boring. Hopefully after this they make it so there is a choice of two queues random bg or dm, seems the most logical outcome.

Gamer1986PAN

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/546326/alternative-to-remove-search-for-specific-modes-in-battlegrounds#latest

Maybe this idea can help in any way.

alberichtano

Decimus wrote: »

A big problem with the existing game modes is that they actively discourage PvP.

Fighting for a flag is always going to be worse than going for an empty flag and avoiding PvP.

Why? Because the respawn times are too fast and people you killed will just move on to an empty flag on the other side of the map.

The 3-way format also efficiently kills the PvP element when it comes to objective games - while you are fighting for the objective in one of the Capture the Relic spawns (infinitely, because of the fast respawn times - you can wipe an entire team only to have a respawner interrupt you), the 3rd team will just walk to your empty relic and cap it. This is not "strategic" nor fun, and just discourages people from engaging in PvP


These game modes need a complete revamp, and this game still needs a 2v2/3v3 arena format with proper performance based leaderboard (i.e. not how much one plays but how well they play).

maybe that's the whole point. Maybe some of us prefer sneaking, using brains over brawns and actually use tactics to get the lead, rather than just the "leet" gamers getting the wins all the time.

You want to kill other player characters? Fine, go Deathmatch, go Imperial City or go Cyro. Or do duels. You have options.

alberichtano

Alendrin wrote: »

The problem with some of the modes is they encourage the players to avoid pvp. In a pvp zone. I like this change but would be happy if the other modes were redesigned to encourage pvp not encourage avoiding pvp in order to win.

No. That is not a problem, that is the point. Why bother with flags and relics if you can just win by killing everyone you see?

The other modes need cooperation tactics and thinking, while deathmatch is just whoever bashes the best and has the best gear. You may not like tactics, but many do. I for one loathe Deathmatch, because they are just not interesting. I know I will lose most fights, because my tactics or skills are irrelevant. Fastest trigger-fingers win.

alberichtano

Skoomah wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Coerfroid wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hello all!

...we’ve now seen an uptick in players choosing to treat any game mode as Deathmatch...

Am I the only one that feels reminded of the movie "Idiocracy"? So there is a number od players unable to grasp objectives and they are getting to decide how the game is to be played?
What will be next? Removing tank roles because " ...an uptick of players choosing to fake-tank..."?

Really, I do appreciate devs looking into the issue of queue times and decrease of interest, but I do think they are on the wrong road here.

How about a "ranked mode" that may be deathmatch-only for simplicities sake, with weekly/mothly ranking rewards and a "casual mode" for players that prefer tactical game-modes that employ teamplay and skill?

Coerfroid I don't think you understand...

Dm players could easily, and have, been able to win at any game mode.
We prefer to play games as dm because it requires the most pvp skill vs avoiding players and actual pvp combat. I'm a member of one, if not, the biggest bg guilds on pc na. It is full of very talented players who enjoy fighting against other players in complete pvp combat.

Acting like dm players are dumb is disingenuous and inaccurate.

And for what it is worth, most of us would be fine with group dm queue + solo random queue (with a slight increase in dm frequency vs the current likelihood of getting dm).

Let's see if I can figure out the logic of this.

"We can totally win all the "play the objective" games if we played the objectives but we choose not to play the objective because that's not what we want to do. But we would totally win if we did."

Okay.

Because when you don't play the objective, you lose.

I believe you. You would totally win if you played the objective. Most players who are good at killing are also good at doing the type of PVP that happens to succeed at BG objectives.

However, from my perspective, I'm afraid the only thing I can see is that your team lost, because you weren't playing the objective.

Do what makes you happy, I guess.

The underlying reason a lot of BG players ignore game mode objectives is because the game mode objectives are poorly designed because they actively encourage people to not fight each other to win the game.

I can’t tell you how many times I’m playing Domination and opponents run away from me when they see me running up to them to fight them at a flag.

Crazy King isn’t much different because it’s just Domination with moving flags. People run away from actually fighting you.

Capture the Relic is the same. People just pick up the relic and run away from you. They pop an immovable potion as they are grabbing the relic and run off.

