Congratulations. ZOS killed all enjoyment out of BGs

TequilaFire

Einstein_ wrote: »

DM only is the best change ZoS ever did to BGs. if you dont like pvp dont play BGs.

Objectiv games are exactly liek this:

Players have to be able to choose what to play. 33% DM means 66% of games will be objective modes which all play the same, try to avoid combat as much as possible to win. Please stop suggesting a Random Only queue with percentages that favor your preferred playstyle of running away from opponents.

the only thing that might make it better is:
- make 4v4 instead of 4v4v4
- make a better mmr/ranking system (so not the one who playes the most wins, but the one who plays best)
- give better rewards for ranking

I usually agree with you, but not this time.
If we want PvP to be more skilled and improved we have to give as well as take.
There must be a choice of modes available for those that enjoy them as well as a mode for those that are more skilled and enjoy tighter PvP.

Einstein_

nightstrike wrote: »

Einstein_ wrote: »

if you dont like pvp dont play BGs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo

no, since objective BGs getting played best by NOT doing PvP.

i never said "you dont like 4v4v4 DMs, then dont play it"

i ment:
if you dont want to PvP dont do BGs, you can run arround flags and tank other players in cyro or PVE

Einstein_

TequilaFire wrote: »

Einstein_ wrote: »

DM only is the best change ZoS ever did to BGs. if you dont like pvp dont play BGs.

Objectiv games are exactly liek this:

Players have to be able to choose what to play. 33% DM means 66% of games will be objective modes which all play the same, try to avoid combat as much as possible to win. Please stop suggesting a Random Only queue with percentages that favor your preferred playstyle of running away from opponents.

the only thing that might make it better is:
- make 4v4 instead of 4v4v4
- make a better mmr/ranking system (so not the one who playes the most wins, but the one who plays best)
- give better rewards for ranking

I usually agree with you, but not this time.
If we want PvP to be more skilled and improved we have to give as well as take.
There must be a choice of modes available for those that enjoy them as well as a mode for those that are more skilled and enjoy tighter PvP.

yes, i am with you there should be a 2. que for objectives.
BUT let us have a DM only que aswell, no mixed que or smt

nightstrike

Einstein_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

Einstein_ wrote: »

if you dont like pvp dont play BGs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo

no, since objective BGs getting played best by NOT doing PvP.

i never said "you dont like 4v4v4 DMs, then dont play it"

i ment:
if you dont want to PvP dont do BGs, you can run arround flags and tank other players in cyro or PVE

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

Einstein_

i kinda agree, but you can build to easy verry tanky and thats just the best way to play this games.
Maybe it will be not like that in "beginner" games, but in higher mmr ppl will play the most efficent way which is "DONT fight just run arround".

let there be a que for objectives but also a DM only que.

gariondavey

Magio_ wrote: »

Complete opposite opinion. This has been the best change they've made to BGs in years. Ppl finally try to stick together and PvP as a group.

ZOS needs to admit that Solo Only Specific Queues were a mistake, that Random Only Solo + Group Queues were a mistake, and even that DM Only Solo + Group queues are a mistake. All these bad changes just to add or keep a Solo Queue that is dead most of the time killed the BG population.

The easiest thing to do to see if Solo Queue is even popular enough to be worth all these terrible changes would be to make it the default option. That way any solo player queues into it automatically and if you're duo+ you have to change the option. That's common sense, but either ZOS doesn't care enough to do that or they think the average Exp Reward Hunter is too dumb to do so? Who knows.

ZOS says there is only enough population for 2 options out of these 3:
Group Queue
Solo Queue
Choosing Game Mode

Deathmatch players have made it clear for the past year+ that not being able to choose is not good, even when we had pushback from the I-Have-Fun-Holding-W-For-15-minutes community. These Obj gamers finally agree with us after experiencing the same thing we did with this current test and it has only been 3 days. Imagine putting up with no choice for a year. Being able to choose how you want to play is clearly the most important.

