Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues

divnyi

Players that liked BGs were playing before DM test and treated every game like if it was DM.
Players continued doing this during DM test.
No population change (because why would it change?).
BG minority outcried on forums while the rest of us was playing the BGs and enjoing it.

If this test was supposed to give you any data, you failed miserably.

Arunei

jaws343 wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

So...ZOS was willing to do a DM-only test, but aren't willing to try an Objective-only test? They aren't willing to try splitting the queue and see if it makes queue times as long as they fear? They'd said before that when BGs were DM-only the BG population dropped to unhealthily low numbers. Wouldn't that mean that perhaps most people doing BGs actually do prefer Objective? Wouldn't it be worth it to test?

This just feels like such a copout, and I don't even play BGs. It's like ZOS got tired of testing and decided "eff it we're done lel". Like...this is so half-arsed man. If you're going to do testing at least so the next two logical tests too and get an actual array of data.

Also, a question for people who just want to DM: why not just go into Cyrodiil if you want fights? Dragging down your teammates in Objection BGs seems incredibly selfish.

I don't know if you've been to Cyrodiil in the past 7 years, but the word on the street is that it's pretty damn laggy 20/24 hours...

Also, some people prefer a balanced, fast-paced team vs team fight over getting 20v1'd by a ball group and/or riding 30 minutes to find some poor quester to fight.

I usually only go into Cryo during Midyear, and for some reason the servers always seem to magically fix themselves for that event before crapping out again, but I can tell from people who PvP often that it's no good there most of the time performance-wise.

As to the other part of your answer, I don't do BGs but I used to, and judging from past experiences and what people mention here forums...BGs are hardly balanced, especially since MMR seems wonky. And BGs aren't just about strictly team fights (and by that I mean they aren't all DM-focused), but as someone else mentioned...playing the Objectives will get you fights, as you have to fight other players to take relics or get the Chaos Ball or whatever.

Potentially making your team lose an Objective-based BG because you wanted to kill everyone else rather than contribute to a team-oriented goal still strikes me as rude and selfish. And I use 'you' here in a general sense. If you want team-based combat, being off on some random part of the map farming kills and ignoring your team...isn't team-based combat.

This is a huge reason why they need to at least TEST if splitting the Random and DM queues would be as bad as they think it will be. In the end people will just stop playing when we go back to players treating every game like DM. It's what led to the testing and stuff to begin with. What was even the point of testing if they weren't going to try every available test to see what actually does and doesn't work? It just doesn't make any sense and reeks of "We're tired of trying the players can just deal with the original problem".

Counterpoint, if I am off killing my opponents I am in effect preventing them from completing objectives.

Not really? Spawn camping and focusing on people who aren't actively opposing your teammates means the threats to them aren't being dealt with, and thus your team can still lose because you weren't actively contributing to dealing with the immediate threats. Instead you might have been clear across the map fighting one or two other people and leaving your team to try and win an objective with, in a way, less than a full team.

And again I say 'you' in a general sense, not trying to say you specifically do this. Also, in regards to people claiming now they don't mind queue times but then likely complaining about them; no one will know if ZOS won't even bother to do the full gauntlet of testing and at least TRY splitting the queue/running an Objective-only test for a few months. But they apparently aren't willing to do that for some reason, which just makes the tests they have done pointless. Nothing has been changed, nothing had been accomplished other than driving a lot of people who enjoyed BGs from them.

Maybe the queue times really will be increased a lot if they split the queue. Maybe the BG population will fall off to unhealthy numbers of they do Objective-only. But they won't know for sure if they don't test, they won't have full data for proper comparison if they don't bother to get that full data.

mazeru

Disappointed, but not surprised.

Though this said (and here apologies, but the bad apples among your bunch have absolutely exhausted any last bit of patience and good faith I ever had), to every single DM crackhead swearing to camp objective players in random matches: hope you chew on a cactus. You guys are literally the reason a lot of the population that preferred objective-based BGs left BGs entirely, but it doesn't seem like you even realise it. Hell, you seem more than glad enough to go right back to this behaviour and just make it hell for everyone else yet again. Yes, ZOS created the ground for this disaster, but it's you guys being the way you are and putting your own damn need for proving your in-game girth above everyone else's is ultimately what led to the disaster we have on our hands now. You have chased away players who did not want every game to be treated like a Death Match, led to this failure of a biased test, and in result chased away what was left of people still queueing for Random in hopes that maybe, just maybe, they won't end up with a few bad apples in the match running off to butcher everything that moves just-because.

