BG's still borked?

PvXGamer

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

[edited for bashing]

PvXGamer

I neglected to post a possible solution.

How about a BG-centric event to revitalize the aspect of the game? A week of increased rewards? New rewards/drops? Something to get people back into thinking BG's are a viable option for ways to play the game.


I'd rather be playing the game than writing this.

thesarahandcompany

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

[edited to remove quote]

trackdemon5512

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

See this thread https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/590843/battlegrounds-still-deathmatch-only#latest

Long story short is that the odds are rigged in favor to get Deathmatches over objective modes. Despite the proof from the last “test” that decidedly showed Deathmatches not being popular players are more than 99% likely to be put into a DM versus another mode.

Make sure to go to 4 hours, 5 minutes into the video in order to see where Rich explicitly explained that the queue system is weighted in favor of DMs at any one time.

[edited to remove quote]

thesarahandcompany

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

See this thread https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/590843/battlegrounds-still-deathmatch-only#latest

Long story short is that the odds are rigged in favor to get Deathmatches over objective modes. Despite the proof from the last “test” that decidedly showed Deathmatches not being popular players are more than 99% likely to be put into a DM versus another mode.

Make sure to go to 4 hours, 5 minutes into the video in order to see where Rich explicitly explained that the queue system is weighted in favor of DMs at any one time.

Everyone knows the test won't be good evidence for anything. It was on the tail of New World's release and has a huge selection bias issue. The only causal finding we can draw from the test is that New World caused a population decline. The test is really performative and being used by objective players, who are most vocal on forums, as evidence to wrongly describe DM as an unpopular mode.

Herstorically, DM has been the most popular and more players are returning for DM with the queue changes. It was written into the lore patches ago, can talk to the battlegrounds master to see. Not sure if it was removed in the latest patch.

Really wish we could shift the conversation from "fixing the queues" to how we make objective modes more attractive to the majority of players, which are those who prefer DM because it's the most engaging form of PVP. Instead, it seems like objective players are using every bit of 'data' and such unethically to portray a false reality.

No tea no shade. I'm sorry I'm coming off combative, but DM players feel like no one at ZOS is advocating for them.

[edited to remove quote]

Magio_

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

See this thread https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/590843/battlegrounds-still-deathmatch-only#latest

Despite the proof from the last “test” that decidedly showed Deathmatches not being popular players are more than 99% likely to be put into a DM versus another mode.

Except the person that can look at the data said this:
https://clips.twitch.tv/ElatedCogentDotterelPupper-gZFz6TGK6UoaELzd

[edited to remove quote]

thesarahandcompany

Magio_ wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

See this thread https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/590843/battlegrounds-still-deathmatch-only#latest

Despite the proof from the last “test” that decidedly showed Deathmatches not being popular players are more than 99% likely to be put into a DM versus another mode.

Except the person that can look at the data said this:
https://clips.twitch.tv/ElatedCogentDotterelPupper-gZFz6TGK6UoaELzd

I rest my case. Time to end this queue stuff and get on to content. I'm not trying to be rude, it's just. It's time. It's time to move on. It's time to revamp BGs and make objective modes more engaging and then we can get players in those matches.

[edited to remove quote]

trackdemon5512

Magio_ wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

See this thread https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/590843/battlegrounds-still-deathmatch-only#latest

Despite the proof from the last “test” that decidedly showed Deathmatches not being popular players are more than 99% likely to be put into a DM versus another mode.

Except the person that can look at the data said this:
https://clips.twitch.tv/ElatedCogentDotterelPupper-gZFz6TGK6UoaELzd

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

PvXGamer wrote: »

[snip] Have you folks on the dev team been reading the comments about the changes to BG's? What should have been done? The BG's should have been left alone, you then make an announcement that you are looking for ideas from your players (you know, the folks who play them all the time and aren't looking at BG's and BG mechanics through the lens of an employee working at zos) on how to improve them, and then make a second announcement once you chose a direction to move in, then make a third announcement when you're ready to implement said changes. I have not stepped foot into BG's since they were turned into a /yawnfest. You never remove options that are actually being used from your players unless said options are tied to an exploit or game-breaking mechanic. What was done was just shoddy customer service and has earned a majority of the complaints I've seen.

They haven't been removed. A majority of players just queue and want to play DM.