Battlegrounds are a Group v Group v Group arena, therefore Group Queue is more important than the Solo Queue. This would put us back at having the old system before Solo Only queues were introduced.

This change to the old system doesn't have to be permanent either, only until ZOS finds a way to bring back population to BGs with better incentives, etc... It's all in their power. They just have to care. Once that happens, add Solo Queue correctly. What they did last time by shutting down group play in a GvGvG arena was a travesty.

Woah woah woah stop with the sensible talking

Magio_

nightstrike wrote: »

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

You realize a large majority, if not all, of those games were two team competitions in their Capture the Flag and King of the Hill modes? You HAD to engage in combat to win those objectives. The problem ESO has is their anti-competitive unique 3 team system. They copy-pasted game modes designed for two team competition into their "innovative" 3 way arena. Since flags don't give points while being contested, the best strategy is to ignore a contested flag and look for an empty one elsewhere in the map. If you don't understand that that's bad design for a PvP arena, then we can never come to an understanding. There's a reason the "sweaty" PvP players prefer Deathmatch in ESO and it's usually the more casual crowd that prefer objective modes. Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

The people that prefer Deathmatch just want to be able to queue into a game mode where engaging in combat is promoted. You guys can keep your objective modes, we don't care about them. Our threads didn't ask to remove Objective Modes, only for specific queues so we could all play what we want to play. If anything, it's usually objective mode players that want the Fully Random queue with percentages that favor their preferred playstyle of avoiding combat and force DM players to play modes we don't want to play.

_adhyffbjjjf12

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

You realize a large majority, if not all, of those games were two team competitions in their Capture the Flag and King of the Hill modes? You HAD to engage in combat to win those objectives. The problem ESO has is their anti-competitive unique 3 team system. They copy-pasted game modes designed for two team competition into their "innovative" 3 way arena. Since flags don't give points while being contested, the best strategy is to ignore a contested flag and look for an empty one elsewhere in the map. If you don't understand that that's bad design for a PvP arena, then we can never come to an understanding. There's a reason the "sweaty" PvP players prefer Deathmatch in ESO and it's usually the more casual crowd that prefer objective modes. Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

The people that prefer Deathmatch just want to be able to queue into a game mode where engaging in combat is promoted. You guys can keep your objective modes, we don't care about them. Our threads didn't ask to remove Objective Modes, only for specific queues so we could all play what we want to play. If anything, it's usually objective mode players that want the Fully Random queue with percentages that favor their preferred playstyle of avoiding combat and force DM players to play modes we don't want to play.

1) players like objective modes will often also like DM, they like the mix. 2) A player wanting objective modes don't want to force others to do anything.

At the moment i've not played for over a week as I cant be be bothered playing DM over and over and over until i'm bored senseless. The devs have basically taken away content i pay for as a statistically flawed and immature experiment. The devs are trying to 'force' me to play DM or stop playing BGs, insane way to treat customers.

The answer to the problem is an algorithm that tries to match people up to their preferences but takes into account population and premade groups. Which is what we all want obviously.

Aldoss

Magio_ wrote: »

Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

100% this. I would love objective modes if they didn't reward anti-combat play styles. There have been so many good ideas thrown out over the years that are simple the implement and would vastly improve the BG experience for both DMers and casual BGers. ZOS just continues to prove to us all that they don't care to devote any amount of resources to it.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

At the moment i've not played for over a week as I cant be be bothered playing DM over and over and over until i'm bored senseless. The devs have basically taken away content i pay for as a statistically flawed and immature experiment. The devs are trying to 'force' me to play DM or stop playing BGs, insane way to treat customers.

It sounds like you understand where the DM crowd is coming from. DM was taken away with an "equal chance" of happening as all the other modes, but as it's been proven, weighing DM equally is not the fair solution. I've gone entire night long sessions of double digit BGs without ever getting a DM. It's been over a year since that change...

ZOS made this toxic environment. I might love this change, but I hate that it was made possible by taking away your joy. Demand that ZOS invest in this. It could be so much better.