And all of that over some players crying over having to fight against premades - something that I have, ironically, found far easier to deal with in every mode but Death Match. DM is where having to go solo against premade teams was a really painful experience, precisely because that mode encourages a Team VS Team play. So every premade was optimised towards that dungeon-style, making it night impossible for people who queued solo or in pairs to compete, because they'd just get steamrolled (that did apply partially to Chaosball as well, but I found it far more easy to mitigate).

(Except then wonderful, wonderful sets like Crimson Twilight and Dark Convergence were introduced, and the cheesefest has reached a whole new level... which reminds me the period of time where proc sets were disabled in Cyro. That was the best time in Cyro I've ever had, too bad that, too, went away...)

Not gonna lie, I am glad that, at the very least, I will finally be able to play something that is not a bloody Death Match ten times per day in hopes for a miracle of getting any of the modes that I actually enjoy.

But at the same time, this decision is going to be a big loss to the community. No issues will be fixed, and rather, it seems like they're just going to be amplified. You have already diminished the PVP population purely by conducting the tests the way you did, and that's going to be a damage to the virility of the queues you are not going to be able to patch up easily. Not with this half-baked of a course of action.

I honestly agree with most people here (the ones that can think for a moment about something other than stabbing everything that moves, that is). You should have split the queues, at least partially, into DM-only and Randoms (either with or without DM in the mix, but not as a single queue with the DM-only crowd thrown in). Would the queues take a hit? Sure, maybe. But with how long they are now because of so many people leaving BGs entirely over the changes you guys have introduced, I don't think it's going to be that noticeable. As someone noted earlier in the topic, a good middle ground would have been a three-queue solution along the lines of

• Random Objective only (both solo and group in one queue)
• Death Match only (solo)
• Death Match only (group)

That way waiting times for Objective should hopefully be reduced since both solo players and parties would be combined in that one, and the DM crowd, since your tests basically turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy of them being the majority, could have their two queues, which should hopefully be quick enough to fill in.

Too bad we're likely never going to actually see a solution like this, nor even have the chance to test if it would work any better than the disaster of a test we've had served here.

As one quick aside though, to all the people thinking the reason no further tests will be conducted simply because ZOS doesn't care, just a small insight from someone who's day job is literally video game testing: this is, more often than not, not up to the devs nor the team designing the tests. Of course this might be different for this team in particular, but in my experience with different projects, you'll usually get a project set up with a firm deadline in place. You have to do what you can within that timeframe, and if you don't manage to go through all the variables you wanted to? Well, tough luck, gotta live with knowing you'll likely never finish that test case. This said, I do think the tests in this case were poorly-designed and/or poorly executed, but it's not always obvious right off the bat, and once the biases and faults in the testing come to light, it's often too late to change course and implement additional tests. So you salvage what you can and try to make do with what you have. It sucks, but at the end of the day, that's how it tends to be. Granted, this doesn't exclude the possibility that ZOS just doesn't give a damn, but that's more likely the case for the big heads of the company - and not so much the dev and/or test team. Just a sad reality of how processes like that tend to go. And trust me, for those of them who do care, seeing this bad of a result can be just as painful as it is for the players it's gonna affect in the end. But eh. C'est la vie, and all that.

Necrotech_Master

divnyi wrote: »

Players that liked BGs were playing before DM test and treated every game like if it was DM.
Players continued doing this during DM test.
No population change (because why would it change?).
BG minority outcried on forums while the rest of us was playing the BGs and enjoing it.

If this test was supposed to give you any data, you failed miserably.

this is kind of my thoughts on the whole "test"

people playing BGs who liked BGs for the combat had little skin in the matter

and making 2 biased tests that didnt really give any kind of meaningful results to anyone

(the results were zos saw unhealthy queues and are reverting queues on next major update, and players on both sides of the DM vs OBJ mode argument are very frustrated/annoyed at said tests (OBJ mode players during the tests, DM mode players for the poor solution after the tests))

karekiz

No change in population sounds to me like this:

BG is a minority. Each change to boost popularity has thus failed to boost popularity.