See: https://clips.twitch.tv/CloudyYummyPeanutShadyLulu-11w1kPHNmiqRU-zN

See this thread https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/590843/battlegrounds-still-deathmatch-only#latest

Despite the proof from the last “test” that decidedly showed Deathmatches not being popular players are more than 99% likely to be put into a DM versus another mode.

Except the person that can look at the data said this:
https://clips.twitch.tv/ElatedCogentDotterelPupper-gZFz6TGK6UoaELzd

I rest my case. Time to end this queue stuff and get on to content. I'm not trying to be rude, it's just. It's time. It's time to move on. It's time to revamp BGs and make objective modes more engaging and then we can get players in those matches.

Except you’re both wrong [snip]

As he said the current way it works is you queue for a random DM and it puts a ticket in for DM. You queue for a random BG and it puts a ticket in for all 4 match types including DM. Whichever comes up first to be filled will be the one that goes.

By that AND the fact that random DM is the first option available on the drop down list you are statistically more likely to get a DM.

If 11 people put in for random BG and a 12th put in for DM, guess what you’re going into a deathmatch. Why? Because 11 tickets were put in for the 3 other match types but 12 were put in for Deathmatch. Deathmatch wins out.

It’s a broken system. Deathmatches aren’t coming up because people want Deathmatch. They’re coming up because the system is rigged to set up a deathmatch over any other mode.

The ONLY way you will get a random BG that isn’t a deathmatch is if 12 players put in for random BG mode and then they only have a 75% chance of not getting a deathmatch because they put in equal tickets for all modes.

And I would LOVE to see an argument that New World or anything else has an effect on people queuing now that the game’s hype has died and players have returned to ESO for new content. The BG population numbers are already going down the tubes.

[edited for bashing & to remove quote]

ealdwin

If indeed, as very much appears the case, the queues are working in a method that goes against the intended functionality of the queues (DM Only for only DM, Random for a relatively equal chance of any) then something needs changed to fix that. There's nothing else to it.

My suggestions would be:

1. Set the Solo Random Queue to be the default. See if by removing the opt-in step it increases the number of people in the queue. Since DM only is a specific request it might make more sense to be an opt-in rather than an opt-out.

2. Sever the tie between the Random and the DM only. You could still have DM as a possibility within the Random, but make it so that queuing for the Random queue doesn't also mean putting a ticket in the DM "bucket". It might mean longer queue times for both queues, but at least the Random queue would be working as the players expect it to.

Magio_

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

thesarahandcompany

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

trackdemon5512

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

At 4 hours, 5 minutes in its pointed out that the current BG queue system is broken and is likely to put players into a Deathmatch almost 100% of the time. Rich looks up the data, doesn’t show it, but sees that there are players in the other BG modes.

Now seeing as PC is live it’s easy to see by the various leaderboards for the modes that yes players are getting into all BG modes. BUT the insane high cumulative score for the DM leaderboard and the extremely low cumulative scores for the other modes reflect that something is amiss. The DM score is too high and the other modes are way too low. There are screenshots littered about that you can confirm this.

Rich goes off on a tangent about how making separate queues would result in nothing filling. BUT he missed the key point that is being made that the current queue system live now is broken. 11 players looking for non-DM queue up for a random. 1 player queues up for DM. ALL 12 are forced into a DM by the system and the way it works.

That very imbalance skews the leaderboards and makes any argument that the majority of players queueing for BGs now want DM because it’s the most played. It’s only the most played because the system essentially forces players into it every single time. Almost 94% of the time will it put players in a DM. And with SOLO DM being the first option, the easiest option that 1 out of 12 people will choose by convenience without active choice the chance of getting a DM today is even greater.

People aren’t getting all DMs because it’s popular. The system basically ensures it even if 12 ppl choose random BG.

NagualV

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

MurderMostFoul

I prefer death match, but I also prefer folks to have options to play other modes if they want. The fix:

1. Make random default
2. Make the daily win bonus only active for the random queues.

I would expect these two changes to drive enough traffic toward the random queues resulting in a much higher likelihood of modes other than deathmatch.

thesarahandcompany

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

I prefer death match, but I also prefer folks to have options to play other modes if they want. The fix:

1. Make random default
2. Make the daily win bonus only active for the random queues.

I would expect these two changes to drive enough traffic toward the random queues resulting in a much higher likelihood of modes other than deathmatch.

