Battlegrounds still Deathmatch Only

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DerAlleinTiger wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.

No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.

There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable

I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?

DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.

Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.

I don’t think we know which queue being specific unto itself is unrealistic. Considering that Zenimax saw DM only BGs experience a reduction in usage that was unhealthy it seems more likely that it’s the DM only queue that would be unrealistic and would likely have king queue times.

Players seeing DM pop more than anything else doesn’t suggest more players queue for DM than random.

The devs are the one that said DM is the one players are queueing most for and said there's only so much they can do when the the things people choose to queue for is that one-sided.

By his own admission some of that is because DM is first on the list, but some of that is also people just would pick DM more period. This is why I suggested the following.

1) make random first on the list. If DM is so much more popular on it's own merits it doesn't need the help of also being first. Like they said, a lot of people just pick whatever is first. This is overinflating the percentage of people "choosing" DM.

2) have the random matchmaker prioritize trying to make Objective modes first and foremost. If it takes too long to make one, then have it put those players in a DM game if one is already available.

You'd probably very rarely see DM games during high pop times but during low pop ones it would be a mixed bag.

spartaxoxo

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

I don’t want those modes back and a lot of players don’t want those modes back. Just because you don’t like my argument doesn’t mean it is t constructive. The idea that “less is more” is a very reasonable and fair point and it should be heavily considered for queue balancing. Because queues are a hodgepodge right now because we’re having to balance around objective modes that aren’t nearly as popular, when combined, as the single deathmatch mode. ZOS should know that there is a community supporting them if they need to make a tough decision that would ultimately benefit PvP in the long run.

No. It shouldn't be. They tried your idea already and it ruined the population of Battlegrounds to below what is healthy and caused a mass exodus of players from BGs. Your idea is unproductive because it already failed.

thesarahandcompany

spartaxoxo wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

I don’t want those modes back and a lot of players don’t want those modes back. Just because you don’t like my argument doesn’t mean it is t constructive. The idea that “less is more” is a very reasonable and fair point and it should be heavily considered for queue balancing. Because queues are a hodgepodge right now because we’re having to balance around objective modes that aren’t nearly as popular, when combined, as the single deathmatch mode. ZOS should know that there is a community supporting them if they need to make a tough decision that would ultimately benefit PvP in the long run.

No. It shouldn't be. They tried your idea already and it ruined the population of Battlegrounds to below what is healthy and caused a mass exodus of players from BGs. Your idea is unproductive because it already failed.

It literally came on the tail of New World’s release dude. Move on from the test. It’s selection-bias filled test data and Rich even said the vast majority of players queue BG now.

You’re not the final authority on whether my views and solutions are “productive” or not. Lessening complexity is very valid and you can restructure deathmatch in a way that welcomes objective players—if you actually read my thread.

SkaraMinoc

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

Arathi Basin was and still is the most popular battleground of all time. It's basically ESO domination with a better map.

Lauranae

There is a simple test to do
- lets have deathmatch solo queue random as it is
and
- objectifs solo queue random (no deathmatchs)
and lets see how it goes.

Devs lets out lately clearly that they dont want to create a wall betweens players, but by putting deathmatch only its what you do. May be ? may be its time the Devs stop to rule the game by Pvp wishes. Eso was is not a pvp base game but the more we go, the more its transform in pvp (skills adapted, sets adapted, graphics adapted, ......)

Personally (yes personally) i do actually BGs because i need transmute stones. But i hate them. It makes me hate the game for the time i do those. It was not like this before. Doing objectives mixed with deathmatch was a great time. I could do what i liked and also participate in the most difficult part as Deathmatch.

Now its impossible. And dont tell me a lot of people queue for the deathmatch, i did those 3 hours yesterday, and during that time, i met always the same people, round robin, either against me or in team with me. So its not that a lot of different people queue but the same queue always for deathmatch. And the very strange is that solo random gives very often the same team of people.

And if your argument is that PvP is for true Pvpers, i am sorry, i bought a game several years ago, for both content : pve and pvp. So i have the same rights you have to express my opinion.

lillybit

Aldoss wrote: »

lillybit wrote: »

That's like saying trading is the only thing in the game that most people like to do because most of the members of my trade guild like to trade.

False equivalence. We know that trading isn't the only thing in the game, on the basis of guild existence, because we know that RP guilds exist, social guilds exist, hardcore pve guilds exist, and cyro guilds exist.

If you know of a guild with 500 members that was created and caters to relic runners and domination players, I'd be happy to learn of their existence. As is, I know of none.