Chaos Ball is slightly different. You get mega tanks that don’t actually fight and just hold the ball the entire match. Or you engage in fighting against another team and half the match is over as the Chaos ball holder is way on the other side of the map.

The common denominator here is that those game modes actively discourage fighting.

Deathmatch minded players are looking for a boxing match. The other game mode players are looking for track and field. It’s two completely different types of sports.

Well of course they run away from you! The point is to CAPTURE THE FLAG/RELIC, not to be killed by a leet gamer. Why would I, a really bad PvP-er, stay and fight when I have the objective in my hand, and need to deliver it to my home-point? That is like starting a siege in Cyro, but refusing to actually conquer the fort becuase then you'd have to stop fighting. It makes no sense.

alberichtano

Urvoth wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

"We've noticed the players have absolutely ruined Battlegrounds with their own behavior, so we're going to make that same behavior your only option. Have... fun?"

"We've noticed the majority of players don't want to run away from every fight to cap uncontested flags, so we implemented the gamemode that most people want."

I love that logic! Since most gamers want to play sorcs, we should remove all other classes. I mean, who in their right mind would want to sneak or tank or heal, right? (Sarcasm, if it had to be made clear)

alberichtano

gariondavey wrote: »

Lauranae wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Eevee_42 wrote: »

Can we stop pretending that objective gamers possess some tactical superiority over brainless deathmatch enjoyers already? While there are a small handful of players who truly enjoy the objective game modes, if we are telling it like it is, most people “enjoy” them because they’re easier to win, don’t require much pvp skill, and it’s less effort to earn your daily and move on. Running around and avoiding pvp while others are playing deathmatch is the reality of BGs right now. It isn’t that DM players don’t know how to play objectives, they’re simply poorly designed and discourage the reason many of us are there which is to engage in pvp.

If we are viewing these modes from a high MMR perspective, deathmatch takes the most strategic gameplay. There is a lot of nuance that goes into each and every choice you make in a high level deathmatch. Positioning, ability and ultimate timing, having a good healer, keeping up your buffs, your build, having good target priority, avoiding a 3rd party, potion timing, and so much more go into it. It’s disingenuous to act like deathmatch is a brain dead kill fest. There is no other game mode where team synergy is as important. There are tournaments centered around TDM because it is the most competitive game mode that requires the most skill and tactical ability by far.

While I don’t like the fact that we still can’t technically choose a game mode, I’m happy that the most competitive one is going to encourage people to actually learn how to pvp and have to earn their wins. Maybe you’ll realize along the way that you have more fun pvp’ing as a team rather than running around on some flags. Many of the best sets are base game or available in guild traders, so no excuse to blame your gear either. Put some effort into it and don’t just stroll into a BG in your pve gear expecting a win. Think about how long DM players have been stuck being forced into objective games 90% of the time over the past year. You could go days without seeing a deathmatch. I hope ZOS can build up a healthy pvp population to support all game modes eventually so we can all play what we enjoy at the end of the day. If the population is truly as small as people make it out to be, it makes sense to have the most popular game mode be the only option right now.

P.S. can we fix the broken dark convergence and hrothgar’s sets already? BGs will not be truly enjoyable until these are addressed.

Amen. Excellent post

Sorry but i totally disagree. I dont see where is the strategy during DM. The DM teams enter the match and what ? they dont have to think, they just have to kill. Me included. Talk about Chaos and Relic, then yes. Those match are fun because they have DM and objectif in the same match. DM could be transported to Cyro or IC you would not have any difference.

Sorry, but if you have come to that conclusion you are not playing with the best players. Dm in high mmr is extremely tactical. Your positioning, CDs, build, reflexes, everything...is of critical importance. One misstep and you will be extremely punished/die.
Try playing against jinxx, arkannax, magio, timber, petrushka, akean, shoddy, constine, miracle, icaliban, skoomah, inculta, venerus, stealthful, bambloo, ahadi, titan, sujin, infernosa, etc in a dm game and you will understand what I mean.

But that is just the point! No, we are NOT playing with the best players, we are often playing AGAINST them, and their premade teams. And because we can't win against them, because sure, I can get the meta sets, chose the best skills, but I will never be as fast with my reflexess or as automatic as they are with the clicking - then where exactly is the fun? What, am I supposed to enjoy being a chicken in a cage with you being the foxes eating me over and over for fifteen minutes?