I disagree with most of these solution ideas.

1. Make objective games more enticing to deathmatch players by removing all but 1 flag in flag games, prevent running and tank builds from cheesing chaos ball, place one single relic/scroll at the center for capture the relic and add a snare component.

2. Add a kill component to objectives that awards points such as killing the individual holding relics, offensive points for fighting on flags and landing kills, etc.

3. Increase transmute costs.

4. Add new BG maps and new 12v12 objective BG content that follows the logic of #2.

MurderMostFoul

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

I prefer death match, but I also prefer folks to have options to play other modes if they want. The fix:

1. Make random default
2. Make the daily win bonus only active for the random queues.

I would expect these two changes to drive enough traffic toward the random queues resulting in a much higher likelihood of modes other than deathmatch.

I disagree with most of these solution ideas.

1. Make objective games more enticing to deathmatch players by removing all but 1 flag in flag games, prevent running and tank builds from cheesing chaos ball, place one single relic/scroll at the center for capture the relic and add a snare component.

2. Add a kill component to objectives that awards points such as killing the individual holding relics, offensive points for fighting on flags and landing kills, etc.

3. Increase transmute costs.

4. Add new BG maps and new 12v12 objective BG content that follows the logic of #2.

There's plenty of complete overhauls that could improve the system. I was only offering two easy and slight modifications that ZOS could implement fairly rapidly that could help resolve the issue.

trackdemon5512

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

NagualV

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

thesarahandcompany

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

I prefer death match, but I also prefer folks to have options to play other modes if they want. The fix:

1. Make random default
2. Make the daily win bonus only active for the random queues.

I would expect these two changes to drive enough traffic toward the random queues resulting in a much higher likelihood of modes other than deathmatch.

I disagree with most of these solution ideas.

1. Make objective games more enticing to deathmatch players by removing all but 1 flag in flag games, prevent running and tank builds from cheesing chaos ball, place one single relic/scroll at the center for capture the relic and add a snare component.

2. Add a kill component to objectives that awards points such as killing the individual holding relics, offensive points for fighting on flags and landing kills, etc.

3. Increase transmute costs.

4. Add new BG maps and new 12v12 objective BG content that follows the logic of #2.

There's plenty of complete overhauls that could improve the system. I was only offering two easy and slight modifications that ZOS could implement fairly rapidly that could help resolve the issue.

I hear you. I am just of the opinion now that we need to move on from queue talks and talk about how to make objective BG more engaging and new content ideas. I feel like we're fighting over breadcrumbs at this point.

trackdemon5512

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

thesarahandcompany

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

trackdemon5512

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

thesarahandcompany

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

trackdemon5512

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

And yet if he’s basing that data off what has been pulled since the update went live the data is clearly flawed.

- ZOS institutes flawed queue system. 99% of BGs are made into Deathmatches regardless of what players want because of the ticketing system
- Rich views the data (only the data from this past week as it’s the only thing able to show who’s queueing in and who isn’t) and sees what others have long confirmed: 99% of matches are Deathmatch
- Analysis shows that you will always get Deathmatch regardless of what you actually want
- Rich, IN ERROR, says that based upon the current (flawed) information that so many people are going into Deathmatches that getting a non-Deathmatch would never happen.
- That can’t possibly be true because we had years of players doing Flag Deathmatches before. They didn’t all quit.

This is why how you conduct and gather information is important. We called out before that the Deathmatch only test last update was severely flawed. And we called out the current test as flawed. Not only is the methodology of collecting data failing here but ZOS continues to ruin its sample populations.

-Addendum-

Let’s say I instituted a change in the game like making Medusa the best set for magicka critical users. As a result of said change players are now queueing up en masse for Arx Corinium to farm for the set. So much so that every random dungeon group is Arx Corinium.

Those that have the set stop doing random dungeons all together because all they get is Arx Corinium.

Is it fair to say that Arx Corinium is the most popular dungeon overall OR is it more accurate to say that of the engaged population Arx Corinium is the most popular? There is a difference between the two. Just because numbers show that those queueing for dungeons keep going into Arx doesn’t mean it’s the most popular. Esp if the system by design puts you in there because farm groups are just looking to fill.

If I drive all the players out of BGs that want non-DM and then do a survey of the remaining players what mode they want, aren’t I always going to get DM?