Foto1

this is the best game change in a year. Thank you so much Zos!

Foto1

RevJJ wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

RevJJ wrote: »

I’ve said it in another thread but this change has a huge effect on below 50BGs. When there were several different modes, new players or those leveling up alts had a chance of winning.

Now all the below 50BGs are a lottery and if one of the other teams is a preformed team of sweaties with gold gear for every ten levels then you lose.

What a way to ruin the fun. Nice one ZOS.

Run in the solo queue. There are literally zero preformed teams in the solo queue.

And also 30+ min waiting times because barely anyone uses the solo queue as it’s not the default option.

it is not true. I stand in line for no more than 5 minutes

temerley

This is the best BG imo, those who are complaining of the change are probably the same people that camp in the base on DM and waiting for a free carry/ap.

Talyndor

I am a casual BG'er. Please don't flame me for that choice..
But I agree with others, that BG's have become miserable. I already play them far less often due to the DM only modes (and being wiped out basically the instant I jump down into the arena), and lack of decent rewards.
I read the ZOS post, but I don't agree with their decision; if they thought this would somehow boost BG participation, boy did they ever miscalculate.
In sum, I hate the new DM only mode.

renne

Talyndor wrote: »

I am a casual BG'er. Please don't flame me for that choice..
But I agree with others, that BG's have become miserable. I already play them far less often due to the DM only modes (and being wiped out basically the instant I jump down into the arena), and lack of decent rewards.
I read the ZOS post, but I don't agree with their decision; if they thought this would somehow boost BG participation, boy did they ever miscalculate.
In sum, I hate the new DM only mode.

It's a test, they didn't say anything about changing it to DM only to boost BG participation. They said very clearly that it's a test. And by not playing you're providing them data. Congratulations!

bathynomusESO

Anyone know if or when they will change it back?

_adhyffbjjjf12

renne wrote: »

Talyndor wrote: »

I am a casual BG'er. Please don't flame me for that choice..
But I agree with others, that BG's have become miserable. I already play them far less often due to the DM only modes (and being wiped out basically the instant I jump down into the arena), and lack of decent rewards.
I read the ZOS post, but I don't agree with their decision; if they thought this would somehow boost BG participation, boy did they ever miscalculate.
In sum, I hate the new DM only mode.

It's a test, they didn't say anything about changing it to DM only to boost BG participation. They said very clearly that it's a test. And by not playing you're providing them data. Congratulations!

its not a test, tests requires controlled conditions and variables, this is a crude flawed error that suggest poor metrics. I also have not played BG in over a week as i cant be bothered doing DM over and over until i'm bored senseless. However they have no measurement of this, maybe i got ran under a bus, maybe i'm on holiday, Maybe I don't like DM. Actually I enjoy DM, but not on its own, I like variety.

ViolentMellow

Drama aside. I came here to say I miss the old bgs and have put my bgs toon on a shelf. If ZOS decides to keep it this way, I’ll take my legacy titles and make her pve. I played one round of death match now and hated it.

Alendrin

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

You realize a large majority, if not all, of those games were two team competitions in their Capture the Flag and King of the Hill modes? You HAD to engage in combat to win those objectives. The problem ESO has is their anti-competitive unique 3 team system. They copy-pasted game modes designed for two team competition into their "innovative" 3 way arena. Since flags don't give points while being contested, the best strategy is to ignore a contested flag and look for an empty one elsewhere in the map. If you don't understand that that's bad design for a PvP arena, then we can never come to an understanding. There's a reason the "sweaty" PvP players prefer Deathmatch in ESO and it's usually the more casual crowd that prefer objective modes. Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

This is really the problem. The non DM modes are best won by avoiding combat. If they were redesigned to require combat as part of the objective, I think there would be a lot more interest in them.