If 10 people come to your store. You have numerous sales to boost customers and the same 10 people come to your store. The issue might be the store.

wildbear247

REMOVING SOLO DM ONLY QUEUE, WHAT THE!!??

*sigh* dang, that queue was the most fun I've had in ESO PvP for a long time. I used to really like Cyrodiil PvP, but it's become so laggy that I hate going in there and rolling the dice to see what the Lag Gods have in store for me...plus unbalanced alliance populations can really undermine the fun too.

Please ZOS, talk this through with your PvPers. Until Cryodiil is fixed, give us a mode where we can enjoy lag free PvP. Solo queue DM was that, but other options can be explored. How about an instanced castle siege mode with 30v30 and a 30 min timer to take the flags? Doesn't have to be that, could be anything, the important thing is to talk with the players do some brainstorming on ideas.

I'll give the objective BGs a shot when they return, but honestly I really don't consider objective BGs a good replacement for Cyrodiil PvP.

NotaDaedraWorshipper

Aldoss wrote: »

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

What kind of dumb reasoning is it behind people who says that objective modes is not PvP and only deathmatch is PvP?

Are we not killing eachother in Chaosball? Yes, we are, we must to get and keep the ball. Are we not killing eachother when trying to capture and defend relics/flags? Hmm, yes, pretty sure we fight there to. It's all proper PvP.
Capturing flags/areas is even a very common mode in pure player versus player games.

Please do not rehash this topic.

This argument is like telling a devout follower of another faith, "We both believe in God, so just leave your religion and join mine. Why is that so hard?"

We've been there. It goes nowhere. ZOS has created an environment that fostered and bolstered the development of these two separate and contradictory lines of belief. Literally the least they can do now is to let them both exist within their own bubbles, queue times be damned.

That's a horrible comparison. What I commented about is people who do DMs more say "Your god isn't truly a god! They don't exist, only ours is the true god."

It's all pvp in some form. At least it was pvp to me when I could actually do those other modes.
I prefer going back to this older version so I can get all modes, than only having DM.

The best would be to have DM queue and other modes queue - without DM. Still wonder why they didn't do it like that.

Aldoss

NotaDaedraWorshipper wrote: »

It's all pvp in some form.

Your concept of PvP sounds incompatible with my concept of PvP. That's the point.

I'm not interested in changing your mind, but I'm definitely on board with ZOS immediately apologizing for this mistake and giving separate queues a shot.

Reverting back to the previous queue is so spineless.

draigwyrdd

If we absolutely have to revert back to how it was before, can we at least tweak the queue so that it's 50/50 between objectives and deathmatch?

The problem before the testing was that you essentially never got a deathmatch, while the problem after it was that you never got an objective. 50% deathmatch and 50% objective seems like a decent enough compromise, if we absolutely have to revert to full random queueing.

Foto1

mazeru wrote: »

Disappointed, but not surprised.

Though this said (and here apologies, but the bad apples among your bunch have absolutely exhausted any last bit of patience and good faith I ever had), to every single DM crackhead swearing to camp objective players in random matches: hope you chew on a cactus. You guys are literally the reason a lot of the population that preferred objective-based BGs left BGs entirely, but it doesn't seem like you even realise it. Hell, you seem more than glad enough to go right back to this behaviour and just make it hell for everyone else yet again. Yes, ZOS created the ground for this disaster, but it's you guys being the way you are and putting your own damn need for proving your in-game girth above everyone else's is ultimately what led to the disaster we have on our hands now. You have chased away players who did not want every game to be treated like a Death Match, led to this failure of a biased test, and in result chased away what was left of people still queueing for Random in hopes that maybe, just maybe, they won't end up with a few bad apples in the match running off to butcher everything that moves just-because.

And all of that over some players crying over having to fight against premades - something that I have, ironically, found far easier to deal with in every mode but Death Match. DM is where having to go solo against premade teams was a really painful experience, precisely because that mode encourages a Team VS Team play. So every premade was optimised towards that dungeon-style, making it night impossible for people who queued solo or in pairs to compete, because they'd just get steamrolled (that did apply partially to Chaosball as well, but I found it far more easy to mitigate).