I'm only using the point of my guild's existence to suggest that I know that there are at least 400 accounts that choose to queue for TDM specifically, and would continue to queue for it, regardless of if there were an exp bonus attached to it.

That fact that there aren't guilds isn't proof that it's not popular. All it really says it that the type of people who enjoy deathmatches most are the type of people who like to take it further by having tournaments and such, so will join a guild for it.

I've never seen a guild that specialises in questing either but people still like doing it. There aren't casual trial guilds but there's still people running normal trials.

spartaxoxo

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.

It would be nice if you could offer a more constructive analysis than completely abandon 3/4ths of BG modes which have been around since they launched.

Yes we understand that you want to delete objective modes and do only Deathmatch content. You’ve only said the exact thing verbatim in several recent forum topics including one that was recently closed.

We here are identifying a longstanding PVP issue, a recent quirk that has resulted in a decided imbalance in the way matches are set up, and what is either an oversight or knowing lie by the developers that flag games have been brought back when live data is showing that the actual truth of players being able to get into them is just enough to fit the definition of not being a zero percent chance.

Many of us like flag games or domination and complained that said games were being ruined by DM players not playing to objective. ZOS rewarded this behavior and drove most of us out of the mode. They brought the modes back but in a way that requires most BG players to get a flag game once in every 25 queues if everything is perfectly conditioned.

I think we’ve seen that things aren’t perfectly conditioned mainly due in part to poor decisions made by ZOS that left a biased population in control. ZOS effectively digitally GERRYMANDERED BG queues.

I want Crazy King back. I want Capture the Flag. I’m not going to queue up 25 times for a random and play through them for a possible 1 in 4 chance of getting a mode that I enjoy. And it’s becoming increasingly clear other players aren’t going to do the same.

I don’t want those modes back and a lot of players don’t want those modes back. Just because you don’t like my argument doesn’t mean it is t constructive. The idea that “less is more” is a very reasonable and fair point and it should be heavily considered for queue balancing. Because queues are a hodgepodge right now because we’re having to balance around objective modes that aren’t nearly as popular, when combined, as the single deathmatch mode. ZOS should know that there is a community supporting them if they need to make a tough decision that would ultimately benefit PvP in the long run.

No. It shouldn't be. They tried your idea already and it ruined the population of Battlegrounds to below what is healthy and caused a mass exodus of players from BGs. Your idea is unproductive because it already failed.

It literally came on the tail of New World’s release dude. Move on from the test. It’s selection-bias filled test data and Rich even said the vast majority of players queue BG now.

You’re not the final authority on whether my views and solutions are “productive” or not. Lessening complexity is very valid and you can restructure deathmatch in a way that welcomes objective players—if you actually read my thread.

I am not. ZOS is and they already did your test and it failed. New World is not why it failed, there was still plenty of PVP happening but not BGs. Lots of feedback as to why too. The players who left the queue will not play a Battleground where they only get to do BGs. Even some of the players who liked DM more than BGs didn't want to do BGs without the option to mix it up sometimes too.

It's a bad idea that ruins Battlegrounds for everyone. It makes people who only like obj modes exit BG. It makes people who like both play less often. It makes casuals who just want to do a random mode and like getting easy ones quit entirely. And the people who only like DM are not large enough in number to be the only people in BGs, so their experience is also ruined by all the people who aren't doing BGs anymore. That's the results.

Aldoss

lillybit wrote: »

That fact that there aren't guilds isn't proof that it's not popular. All it really says it that the type of people who enjoy deathmatches most are the type of people who like to take it further by having tournaments and such, so will join a guild for it.

I've never seen a guild that specialises in questing either but people still like doing it. There aren't casual trial guilds but there's still people running normal trials.

I'm also not suggesting to know numbers that I don't know. What I do know and contributing to the hive mind is that a BG requires 12 accounts to queue up. I know of 400 accounts whose main ESO experience consists of logging on daily and queuing for 3-10 BGs and will specifically queue for TDM, their preferred game mode, because they suffered through 2 years of not being able to and now can.

At any point in time on an evening, there are 100 of these accounts online doing exactly what I described.

Given that there are no objective centered guilds like there are for DMers, any numbers being floated are complete speculation.

Call ZOS liars all you want, but the data I have access to makes me believe them when they say that if they split the queue any more, games won't happen.

I'm also not against you in this. I'd be fine with the queues being split because my hunch is that an objective only queue with no DMers would create a queue 30+ minutes long, while DMers would continue as if nothing happened. Plenty of people have come to this thread and others to say that they would happily wait that queue time if it meant no DM. I also have a hunch that the people who aren't okay with that risk are the people who call the shots.

mandricus

Easiest solution in the short term:

- Queue for random BG will queue for anything except DM
- Queue for DM will queue for DM only

People that want DM will queue for DM.
People that want objective games will queue for random.