Urzigurumash

Alendrin wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

You realize a large majority, if not all, of those games were two team competitions in their Capture the Flag and King of the Hill modes? You HAD to engage in combat to win those objectives. The problem ESO has is their anti-competitive unique 3 team system. They copy-pasted game modes designed for two team competition into their "innovative" 3 way arena. Since flags don't give points while being contested, the best strategy is to ignore a contested flag and look for an empty one elsewhere in the map. If you don't understand that that's bad design for a PvP arena, then we can never come to an understanding. There's a reason the "sweaty" PvP players prefer Deathmatch in ESO and it's usually the more casual crowd that prefer objective modes. Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

This is really the problem. The non DM modes are best won by avoiding combat. If they were redesigned to require combat as part of the objective, I think there would be a lot more interest in them.

Hence Chaosball is the essentially the best mode, it just has problems with being able to run away and hide with the ball, and thus some players not having much interest in going after it. Chaosball most closely resembles the world's most popular sports. This mode promotes an even 3-way fight the best, as in DM sometimes the most efficient path to victory is racing to see who can farm the weakest players the most quickly, rather than head-on facing the toughest opponents, which Chaosball could be more likely to require.

I've thought the focus should be on Chaosball - perhaps making the RP element that this is a popular spectator sport throughout Tamriel, adding more things to the Circle of Champions idea, or something.

MurderMostFoul

Urzigurumash wrote: »

Alendrin wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

You realize a large majority, if not all, of those games were two team competitions in their Capture the Flag and King of the Hill modes? You HAD to engage in combat to win those objectives. The problem ESO has is their anti-competitive unique 3 team system. They copy-pasted game modes designed for two team competition into their "innovative" 3 way arena. Since flags don't give points while being contested, the best strategy is to ignore a contested flag and look for an empty one elsewhere in the map. If you don't understand that that's bad design for a PvP arena, then we can never come to an understanding. There's a reason the "sweaty" PvP players prefer Deathmatch in ESO and it's usually the more casual crowd that prefer objective modes. Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

This is really the problem. The non DM modes are best won by avoiding combat. If they were redesigned to require combat as part of the objective, I think there would be a lot more interest in them.

Hence Chaosball is the essentially the best mode, it just has problems with being able to run away and hide with the ball, and thus some players not having much interest in going after it. Chaosball most closely resembles the world's most popular sports. This mode promotes an even 3-way fight the best, as in DM sometimes the most efficient path to victory is racing to see who can farm the weakest players the most quickly, rather than head-on facing the toughest opponents, which Chaosball could be more likely to require.

I've thought the focus should be on Chaosball - perhaps making the RP element that this is a popular spectator sport throughout Tamriel, adding more things to the Circle of Champions idea, or something.

While I agree that chaosball has more meaningful fights than the other objective modes, I still strongly dislike it. I find the optimal play in chaosball to be.

1. Kill ball carrier.
2. Pick up ball.
3. Run and hide with it.

Because I play to win, I always take this approach. And although I've won frequently, I don't find it all that enjoyable. The combat is mostly hit and run, and while I have the ball I'm doing everything I can to avoid combat. Not my cup of tea.

Urzigurumash

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Urzigurumash wrote: »

Alendrin wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

The problem here is that your definition of PVP is completely limited to your own play style. Capture the Flag is a staple of PvP, and it is one of the oldest team based PvP games out there, dating back at least to the mid 90s when it became pretty widespread. Claiming that anything but what you like isn't PVP is misunderstanding that there are many ways for players to compete vs other players.

You realize a large majority, if not all, of those games were two team competitions in their Capture the Flag and King of the Hill modes? You HAD to engage in combat to win those objectives. The problem ESO has is their anti-competitive unique 3 team system. They copy-pasted game modes designed for two team competition into their "innovative" 3 way arena. Since flags don't give points while being contested, the best strategy is to ignore a contested flag and look for an empty one elsewhere in the map. If you don't understand that that's bad design for a PvP arena, then we can never come to an understanding. There's a reason the "sweaty" PvP players prefer Deathmatch in ESO and it's usually the more casual crowd that prefer objective modes. Trust me, if these objective modes were redesigned to promote engaging in combat, DMers would enjoy playing them.