(Except then wonderful, wonderful sets like Crimson Twilight and Dark Convergence were introduced, and the cheesefest has reached a whole new level... which reminds me the period of time where proc sets were disabled in Cyro. That was the best time in Cyro I've ever had, too bad that, too, went away...)

Not gonna lie, I am glad that, at the very least, I will finally be able to play something that is not a bloody Death Match ten times per day in hopes for a miracle of getting any of the modes that I actually enjoy.

But at the same time, this decision is going to be a big loss to the community. No issues will be fixed, and rather, it seems like they're just going to be amplified. You have already diminished the PVP population purely by conducting the tests the way you did, and that's going to be a damage to the virility of the queues you are not going to be able to patch up easily. Not with this half-baked of a course of action.

I honestly agree with most people here (the ones that can think for a moment about something other than stabbing everything that moves, that is). You should have split the queues, at least partially, into DM-only and Randoms (either with or without DM in the mix, but not as a single queue with the DM-only crowd thrown in). Would the queues take a hit? Sure, maybe. But with how long they are now because of so many people leaving BGs entirely over the changes you guys have introduced, I don't think it's going to be that noticeable. As someone noted earlier in the topic, a good middle ground would have been a three-queue solution along the lines of

• Random Objective only (both solo and group in one queue)
• Death Match only (solo)
• Death Match only (group)

That way waiting times for Objective should hopefully be reduced since both solo players and parties would be combined in that one, and the DM crowd, since your tests basically turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy of them being the majority, could have their two queues, which should hopefully be quick enough to fill in.

Too bad we're likely never going to actually see a solution like this, nor even have the chance to test if it would work any better than the disaster of a test we've had served here.

As one quick aside though, to all the people thinking the reason no further tests will be conducted simply because ZOS doesn't care, just a small insight from someone who's day job is literally video game testing: this is, more often than not, not up to the devs nor the team designing the tests. Of course this might be different for this team in particular, but in my experience with different projects, you'll usually get a project set up with a firm deadline in place. You have to do what you can within that timeframe, and if you don't manage to go through all the variables you wanted to? Well, tough luck, gotta live with knowing you'll likely never finish that test case. This said, I do think the tests in this case were poorly-designed and/or poorly executed, but it's not always obvious right off the bat, and once the biases and faults in the testing come to light, it's often too late to change course and implement additional tests. So you salvage what you can and try to make do with what you have. It sucks, but at the end of the day, that's how it tends to be. Granted, this doesn't exclude the possibility that ZOS just doesn't give a damn, but that's more likely the case for the big heads of the company - and not so much the dev and/or test team. Just a sad reality of how processes like that tend to go. And trust me, for those of them who do care, seeing this bad of a result can be just as painful as it is for the players it's gonna affect in the end. But eh. C'est la vie, and all that.

Zos and only Zos are to blame for this.
Ps. Every match as deathmatch

Victor_Storm

I'm fed up with DM. When will I be able to play the other modes?

M0ntie

Well thanks ZoS for listening. Kind of. Currently you cannot get to play a non-DM match so something needed to change.
From reading much of these posts, asking guildies, and looking at the up votes, it woudl seem a random-DM and a random non-DM queue was the way to go. That would make DM and want a variety groups happy.

Please be sure to publicise this change extensively! The people who don't want only DMs have been thoroughly driven away so will need to be informed.

Merforum

They could actually have just ONE queue with 4 check boxes like this

group
DM
land grab
flag game

And allow everyone to check one or more boxes. Then first split group, non-group. Then split by whoever selected only one mode. Then for people who select 2 modes, alternate those and add. Then backfill with all the people who select all 3 modes.Then the players have control over what they want rather than being forced to do what someone else thinks.

Victor_Storm

can we just all on this forum agree that on a specific day we will only play randomBG and not DM. Maybe it will help us?

thesarahandcompany

Tarkasion wrote: »

@ZOS_GinaBruno

I know so many people that don't do Battlegrounds just because they hate deathmatchs or hate that other players treat each game as such. Why not try and propose separate queues for deathmatch and objectives ?

Example with 3 queues :

1 - Group random <-- (default queue and for those who want to play in group)
2 - Solo Deathmatch <-- (for those who want deathmatch over being able to play in group)
3 - Solo Objectives <-- (for those who want anything but deathmatch)

Why not give it a try ? What's a few more months of testing ?

Thanks for reading.