Everyone will be happy, as everyone will get the match they asked for. Run this test for two weeks and see what happens.

After two weeks they should have enough data in order to check which queue people are selecting and how fast the queues are on both sides. We had endless tests on BG queue, Cyrodiil sets and a lot of other stuff. We can surely wait two weeks for this test to run and see what happens.

As for me, I would happily wait 10+ mins queue and have an objective-base mode BG, rather than having a very fast ready check but being forced to play deatchmatch only all the times. I spent a week trying, I gave up, because for a whole week I always queued for random and I wasn't able to get anything but DM.

The current system is flawed if it really just need 1 person out of 12 queueing for DM to drag all the other 11 random-queue players into a deatchmatch, I hope that everyone can agree on that.

FreeMaN_A

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DerAlleinTiger wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.

No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.

There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable

I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?

DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.

Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.

You are absolutely wrong. There WAS only objective queue. There was 3 different queues: dm, capture the point/crazy king and chaos ball/capture the relic. And there was possible to find a game. Yes, it took sometimes over 20 min, but it was possible. I guess if they put 2nd and 3rd together it will be even easier to find a match than it was a year ago.

Amottica

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DerAlleinTiger wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.

No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.

There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable

I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?

DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.

Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.

I don’t think we know which queue being specific unto itself is unrealistic. Considering that Zenimax saw DM only BGs experience a reduction in usage that was unhealthy it seems more likely that it’s the DM only queue that would be unrealistic and would likely have king queue times.

Players seeing DM pop more than anything else doesn’t suggest more players queue for DM than random.

The devs are the one that said DM is the one players are queueing most for and said there's only so much they can do when the the things people choose to queue for is that one-sided.

By his own admission some of that is because DM is first on the list, but some of that is also people just would pick DM more period. This is why I suggested the following.

1) make random first on the list. If DM is so much more popular on it's own merits it doesn't need the help of also being first. Like they said, a lot of people just pick whatever is first. This is overinflating the percentage of people "choosing" DM.

2) have the random matchmaker prioritize trying to make Objective modes first and foremost. If it takes too long to make one, then have it put those players in a DM game if one is already available.

You'd probably very rarely see DM games during high pop times but during low pop ones it would be a mixed bag.

I had not seen the devs statement to that though I take your word for it.

Considering their previous statement about the DM-only queue, that the BG population dropped to unhealthy levels, it would not be surprising if most of the remaining players were queuing for BGs. After all, the test clearly drove away players that were not interested in doing DMs all the time. I felt the test was a bad idea to start with.

I doubt those that were driven away by the DM-only queue will be quick to return since there have been multiple threads, including this one, noting that most of the random queues are popping for DMs I did not think the test was a good idea to start with and it seems the effects are being demonstrated as we speak.

As such I do stand by my comment.

thesarahandcompany

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

Arathi Basin was and still is the most popular battleground of all time. It's basically ESO domination with a better map.

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.

Arathi Basin was and still is the most popular battleground of all time. It's basically ESO domination with a better map.

How many teams and objective points in that mode (:

spartaxoxo

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

DerAlleinTiger wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.

No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.

There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable

I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?

DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.

Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.

You are absolutely wrong. There WAS only objective queue. There was 3 different queues: dm, capture the point/crazy king and chaos ball/capture the relic. And there was possible to find a game. Yes, it took sometimes over 20 min, but it was possible. I guess if they put 2nd and 3rd together it will be even easier to find a match than it was a year ago.

That was a while ago, and the queues are further separated by solo and group now.

spartaxoxo

Amottica wrote: »

I doubt those that were driven away by the DM-only queue will be quick to return since there have been multiple threads, including this one, noting that most of the random queues are popping for DMs I did not think the test was a good idea to start with and it seems the effects are being demonstrated as we speak.

As such I do stand by my comment.

That's actually a pretty fair point.

So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.

BTW here's where's he saying that the player queuing behavior is pretty one sided. It's right after he said a separate queue wouldn't work because matches would never start.

He repeated this sentiment throughout the interview.

Like this from earlier in

Because, it just goes to try to make a game and if sees that if everybody is queued up, or the majority of people are queued up for deathmatch, then it's just gonna start deathmatch. So, told everybody that was gonna happen. And now it happens, so um, we're gonna watch it. We'll see. But it definitely does work. But, the majority of people are just queuing for deathmatch.

He's just really stressing throughout this that he can't really do anything if people won't queue for randoms and that "everyone" queuing for DM is causing issues.