That is the whole point of the other modes - I can't defeat you, but sometimes I can outsmart you. And no, I am not saying that you are less intelligent then me, but if you are after kills, and I am after the objectives, I can find ways that might get me around your hunting.

alberichtano

VaranisArano wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Sorry, draft quote.

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

I haven't been playing much lately, but this pretty much guarantees I won't be back any time soon.

As others have said: You're basically rewarding the petulant children for throwing tantrums (i.e. treating objective modes as deathmatch and ruining them for everyone else).

Also, the main reason avoiding combat is a winning strategy in objective modes is because the childish deathmatchers aren't playing the objectives. If they actually captured and held objectives instead of spawn camping or gathering in the middle of the map, they might actually win.

Strange how much toxicity there is here by players who are against this change toward players who prefer Deathmatch.

Not surprising at all, when you consider that ZOS effectively said they are making the change because "we’ve now seen an uptick in players choosing to treat any game mode as Deathmatch."

I'd guess that nearly every regular BG player has dealt with the players who treat any game mode as a Deathmatch, when it's not. We've won games because someone on the other team decided to not play the objectives and go for kills instead. We've lost games when someone on our team decided to ignore the objectives and go for kills instead.

Now, folks can justify that however they like. Deathmatch is "real" PVP! Yay! Playing the objective is avoiding PVP! Boo!

But what it comes down to is that teammates who treat objective-based modes like a Deathmatch are frequently a detriment to the team's chances of winning. Why on earth wouldn't you expect that to create resentment from your teammates who are playing the mode properly?


If you prefer Deathmatch, but you played the objective modes properly, then I don't think folks are complaining about you.

If you prefer deathmatch and played objective modes like it was deathmatch, and thus were a detriment to your team's chances of victory...yeah, folks don't like that behavior. It's not toxic to tell you so.


(As an aside, I am strongly reminded of the PVE debate over Fake Tanks and Fake Healers, and how defensive some people are over their right to queue as a role they do not intend to fulfill even when it's been explained that by doing so, they place a greater burden on their random teammates.)

The reality is, the folks who prefer death match have had to deal with months of being able to play their preferred game mode 20% of the time at best. (And based on some data gathered by a few players, perhaps it has somehow worked out to significantly less than 20%). ZOS is throwing death match players of bone, and letting them play their preferred mode for awhile. Short of a complete rework of the queue system, I think this is a fair, quick, and temporary solution for a significant portion of the battlegrounds population that has been seriously underserved for an extended period of time.

I don't even mind that ZOS is temporarily trying Deathmatch-only, so long as they acknowledge the achievements and style pages they are putting "on hold" for the time being. Battlegrounds has struggled for population really since launch (for a lot of reasons) and this is far from the first test ZOS has done to try to revive it. By all means, ZOS should test this idea.


But I'm not surprised by the criticism I see here. Not when ZOS acknowledged that a fair portion of why they are doing it is because a certain segment of Deathmatch fans would rather kill than focus on the objectives, even when it makes for a worse experience for their team as a whole.

Now their teammates are doubly losing to those folks: first by having to put up with an uptick in teammates who were refusing to play the objectives, and now by losing their ability to play objective modes at all.

That can't feel good. So no, I'm not surprised to see some backlash to ZOS deciding that because some players chose to treat every game like it was Deathmatch, the correct answer is to make every game a Deathmatch.


Again, there's nothing wrong with preferring Deathmatch. If you were a player who prefers Deathmatch but played the objective modes as designed, I don't think people are complaining about those players.

Utterly agree!

alberichtano

jaws343 wrote: »

WolfStar07 wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

It's fairly easy to see what this test is intending to do.

Zos is seeing that a lot of players are ignoring objectives and playing DM in every mode. Which leads to the hypothesis that more players want DM than they want the objective modes. So they are removing all objective modes to determine if the player loss with the removal of the modes is significant.

So likely, this test provides one of three scenarios:

1) A small amount of players stop playing the game mode, but nothing significant for concern.
This would likely lead them to just permantently removing the objective modes because the effort to improve them or maintain them just wouldn't be worth it.