No. This issue started with the solo queue test. Literally think just go back to when it was all group queue and you could pick your mode type.

exeeter702

Honestly at this point I am fairly certain its simply a matter of saving face.

Had they allowed players the choice of game mode, they would ultimately have to acknowledge that 3/4s of their entire battle ground pvp content was essentially a failure in design.

The reason for this is simple but lets break it down.

People in here are asking why on earth it would be so hard to simply separate the queues wherein DM is an isolated game mode to which ZOS would expectantly state that that is not ideal as it would further splinter an already niche group within ESO. If they were to allow natural selection to take its course and allow players the choice of gamemode, it would completely and utterly reveal just how dominant DM is compared to the objective modes. This is not speculation. When we had the choice in the past, random bg was DM 9 times out of 10, simply because the vast majority of players engaging with BGs were manually selecting DM well beyond just doing the daily bonus, and the random queue matchmaking was filling those games. Likewise, one only had to look at the leaderboard scores for the various bg modes to see the picture painted clear as day, even with consideration of the different scoring methods for the BG modes, DM was generously ahead in participation scores full stop.

So death match lovers dont want to deal with game modes that disincentivizes pvp interactions, and objective lovers dont want death match lovers ruining their games by treating every match as if it were DM. Give both camps the option to omit the specific game mode of their choosing and you will see first hand just how unpopular objective mode is with the queue times being most assuredly "less than ideal".

And what of it? what is ZOSs recourse at that point? instead of stepping back and thinking about WHY said game mode is underpopulated at the core of the issue (ill give you a few hints, it has to do with the 4v4v4 format and maps being designed to be a one size fits all for any given game mode, instead of being specifically designed to house a particular game mode per map) they chose to arbitrarily "populate" the less popular game mode by throwing everything into a random queue (which negatively effects DM by a significant margin) which effectively disappoints everyone. They opted to make things marginally more acceptable for a minorty group of an already minority group within a minority group of ESO players (pvp.... obviously). Instead of accepting that maybe, just maybe, their approach to BG design was not a particularly great one, one that I have been very critical of since its introduction in MW, and instead of committing the resources to revamp the system entirely, they throw it all back into the blender and effectively pretend the "data doesnt lie".

I truly, deeply, cannot express just how much EVERYTHING wrong with the BG situation in ESO stems from the format they chose to go with on release of the content....

-The issue of premades, - Had you went with a more traditional BG format as found in other mmos that have done it successfully. You could have limited premades and still made the format not a guaranteed landslide, which I wont get into details here ofc as that could warrant an entire page of explaining objectives that mandate player separation mid match and the burden of performance each player would need to carry in a given match.

-the issue of splintered game mode preference - When done right, mmo "battlegrounds" succeed in organically producing pvp encounters revolving around objectives because you dont have a 3rd team to throw this entirely out of wack. When done right, you can create engaging BG environments that facilitate objective focused players while satisfying those that focus on player engagement. ESO bgs have failed miserably in this regard since day one.

-the issue of micro balance - I do not envy ZOS when it comes to balancing ESO especially in its current age with the ever growing list of gear and seemingly expected obligation to continue adding more and more sets / abilities to the game. That having been said, The nature of large scale open world pvp tends to afford problematic balance issues a degree of leeway by way of sheer player count. Obviously that is an entirely separate issue with plenty of historical problems only brought about by certain degrees of power concentrating into ball groups. No... this is about when you put those same elements of power under more scrutiny in an isolated smaller scale instances. You end up with a completely different animal that you have to cage. Essentially splitting your focus and efforts between two different pvp environments and having to balance them both under completely different circumstances (noCP not withstanding). If done right, ESOs bgs could have actually been more in line with scenarios not too unlike small bouts you would find in cyrodil. Not too similar mind you but enough so that the split in power balance between instanced bgs and cyrodil were not essentially completely different games.

The reward structure for BGs did not help matters at all but I will leave that alone.

I dont expect any change at this point going forward, at least not the change that I strongly believe to be necessary. It is a sunken cost and ZOS likely knows where its resources would be better spent based on player engagement. It kind of becomes a chicken or egg situation sadly, players dont play content X for reason Y, and content X sees not development because player engagement with it is too low. Reason Y being entirely of ZOSs own making though. They missed the mark, and its too late to justify spending money to fix it.