Darkmistress1337

I have yet to get a single Objective gamemode Battleground despite queueing only for "Random".
Given this, I am pretty sure that goes against the definition of "random". It seems rigged, to me.

turlisley

Have any of the devs gotten into an objective gamemode BG since the latest update? I sure haven't, either.

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_RichLambert

Casul

So my opinion is this, if DM is truly the most popular gamemode then that is fine. Let it be. But make the random queue in to an objective queue. I would rather wait 10-30 minutes for a match that I actually enjoy, compared to a deathmatch.

Almost feels like objective modes are on their way out since the devs don't seem to care about this particular playerbase who enjoys objective modes.

gariondavey

Aldoss wrote: »

Read the whole thread to this point.

I'm shocked at how many players still don't understand just how bad the Hrothgar and DC terror-meta was for the BG population. We thought the procalypse of Crimson/Unfathomable was bad... that was like 5 weight classes below what we suffered through the last couple months.

ZOS even called it! They released a set calling it "game breaking"... Congrats! It broke the game.

I'm not alone in saying that I LOVED the DM only test, but stopped playing entirely for the last three weeks of the test because I couldn't do it anymore. Playing "run from 8 DC procs" for 10 minutes was the most unenjoyable experience.

As someone who like this game's combat, I have full faith in requesting ZOS split the queue so non-deathmatchers can get a game. The issue is that ZOS isn't okay with it because, as hard as it is to accept, objectives just aren't that popular. They never have been. If ZOS gives into these requests, objective queue will suffer from 30min+ queue times. There are some in this thread saying they don't care. ZOS seems to currently not agree with them and thinks that it would result in no games.

As someone with a semblance of empathy, I understand the frustration objective players are having right now. I would go 20-30 games without getting a DM prior to the DM-only test. It was terrible. I don't get any satisfaction knowing that you all are now in the same boat.

I can't help but think of this as some sort of analogy to the cabbage and grape monkey experiment and everyone is so focused on arguing who likes what more. But you know what? A few of us are here going "Why not both?! Why are we submitting to this zero-sum, mutually exclusive experiment?!"

This argument shouldn't be DM vs Objective.

This argument should be a unified riot: ZOS needs to improve their BG content to make something suitable for ALL players.

That's it. There's no way ZOS can't put some brain power into this conundrum and come up with something that makes DMers like objectives and Objective players tolerate combat.

The easiest way to do it, in my limited perspective, is to stop having 3 teams for objectives. I think I'd actually like Domination the most of any mode if it were only 2 teams. As is, it's the absolute dumbest mode in my opinion. I also don't think I'm alone in this. I think many DMers identify as DMers only because that mode is the only mode currently offered that highlights ESO's superior combat system, in relation to other MMOs. I'm sure there are dozens of other good ideas their employees can brainstorm to solve this.

I pay this game a lot of money. I like cabbage, but I also like grapes. I refuse to subjected to choosing one over the other. I want it all! Why don't you?

You are correct. Great post.

Darkmage1337

Big-brain solution:

#1: Place RANDOM as the first option in the drop-down menu. (Truly RANDOM.)
#2: Place DEATHMATCH as the second option in the drop-down menu. (Deathmatch ONLY.)
#3 (Extra): Place OBJECTIVE as the third option in the drop-down menu. (Capture the Relic, Crazy King, Chaos Ball, & Domination ONLY.)

Problem solved.

@ZOS_RichLambert

Aldoss

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Problem solved.

The proposed solution would fragment the queue from 2 separate queues with 2 bucket options:
- Solo DM Only
- Solo Random (Feeds into DM Only)
- Group DM Only
- Group Random (Feeds into DM Only)


...into 4 separate queues with 3 bucket options:
- Solo DM Only
- Solo Objective Only
- Solo Random (Feeds into either DM Only or Objective Only)
- Group DM Only
- Group Objective Only
- Group Random (Feeds into DM Only or Objective Only)

I'll agree that by making random the first choice you might be able to influence the queue times more than not having it be an option, but it still seems like a lot of work being done to fix a problem rather than solve a problem. I'd rather have ZOS spend their time rethinking how BG modes work to make the choice between DM or Objective less polarizing.

gariondavey

Aldoss wrote: »

Darkmage1337 wrote: »

Problem solved.