2) An increase in players, due to players returning to play DM who disliked the frequency of objective modes, or objective modes altogether.
Likely would result in the same as 1.

3) A substantial decrease in player count.
This would likely lead them to adding back in the game modes but adjusting the queues in some way to provide non objective players a better avenue than a 20% chance at getting the only game mode they want.

Unfortunately, it cannot take into account the people who were already turned away by players treating every game like DM. That is valid data as well.

Is it though?

In each gamemode:

Relic: Players Deathmatching this mode would have to do it either at an enemy relic, at their own relic, or in between relics. So technically, they are playing the game mode by defending their relic, preventing another team from getting to their relic, or preventing another team from taking an opponents relic. They just aren't capturing relics themselves. But neither is that 50K health tank sitting on the relic for 15 minutes preventing everyone from taking it.

Chaos Ball: The objective is to kill other players. So DM players DMing here is the point. The problem with this mode, imo, is that it is horribly balanced in favor of unkillable builds, and one team will often hold for the entire match with almost no chance of actually getting the ball from them.

Domination/Crazy king: If DM players are fighting on flags, they are doing the game mode properly, or at least they are preventing teams from taking those flags with no resistance, as well as tying up a team in a fight, preventing them from capturing flags. Which is also kind of the point.

So players who left the game modes because other players were going for kills speaks volumes already. These are pvp zones and the intention is that things are contested and players kill each other. That isn't for everyone, and that is fine.

As someone pointed out, PvP isn't "kill all foes", it is "winning the objectives". Heck, same in Cyro or IC - you can kill every enemy player five times over and STILL lose, if you just go around killing for the sake of killing, while the enemy takes your scrolls, forts and districts.

It is just like sports - in football, the point isn't to have the ball the most, or tackle the other teams players the most, but to finish the objective - to have more goals than the other team.

Peter_emrys

I do NOT like this! The main reason I don't do battlegrounds is because everyone treats it like DM no matter what, and so the strategy and objectives of the other modes are completely ignored and as someone who is not a PVP god, I had nothing I could contribute. I was planning to do some battlegrounds this week because I am farming for the Alessia statue and it is one of the weekly endeavors so I figured turnaround will be quicker, but because of DM only, i have 0 chance of getting anything but last place and so I have no chance of getting the lead.

alberichtano

auz wrote: »

BalticBlues wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

People still trying to convince PvP players that capture the flag takes strategy... please stop.

1. You are confusing "strategy" with "tactics".
2. If you do not know how to use tactics in BGs... please stop.
3. "Deathmath only" means BGs will become "Boring only" to many people

I am not convinced running faster than everyone else is a valid "tactic" for a battle ground. Unfortunately, as it stands, it is a very effective. The problem is and has never been with objective players. It is that the objective sucks. It doesn't encourage conflict. It encourages running from a fight to find an uncontested flag. That should not be battlegrounds pvp. If zos were to bring in a new mode of non combative pvp where the goal was to race around and grab flags, I would be happy for the non combatitive objective players. They can call it sonic at the Olympics or something clever. Also if you would like to complete many and varied objectives with little to no resistance, there is always questing.

...but killing everyone you see is a valid "tactic"?

This is very simple - not all battlegrounds are killing matches. It isn't a hard concept to fathom, I think. There is already a Deathmatch, and you can duel if that is your thing. Some of us want more than just fighting when challenging other players.

alberichtano

SimonThesis wrote: »

Griefclaw wrote: »

We can't add any more PvP content as the population is already spread too thin across Bgs, Imp city and Cyrodiil, so upgrading and revamping BG's in a way like this seems like a logical step to me.

No new content for years is one of the reasons the Pvp community is so small. How would Pvers feel if there wasnt a new dungeon, trial, or arena for years.

Honestly? Relieved.

alberichtano

Aldoss wrote: »

ITT: self-proclaimed PvEers stating that they hate this change because they're bad at PvP, have no interest in trying to get better at PvP, but were still rewarded as if they were better at PvP...