VixxVexx

good post exeeter

The developers lack the humility to give the playerbase what they want, and when they do, they lack the insight to give them what they need. They identify problems that players don't have, then implement solutions to those problems that players don't want.

I'm sorry for quoting Asmongold.

_adhyffbjjjf12

its such a bloody easy problem to solve that has been solved for many years in other games, you weight it.

There's a random queue. After 8 people are found all 8 are asked to select their preferred map. the game rolls an 8 sided dice. if 2 out of 8 want DM then the the game allocated 2 numbers to DM, i.e 25% chance. If 6 players want DM and 2 others want 2 different types of maps then the game allocates...6 to DM and 1 to the others. Roll the dice and be transparent and show the odds to everyone when it rolls (give it a nice visual and show 75%/12.5%/12.5%)

If I was the only one that wanted an objective based map, then at least I can see that I had a 1/8 chance, but at least I got a chance. Note it doesn't matter if you have 1 million players or 8, its still fair.

Parasaurolophus

The fact that different modes on BG`s have become a bone of contention for the pvp community suggests that the modes themselves are far from perfect. All this juggling with queues is just like trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Therefore, ZoS should rework all modes. Yes, pvp is not always combat and pvp should encourage some tactical decisions. But objective modes really do too often force players to avoid combat in order to win. A better balance must be found between combat and avoidance of combat. The community can come to a common consensus and there is no need to divide the already small pvp community. I really hope that this will be the case, and the decision to leave the queue as it is is temporary. I really want to believe that after the improvement of the server code that Matt was talking about, ZoS will turn its attention to pvp more, because this side of the game can be much more popular and in demand.

At the same time, I would like to ask the die-hard DM supporters - do you really think that DM is so perfect that it should be separated from other modes? For me, DM is no less sick mode like everyone else. It's not right when it's just easier to make frags with some classes. When a match turns into a meat hunt. So DM also needs to be reworked like all other modes.

GetAgrippa

Guess it's back to farming objective players. What a colossal mistake, Zos.

For the love of all that is holy, Zos, if you have to do this at least make deathmatch a 50% chance. If objectives become 75% of all games again then the tank meta in bgs will come back with a vengeance. That's how you win objectives, by being unkillable. And that's not fun at all.

Beardimus

GetAgrippa wrote: »

Guess it's back to farming objective players. What a colossal mistake, Zos.

For the love of all that is holy, Zos, if you have to do this at least make deathmatch a 50% chance. If objectives become 75% of all games again then the tank meta in bgs will come back with a vengeance. That's how you win objectives, by being unkillable. And that's not fun at all.

Lol guess it's back outscoring the non objective players.

How it is now also isn't fun.

I got like 3 flag games last week and got gold rewards haha. It's broken as is.

NerfSeige

GetAgrippa wrote: »

Guess it's back to farming objective players. What a colossal mistake, Zos.

For the love of all that is holy, Zos, if you have to do this at least make deathmatch a 50% chance. If objectives become 75% of all games again then the tank meta in bgs will come back with a vengeance. That's how you win objectives, by being unkillable. And that's not fun at all.

Some form of bashcro will come out if it’s not changed next patch.

PhoenixGrey

mazeru wrote: »

Disappointed, but not surprised.

Though this said (and here apologies, but the bad apples among your bunch have absolutely exhausted any last bit of patience and good faith I ever had), to every single DM crackhead swearing to camp objective players in random matches: hope you chew on a cactus. You guys are literally the reason a lot of the population that preferred objective-based BGs left BGs entirely, but it doesn't seem like you even realise it. Hell, you seem more than glad enough to go right back to this behaviour and just make it hell for everyone else yet again. Yes, ZOS created the ground for this disaster, but it's you guys being the way you are and putting your own damn need for proving your in-game girth above everyone else's is ultimately what led to the disaster we have on our hands now.

Players spend their time and $$ on this game. So, yeah we feel entitled to put our need first and I don't see why it's such a bad thing if it helps players improve their in game experience.