This is really the problem. The non DM modes are best won by avoiding combat. If they were redesigned to require combat as part of the objective, I think there would be a lot more interest in them.

Hence Chaosball is the essentially the best mode, it just has problems with being able to run away and hide with the ball, and thus some players not having much interest in going after it. Chaosball most closely resembles the world's most popular sports. This mode promotes an even 3-way fight the best, as in DM sometimes the most efficient path to victory is racing to see who can farm the weakest players the most quickly, rather than head-on facing the toughest opponents, which Chaosball could be more likely to require.

I've thought the focus should be on Chaosball - perhaps making the RP element that this is a popular spectator sport throughout Tamriel, adding more things to the Circle of Champions idea, or something.

While I agree that chaosball has more meaningful fights than the other objective modes, I still strongly dislike it. I find the optimal play in chaosball to be.

1. Kill ball carrier.
2. Pick up ball.
3. Run and hide with it.

Because I play to win, I always take this approach. And although I've won frequently, I don't find it all that enjoyable. The combat is mostly hit and run, and while I have the ball I'm doing everything I can to avoid combat. Not my cup of tea.

Right, number three needs attention and the mode could shine as the most competitive, potentially, because the option to the farm the weakest players is eliminated. It's gotten better but still needs work. Years ago we had 10k HP Regen + 30 second Rapids with Snare Immunity - but also people didn't know the maps as well.

The Arcane University was especially a bother in Chaosball, although I do think the Mark of the Worm is fun to try to use offensively for that mode. In my opinion, the smaller the rink, the better, for all of the modes.

Occasionally when carrying the ball you're motivated to engage with the opponents rather than evade or turtle. If they're the only ones around and my team-mates have them at low health - I'm leaping on them. However this sort of thing could be promoted more than evasion or pure turtling would help, maybe.

nightstrike

I don't get why people keep saying you can hide with the chaos ball. The map reveals where you are....

Urzigurumash

nightstrike wrote: »

I don't get why people keep saying you can hide with the chaos ball. The map reveals where you are....

What we mean is "isolate" rather than "disappear"

gariondavey

Last night nobody wore dc in my bg (by chance) and it was amazing.

Skoomah

gariondavey wrote: »

Last night nobody wore dc in my bg (by chance) and it was amazing.

I honestly think the new crop of PVP’ers might be a good thing for this game.

Einar_Hrafnarsson

I am a dedicated Healer and Deathmatch puts Healers always at a disadvantage pointwise. All i can do now is Healing the other 3 Players and hope that they are not oneshots resulting in me kiting 2-3 enemies around Rocks.

In CTR or Chaosball i had the best opportunities to shine. Now i simply do my Daily Win or second and move on to Cyrodill

jaws343

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

renne wrote: »

Talyndor wrote: »

I am a casual BG'er. Please don't flame me for that choice..
But I agree with others, that BG's have become miserable. I already play them far less often due to the DM only modes (and being wiped out basically the instant I jump down into the arena), and lack of decent rewards.
I read the ZOS post, but I don't agree with their decision; if they thought this would somehow boost BG participation, boy did they ever miscalculate.
In sum, I hate the new DM only mode.

It's a test, they didn't say anything about changing it to DM only to boost BG participation. They said very clearly that it's a test. And by not playing you're providing them data. Congratulations!

its not a test, tests requires controlled conditions and variables, this is a crude flawed error that suggest poor metrics. I also have not played BG in over a week as i cant be bothered doing DM over and over until i'm bored senseless. However they have no measurement of this, maybe i got ran under a bus, maybe i'm on holiday, Maybe I don't like DM. Actually I enjoy DM, but not on its own, I like variety.

It's fairly obvious this is a test of the BG population that shows in support of the limited mode. Say they usually see 100 players an hour in BGs (easy number for an example). After implementing this, that number drops to 90. Well, that shows them that only 10% of their population for the mode left and that deathmatch is popular. Say the number drops to 50, well maybe DM is not as popular as it would seem and the objective modes need to be added back. Or say the population increase to 120, showing that removing the DM queue was actually a detriment to player participation.