When new changes come out to PvE sets, encounters, or skills that are changed in the PvE environment, I keep my opinions to myself because I know I don't really identify as someone who PvEs. I do a decent amount of it and I'll be happy when the stars align and I finally get unchained, but my knowledge on the subject is vastly lower than others.

You know what happens when 3 of the 4 players in a random vet are bad at PvE? The group disbands and they "lose". There are no mechs that can get a poor dps team past the 2nd boss of vMGF. There are no amount of sigils that will get you past vet Vateshran if you suck at target management. The strategy is to "get better" (if you care to complete it).

Why must that not be the case in a PvP environment? Why have modes that cater at all to people who specifically have stated that they have no intention of progressing their skill with this play style?

I think you misinterpret a bit here. There are many who like or at least enjoy an occasional BG, just not Deathmatch. Myself being one of those. In the objective variants, even a sucky PvP-er has a chance to win with a good team. In pure combat, not a chance. So why would PvE-ers and non-leet PvP-ers enjoy Deathmatches if all they do is die?

alberichtano

auz wrote: »

1. No, you don't treat it like vet pve. There is a difference. Pvpers have heaps of builds and sets and are constantly doing everything they can go get an edge.

And PvE-ers don't?? You haven't joined any real raid groups I take it?

alberichtano

VaranisArano wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

PVP was not an addition to the original ESO. Consider that all achievents and titles which require you to complete ALL of the base game include the requirement that you go to PvPvE Cyrodiil. Master Angler, Tamriel Skyshard Hunter, Savior of Nirn, Explorer, and Tamriel Hero...all require you to play the entire base game of which Cyrodiil is an integral part, not some slapped on addition.

I don't understand the PVE players who try to treat PVP as though it's an addition to ESO - as if it's some optional extra that they should be able to avoid and still get all the rewards or worse, that it should be removed entirely.

So of course you have to PVP in Cyrodiil, and later got the options for IC and Battlegrounds, for the skill lines and other rewards that ZOS stuck in those zones. (And yes, of course you have to PVE to get the rewards in PVE zones.)

This is a game that was built to feature both PVE and PVP, and is currently designed for an audience of both types of players. It's not a singleplayer PVE-only game, and it certainly wasn't and never has been designed to be PVE-only.

It was never designed to be PVE only, but it is certainly PVE first and foremost.

PVP is not the focus of this game, nor has it ever been.

Just because PVP was in the game from the beginning doesn't mean it's a PVP game.

Call Of Duty has a single-player campaign as well, but that is a PVP centric IP.

ESO is not that and it never has been.

ESO is not a PVP-only game. Neither is it a PVE-only game. So please, don't call PVP an addition to the game design, when it was not.


Finally, the whole "PVPers have to PVE to get stuff they want" usually comes up as a reply to the whole complaint that "PVEers have to PVP for certain stuff they want."

Which, logically, duh. ESO features both PVE and PVP, so of course if we want all the stuff, we have to play both PVP and PVE.

Where this takes a turn is that it's the PVE-only players advocating that they shouldn't ever have to PVP for the rewards in PVP. We see this with every single reward that ZOS puts behind a PVP requirement. Thus the PVPer response - a tongue-in-cheek reply that "You have to PVP for the PVP rewards? Well, we have to PVE for all the PVE rewards. If it's unfair for you, then it's unfair for us. Alternatively, quit complaining and do the content if you want the rewards. You know, like we do."

The vast majority of PVP players are fine doing both forms of content. It may not be how they prefer to spend their playtime, but they are plenty capable of it. I know an awful lot of PVPers who run trials, have Master Crafters, or run around with time-intensive PVE titles. *waves while wearing Master Angler* In my experience, it's the PVE-only players who gripe about being "forced" to do PVP and who expend the most effort to avoid PVP.


And so when you say you don't understand why PVPers say that, when you think they should logically expect to play PVE in a game you see as PVE-centric...then I'd encourage you to look at the whole conversation. Because when I see it said, it's almost always in response to PVE players complaining that they are expected to PVP to get the rewards they want from PVP zones.

I think both arguments are silly, because ESO was clearly designed to include both PVP and PVE from the beginning. Logically, PVE-only players should expect to play PVP if they want ALL the rewards from ESO which features both PVP and PVE. And PVP players should do the same with PVE content. If you want ALL the rewards, you have to do ALL the content.