The proposed solution would fragment the queue from 2 separate queues with 2 bucket options:
- Solo DM Only
- Solo Random (Feeds into DM Only)
- Group DM Only
- Group Random (Feeds into DM Only)


...into 4 separate queues with 3 bucket options:
- Solo DM Only
- Solo Objective Only
- Solo Random (Feeds into either DM Only or Objective Only)
- Group DM Only
- Group Objective Only
- Group Random (Feeds into DM Only or Objective Only)

I'll agree that by making random the first choice you might be able to influence the queue times more than not having it be an option, but it still seems like a lot of work being done to fix a problem rather than solve a problem. I'd rather have ZOS spend their time rethinking how BG modes work to make the choice between DM or Objective less polarizing.

Correct, either changing the number of teams in objective games to 2,

Or

Changing the number of objectives so the game doesn't become "run where everyone isn't"
(Ie only 1 relic to capture, it is in the middle of the map, fewer flags to hold, and movement speed reduction for relic or chaosball holders)

Would make the mainly dm crew interested in playing those modes. They are poorly designed to encourage pvp as they currently stand.

mandricus

I think that the main problem is the group queue.

Based on my personal experience (i mostly do battlegrounds in ESO, since about 2 years) the solo queue has never been an issue. Matches pops quite fast on PC-EU, at almost any given time, with longer queue times starting may be from 2 AM into very late night / early morning.

At peak hours, usually a solo queue pops a match in less than 2 minutes 90% of the times, with very few exceptions.

Group queue, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Typically you have to wait 15+ minutes for a match to start, even during peak hours, and sometimes you have to wait even more.

So my proposal is: can we at least try to take the Random Solo Players "ticket" ouf of to the "DM bucket"?

This experiment could be done for solo queue only, in order to see what happens.
Solo players that queue for DM will get a DM, solo players that queue for Random will get an objective-mode BG

I think that the main ZOS concern is that by further splitting the queues (they were already splitted between solo and group, because we all remember what a miserable experience was to queue as a solo and be put against a premade team, and we don't want to come back to that) the group queue would take ages before to be able to start a match (during non-peak hours, probably any group queue for a random non-dm battleground would not be able to get a match at all), and I think that they are right.

I think however this problem affect group queue only, as solo players queue is usually quite fast on PC-EU on any given day, so I thinks that the numbers are there in order to run a test on the solo queue and check how the solo BG population would react to the Deathmatch / objective games separate queue. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase of the overall bg population in the mid / long term.

LordRukia

Can someone explain to me why zos has suddenly been pushing tdm on players like a government mandate? I've played bgs for years and never once had an issue getting all of the modes in there , it always felt random to me. Now all of a sudden it doesn't work and tdm is all anyone wants to play. Yeah bro, I totally believe you rich .. except I really don't . As far as I'm concerned y'all are fabricating and a problem that just wasn't there.

Fhritz

Just put random solo the default choice, I think this'll fix many thing

M0ntie

I support the change to:
- Queue for random BG will queue for any mode except DM
- Queue for DM will queue for DM only

I've been doing a test and queueing each day in the 2nd option, random solo - and so far (only 3 days) I have got DM every time. (And I'm going to start quitting when I get DM because I hate DM.) I'm going to see how long it takes for me to get anything except DM in the random queue.

The RANDOM queue should give a random EVEN distribution of the 5 modes, not DM all the time. There is already the DM queue for that. If they can't make the random queue not give DM all the time, then it should exclude DM.

mandricus

M0ntie wrote: »

I'm going to see how long it takes for me to get anything except DM in the random queue.

Good luck with that. I'm doing battleground since the patch hit live, on a daily basis, every evening for about 2 hours. So far, I wasn't able to get anything but deatchmatch.

EF321

I rolled non-DM literally just once last week and got golden mail for it today

mandricus

EF321 wrote: »

I rolled non-DM literally just once last week and got golden mail for it today

That's the proof that the current system is flawed if it really just takes one single match to be in the weekly leaderboard. Given the current situation I would say that is not hard to believe you, you have been extremely lucky to have a non-deathmatch game. Most of us are trying to get a non-DM match on a daily basis, but we weren't able to succeed so far.
So far, I've *never* been able to get into a non-deathmatch game. I'm queueing for solo random battlegrounds since the queue was changed, i'm queueing every single day, and still trying: deathmatch, deathmatch, deathmatch over and over again. Yes, I do like deathmatch, but I would like to be able to play something different from times to times. It's becoming boring.

spartaxoxo

EF321 wrote: »

I rolled non-DM literally just once last week and got golden mail for it today

If that doesn't tell them that's something wrong, I don't know what would.

propertyOfUndefined

After more than 50 matches, I finally got a "Capture the Relic" today! My team lost pretty miserably, but it was glorious nonetheless! Most fun I've had in PVP in weeks... But alas, the next 5 games were all "Death Match"...