Also we DM players are clearly better than everyone else and see no harm in farming objective players

Skoomah

The feedback in this thread to this change in BG queues to remove DM only option has been resoundingly negative. Can someone at ZOS please give us an explanation as to why this change is being made? It clearly isn't based on the majority of player's demands or desires.

xDeusEJRx

I think the worst part of this is, ZOS only considered the idea of making a change to queue types, but never even tested it to see how it would happen. They just came to the conclusion "its better for BG's this way" and left it. Why can't we get another 5 months to properly test out bringing out specific queues before just jumping the gun and making it worse for the people who are still around?

Before people mention how we had specific queues in 2017, that was BG's in it's early, infantile state. The BG's back then was quite literally pay-walled. We've barely had free BG's with specific queues to even get an idea on how that would effect the community and ZOS is deciding what will happen without even trying.

Darkmage1337

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

First off, thanks to everyone for participating in all the Battlegrounds queue tests over the past few months, including the most recent addition of Deathmatch-only queues over winter break. We were able to gather a lot of data from these tests regarding Battlegrounds participation and ultimately found it did not significantly affect the participation and population, and also took into account the feedback received about the majority of Battleground games being Deathmatch. We did see the suggestions for adding additional queue options and considered those as well, but doing so would splinter the Battlegrounds population too much and would lead to much longer queue times; we want to ensure the healthiest population and player experience. As such, we are making the call to remove the Deathmatch-only queue option.

Starting in Update 33, the default option for Battleground queues will be “Solo Random” and the dropdown selection will have “Group Random”. Remember, the group queue will take solo, duo, trio and full groups of players, but the solo queue will only include players that queued solo. All games modes will be in both of these queues.

This will be the last change we make to Battleground queues for the foreseeable future. Thanks again for partaking in these tests and aiding us in gathering very valuable feedback.

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/61615

"The Whitestrake’s Mayhem in-game event begins Thursday, February 17 at 10AM EST and runs until Tuesday, March 1 at 10AM EST."

Please reschedule The Whitestrake’s Mayhem event after the Update 33 (March 14th) Battleground queue changes.

Dergenborn

I'm just glad we're going back to how it was, thank the divines, getting nothing but Deathmatches got boring quick.
Would be nice if the change was implemented before Whitestrake's Mayhem, but oh well.

Other than that, I do believe there really wouldn't be a problem if there was two DIFFERENT queues for DM Only and Objectives Only, I don't think the queues would be too long, as the community seems to divided half and half on this matter.

AlbertVonMoosseedorf

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/61615

"The Whitestrake’s Mayhem in-game event begins Thursday, February 17 at 10AM EST and runs until Tuesday, March 1 at 10AM EST."

Please reschedule The Whitestrake’s Mayhem event after the Update 33 (March 14th) Battleground queue changes.

I think the event will also encourage many PvE players to try their hand at battlegrounds.
It would be a shame to miss this chance to consistently attract new players

Darkmage1337

AlbertVonMoosseedorf wrote: »

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/61615

"The Whitestrake’s Mayhem in-game event begins Thursday, February 17 at 10AM EST and runs until Tuesday, March 1 at 10AM EST."

Please reschedule The Whitestrake’s Mayhem event after the Update 33 (March 14th) Battleground queue changes.

I think the event will also encourage many PvE players to try their hand at battlegrounds.
It would be a shame to miss this chance to consistently attract new players

Agreed; but, the only thing that they would be missing out on is a better player experience.

S0Z0H

Well your allowed to kill in each mode so idk who is surprised by it all being a death match to some degree, cuz the only way to foul up or stop the other team is to kill them. Unless you limit or penalize certain actions depending on the mode. Like capture the flag , u get points decreased for killing someone. But u can't stop them really without killing them so ya. You all may have to really redesign battlegrounds. Maybe have spawned items and perhaps a limit on uses of those items/ weapons. Idk. Lol

This all makes for some very interesting discussion.
Further more I think you should add into BGs an arena , that's for 1 v 1 duels. Perhaps make it No Champ Points. And maybe limit it to preset builds that are just for battle grounds use. Again. I think a randomized spawning of weapons would make it more balanced and fun. No more cheese builds.

Ya maybe make it so everyone is empty handed , and also there could be cool downs on all class abilities in this mode. It's a lot of redoing everything so I know someone is reading this right now and thinking I've lost my ever loving mind for daring to even to suggest some of these crazy ideas. I know. And perhaps they are all terrible ideas. Maybe some are good. Not sure.

I just think we need to remake all this and start fresh.