There is huge difference though. When you "have to" PvE, you are not roosterblocked by other PvE-ers. You are not teabagged when you die fighting an overland boss. You are not being hindered to finish a quest or dungeon by other PvE-ers. More often than not, you are probably helped by others, with or without having asked. The same leniance is rarely given in PvP. Repeated ganking, PvP-ers holding and guarding quest objectives (for PvE quests in PvP-areas), even camping - against players that wouldn't have stood a chance even in an honest fight. And to add insult to injury, the teabagging.

alberichtano

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

PVP was not an addition to the original ESO. Consider that all achievents and titles which require you to complete ALL of the base game include the requirement that you go to PvPvE Cyrodiil. Master Angler, Tamriel Skyshard Hunter, Savior of Nirn, Explorer, and Tamriel Hero...all require you to play the entire base game of which Cyrodiil is an integral part, not some slapped on addition.

I don't understand the PVE players who try to treat PVP as though it's an addition to ESO - as if it's some optional extra that they should be able to avoid and still get all the rewards or worse, that it should be removed entirely.

So of course you have to PVP in Cyrodiil, and later got the options for IC and Battlegrounds, for the skill lines and other rewards that ZOS stuck in those zones. (And yes, of course you have to PVE to get the rewards in PVE zones.)

This is a game that was built to feature both PVE and PVP, and is currently designed for an audience of both types of players. It's not a singleplayer PVE-only game, and it certainly wasn't and never has been designed to be PVE-only.

It was never designed to be PVE only, but it is certainly PVE first and foremost.

PVP is not the focus of this game, nor has it ever been.

Just because PVP was in the game from the beginning doesn't mean it's a PVP game.

Call Of Duty has a single-player campaign as well, but that is a PVP centric IP.

ESO is not that and it never has been.

Uh, the Alliance War was the primary/only endgame activity at launch, and even the PvE story revolved around it. If that didn't make the game PvP centric (at the time), I don't know what would.

That is a nonsensical argument though, as you could easily turn it on itself - the whole PvP revolves around the PvE stories, so it makes the game PvE-centric.

alberichtano

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

I've seen 500+ hours of ESO vids including lots of PVP. I've seen dudes run around rocks and trees and towers for hours and people call them great players, yet someone who stays alive while winning an objective game is somehow doing PVP wrong. And check out the red team, who are obviously getting killed a lot by losing green team, so what exactly is the point of this pic.

It illustrates the problem with BG objective of modes: they de-emphasize PvP combat.

People who prefer DM prefer BGs where succeeding in PvP combat is essential to victory.

So play DMs then! Now you can! The rest of us, however, can't play the BGs that WE like.

Because, again, it is not fun for me to be a dummy for far better PvP-ers. The objective types of BG give me the chance to actually win through wits.

alberichtano

Raijindono wrote: »

I'm probably not going say much that hasn't already been said. I rarely chime in on threads like this, but I feel especially affected by this change.

I look at this Deathmatch-only update as completely against ESO's brand ethos which has always been "play how you want with a variety of options at your disposal." Changes to the game for ALL activities: PvE, PvP, Housing, RP, etc. has always been in the spirit of variety of options. Removing the other game modes does not seem to be the right solution. However, I also understand the need for this to be a data-driven decision. So science away!

I'm looking at this from a UX perspective. Here's my user story:

I love my main character so much. I enjoy the challenge of PvE trifectas (speed, HM, no-death) in dungeons and trials. I practice my rotation and get the best gear to be able to attain those trifecta titles. I'm also a huge achievement hunter. Anyone who knows me in this game, knows that I call them "acheesements" and will work hard to attain them. I also enjoy PvP. I've played in Cyrodiil in both veins as a solo and group player. I see the advantages of play from both sides and can enjoy either. I love queuing for BGs in all of the game modes. I've played as a DPS and lately as a healer. I've gotten one-shot from super skilled players and I've done the same. It's all in good fun in my opinion. I also am a collector. I like to get all of the furnishing recipes and motif pages because it's nice to be able to craft whatever I need. I'm probably one of the diverse players.