This is all measurable against the baseline data they received from the mode prior to the change. That is the control. The variable is removing the objective modes.

Magio_

nightstrike wrote: »

I don't get why people keep saying you can hide with the chaos ball. The map reveals where you are....

[snip]

People hide in ledges where the only way to get back up on the map is to jump to your death and respawn. Clearly not intended an anti-competitive. Typically done by notorious Objective Mode nerds, some of which are also very vocal forum warriors against having a separate DM queue for w/e reason.

Here's the disconnect. Objective modes are real PvP, but only in games such as Halo, CoD, Overwatch etc. Those objectives still require you to seek out, engage, and be good at the game's combat. That's where ESO objective modes fail.

You can find several instances on this thread and others about BGs where people complain that they hate Deathmatch and prefer Objective modes because "they are bad at combat but can still win objective modes by actively avoiding engaging in combat". Parts in bold usually left out.

That's just bad PvP. The fact that most objective mode players dislike Deathmatch is clear evidence of that. Deathmatch is the only BG mode that rewards being skilled at the game's combat system and that's why you dislike it and are not a "true PvPer". If a miracle happened and ZOS scrapped the 3 team system for a competitive 2 team system, you objective players would stop enjoying objective modes as much as you do overnight while Deathmatch players like myself would start enjoying them.

[Edit for Baiting.]

_adhyffbjjjf12

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

I don't get why people keep saying you can hide with the chaos ball. The map reveals where you are....

[snip]

People hide in ledges where the only way to get back up on the map is to jump to your death and respawn. Clearly not intended an anti-competitive. Typically done by notorious Objective Mode nerds, some of which are also very vocal forum warriors against having a separate DM queue for w/e reason.

Here's the disconnect. Objective modes are real PvP, but only in games such as Halo, CoD, Overwatch etc. Those objectives still require you to seek out, engage, and be good at the game's combat. That's where ESO objective modes fail.

You can find several instances on this thread and others about BGs where people complain that they hate Deathmatch and prefer Objective modes because "they are bad at combat but can still win objective modes by actively avoiding engaging in combat". Parts in bold usually left out.

That's just bad PvP. The fact that most objective mode players dislike Deathmatch is clear evidence of that. Deathmatch is the only BG mode that rewards being skilled at the game's combat system and that's why you dislike it and are not a "true PvPer". If a miracle happened and ZOS scrapped the 3 team system for a competitive 2 team system, you objective players would stop enjoying objective modes as much as you do overnight while Deathmatch players like myself would start enjoying them.

[Edit for Baiting.]

This is little more than elitism in disguise. Many like both DM and objective modes and both require skill, and its in fact DM that is patently more simplistic, i.e skilled DM players don't suddenly become bad at PVP because they are dealing with objectives as well as killing, they have to be able to handle both, and at the right times.

if we don't have alternatives that we can rotate though then this is what ESO PVP Looks like:

DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM
DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM DM

[snip]

week after week month and month year after year.

it doens't take a genius to work out what that will do to a mmorpg PVP scene. same reason why GW2 rotates.

[edited for excessive spamming of DM]

Minyassa

Combat or lack of combat isn't what makes PvP. Volleyball is PvP. Chess is PvP. A football game is commonly referred to as a battle, and it's played in an arena or a coliseum, both traditionally the names of gladiatorial venues. Guess what, sports are PvP. Just because a Battleground game doesn't encourage combat enough for the taste of the people who are only interested in combat and holds interest for people who like it for the sport it does provide does not make it "not real PvP". Player Versus Player makes something PvP. It's disappointing that ESO doesn't provide any *non* combat PvP like some other games do. But people need to get off their high horse about thinking combat is the only worthy type of PvP. Different people have different skills and there's absolutely no reason that those different skills shouldn't be part of an inter-player competition, especially team sports.