With BGs you have the following users that I've seen:

1. The solo PvPer: These are the solo players who build to glass canon and will practically one-shot you from stealth. They sometimes queue together, but typically they're stealthy, solo players.
2. The group-play PvPer: These are the people who optimize their group similar to how PvEers optimize their raid team. They're hard to beat and they have the advantage of being in comms to make calls to focus players.
3. The casual PvPer: They come and go in game and play PvP maybe with friends. They care about the sport of the game, but maybe not as hardcore as others.
4. The achievement hunters: They might love PvP; they might not. They do love seeing progress bars filled and as soon as you have an area of the game where points can be gained, these players will be there.
5. The collectors: Similar to the achievement hunters and may be the same people. There are motif pages to be gained, they will do that activity to attain them.
6. The PvEer: PvEers can benefit from PvP because of the dynamic nature of fighting a player vs fighting bosses. There's tactics of roll-dodging and being quick to react. These skills can be helpful in PvE when reacting to mechanics. It's also nice to take a break from PvE content and queue for BGs.

When the queue was made solo-only, that hurt all of the users because they couldn't queue with friends or group up for those sweaty matches. Undoing this change was the right approach.

When the queue was changed to random-only, that especially hurt the group-play PvPers because they're in it for the small scale PvP that you can't really get in Cyro. They found ways to subvert this system by pretending the other game matches were Deathmatch. This hurt the achievement hunters because they had to wait to get the right match in order to make progress towards the achievement. Some players would drop group immediately if they didn't get the right game mode which leaves a gap in that team. This also might be true for the collectors.

Now for this change, you're hurting everyone but the group PvPers. What if you made a Deathmatch bracket/leaderboard for teams? That would encourage the group-play and add a bit more competition/recognition for those folks. Then have the solo queue for all of the other options including Deathmatch. I think that would appease all users and be more aligned to the ESO brand.

It is easy to forget WHY the queu was made solo-mode only: because PvP teams made mince meat of less organised teams or groups of solo players. It wasn't a game, it was a slaughter. Now I am not saying that they did the right thing, but ZOS had to try SOMEthing to stop the bleed (literally and figuratively) from the BGs. People, understandably, lost interest in going in to just die and die and die again.

alberichtano

Peter_emrys wrote: »

I do NOT like this! The main reason I don't do battlegrounds is because everyone treats it like DM no matter what, and so the strategy and objectives of the other modes are completely ignored and as someone who is not a PVP god, I had nothing I could contribute. I was planning to do some battlegrounds this week because I am farming for the Alessia statue and it is one of the weekly endeavors so I figured turnaround will be quicker, but because of DM only, i have 0 chance of getting anything but last place and so I have no chance of getting the lead.

This is something that has been rubbing me the wrong way too - so there is now only DM in BG, and ZOS means to use this to evaluate its popularity - at the same time they make a weekly endevour to do five battlegrounds, that is, deathmatches. This alters the numbers a bit, I would think, from what it would have been without this specific endevour.

CrashTest

I like the flag objective modes best, so I guess I won't be playing BGs anymore.

Bleakraven

UGh... Deathmatch is my least favourite mode. The other modes allow some strategy and planning, at least for my preferred play method.
I really hope there can be a separate queue for non-DM games.

MurderMostFoul

alberichtano wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

I've seen 500+ hours of ESO vids including lots of PVP. I've seen dudes run around rocks and trees and towers for hours and people call them great players, yet someone who stays alive while winning an objective game is somehow doing PVP wrong. And check out the red team, who are obviously getting killed a lot by losing green team, so what exactly is the point of this pic.

It illustrates the problem with BG objective of modes: they de-emphasize PvP combat.

People who prefer DM prefer BGs where succeeding in PvP combat is essential to victory.

So play DMs then! Now you can! The rest of us, however, can't play the BGs that WE like.

Because, again, it is not fun for me to be a dummy for far better PvP-ers. The objective types of BG give me the chance to actually win through wits.

Obviously the preferred solution is to allow everyone to select the game modes they want, but the population probably wouldn't support that, or at least certain game modes would have a very hard time finding matches.

However, when matchmaking randomized the modes, players who preferred death match couldn't just play death match. The vast majority of the time they were forced into modes they did not enjoy. So now, temporarily, those players (a significant portion of the battleground's population) are being treated to an opportunity to play the mode they like. After such a long time of suffering through playing modes that de-emphasize combat, it's very refreshing to be able to repeatedly play modes that require a display of combat skill in order to succeed.

Again, not the ideal solution, but it is temporary, and it is serving a significant portion of the battlegrounds population that has been underserved for an extended period of time. Thus, I don't feel like this test is a terrible thing.

divnyi

I hate this test because now I play BGs all the evening to the late night every day, and sitting sleepy at work. Pls end this.

nightstrike

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

So now, temporarily, those players (a significant portion of the battleground's population)

I would wager that you have no data to indicate how many people are in this sub group, and thus "significant portion" is simply a reflection of how you yourself prefer to play.

MurderMostFoul

nightstrike wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

So now, temporarily, those players (a significant portion of the battleground's population)

I would wager that you have no data to indicate how many people are in this sub group, and thus "significant portion" is simply a reflection of how you yourself prefer to play.

Literally the beginning of this thread:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

Also, it was easily observed that when game mode and random mode selection was available, deathmatch was the most frequent result when selecting random, indicating that players were selecting death match most frequently, and players who were selecting random were filling those games. And during that time, the leaderboards for death match always had the highest total scores, indicating a higher volume of play in that game mode.

Lauranae

So i posted already into this long thread, but i felt i was probably not understanding well the view of the pvpers loving deathmatch.
So i decided to test by myself, and i did it. I started not ranked, and finished rank 10 in scoreboard Bg deathmatchs. And the highest score i did for a match, was 5727 ---16 4 18 and i can say that i did won the match!
I started at lv 26, finished lv 45, as i wanted to see how new players wanting to do bg could enjoy or not.

First, i met only 1 bad apple, cursing at us, and insulting us during all those hours. So good point, at it seems more pleasant now to do those. I even laughed and died because of it.

Secondly, as i said it already on the forums, i am a gran'ma very near to 70, with a bad health, and who need to avoid any stress. So i really did my best today to try to understant you all. ---English is not my first langage so please be nice--


At low level, what was discouraging, was to face higher levels, with gold armor, fully skilled, and mainly tanky mode.
I met a lot of new players, and we were facing premade. And it was really but really hard and stressing.

So i tried to do the SOLO version but after 2 hours, no pop queue, so i decided to go back to the group one.
Of course with leveling and the sort of build i tried to manage, i could kill some of you, even one time i jumped over a dead body because the player did not realise that he/she made me feel harassed having you on my back during the whole match. But its pvp, and i immediatly stopped and acted nicely as a gran'ma must do (happily i could yell and swear at leasure at home).
i had to stop 2 times to use what i called my breather (the apparel that helps me breath) because it was really hard on me. And then after some hours, i did managed to do some nice score and having fun. But there was no stragegy there. Even with the premade facing us, they were just rushing killing and the match was done in 4 mn.

What i dont like is when you camp below our base. So i said : ok they camp our base below, i will shout them from above. And that was quite fun to kill but i felt it was not fair.

One time, the two teams that were at 0 stopped and did wait the timer to go. It was so ridiculous to do go down and die as soon as we were on the ground.

Beside that, i can understand that if you are a premade and face 2 other premade it must be challenging and rewarding for any team. But for us, common pvpers, its a pity. If i did not need the stones, i would never enter again the deatchmatch only.

ZOS could perhaps do a solo version with a little less reward but still rewarding (who knows commons pvpers can become one day part of premade) but they need before to make their teeth on the solo mode to appreciate. (i mean same as now but with only solo player joining the teams, and no premade at all)

To finish, if this stay like this, i will not go back into BG. And i will be sad because that was something that was giving me a different playtime. But as it is now, no way. You probably would have after some times to go to my funeral LOL LOL

divnyi

@Lauranae I'd say they didn't need to change soloQ to be deathmatch, and they needed to put soloQ as first choice.

Idk how you managed to solo vs groupQ at low levels. The difference in powerlevel is even more apparent than solo vs groups at cp160+. For <50 lvl queue, it's solo or nothing. If I need to wait 15m, then so be it.