NagualV

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

I agree with you.....but I think you're wasting your time. I dont think you're changing anyone's mind, regardless of what you say to them.

redspecter23

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

I agree with you.....but I think you're wasting your time. I dont think you're changing anyone's mind, regardless of what you say to them.

I find it a bit odd that he used the word "never", implying that the queue for objective BG would never, over any period of time, ever accumulate up to 12 people. That is a very bold statement, but he does have the data. If that queue sat there for 12 hours, still it wouldn't fill? If it sat for 1 week solid, they still could "never" have 12 players queue for objective BG? Again, very bold to state that.

But assuming that is true, I draw the conclusion that over even the most populated timeframe, they can "never" get 12 people who want objective BG in the queue. If this really, truly is the case, just delete them. Apparently there are only a small handful of players that would even notice, right?

NagualV

redspecter23 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

I agree with you.....but I think you're wasting your time. I dont think you're changing anyone's mind, regardless of what you say to them.

I find it a bit odd that he used the word "never", implying that the queue for objective BG would never, over any period of time, ever accumulate up to 12 people. That is a very bold statement, but he does have the data. If that queue sat there for 12 hours, still it wouldn't fill? If it sat for 1 week solid, they still could "never" have 12 players queue for objective BG? Again, very bold to state that.

But assuming that is true, I draw the conclusion that over even the most populated timeframe, they can "never" get 12 people who want objective BG in the queue. If this really, truly is the case, just delete them. Apparently there are only a small handful of players that would even notice, right?

Crazy right? Who knows.....even though i have a strong opinion, I'm open to being wrong about it. As you said, they have the data, ultimately. I really hope there is a way everyone can get what they want.....I just have a feeling it's a tough problem.

trackdemon5512

redspecter23 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

I agree with you.....but I think you're wasting your time. I dont think you're changing anyone's mind, regardless of what you say to them.

I find it a bit odd that he used the word "never", implying that the queue for objective BG would never, over any period of time, ever accumulate up to 12 people. That is a very bold statement, but he does have the data. If that queue sat there for 12 hours, still it wouldn't fill? If it sat for 1 week solid, they still could "never" have 12 players queue for objective BG? Again, very bold to state that.

But assuming that is true, I draw the conclusion that over even the most populated timeframe, they can "never" get 12 people who want objective BG in the queue. If this really, truly is the case, just delete them. Apparently there are only a small handful of players that would even notice, right?

Easily disproved.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7438986/#Comment_7438986

Here we see leaderboard rankings for the various BGs under the most recent patch.

Considering what we know about the ticket system and how it places you into respective BGs we can gather that 12 players, at one time or another, had to queue up for Random Battleground (specifically not Deathmatch) at around the same time. Those players were grouped with 11 other players who also chose Random Battleground and from there had a 3/4 chance of being put into a flag game.

If it were never like Rich said then then 1 out of 12 people would always force a group into a deathmatch.

To even be able to get a flag game with the odds heavily stacked against you each time for queueing up means that the population looking for non-DM games is not small at all. In fact it would have to be rather substantial in order to produce such a result.

How many would choose to stick around BGs is another matter considering there are plenty of reports of players queueing up for BGs and getting Deathmatch 20 times in a row. At that point the flag game players just stop trying. It’s not that the population doesn’t want to play flag games, they just can’t because of the system and it’s a waste of time to try.

thesarahandcompany

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

I agree with you.....but I think you're wasting your time. I dont think you're changing anyone's mind, regardless of what you say to them.

Yea. We literally get one thing as BG PVPers and that's deathmatch queue, and a few people just want to take it away from us. It's so exhausting just wanting to play the game.

thesarahandcompany

redspecter23 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

NagualV wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Magio_ wrote: »

"Guy in charge of the game doesn't understand". Great argument.

He literally said "We can separate DM and non-DM queues, but then non-DM queues will not pop".

How do you explain him saying objective modes are also not popular in other games like World of Warcraft?

Literally this.

Lol yup....

You know what's funny too?

In the gigantic "overland content is too easy/give vet overland option" thread(there was a huge one that eventually got closed, and now theres another giant one that's "official"), the people who argue for not increasing overland difficulty quote rich Lambert and use his words to effectively say "trust ZOS, they are the experts, they have access to the data, they have made wise choices and ESO is hugely successful, they will not add veteran option for overworld content, the majority of playerbase enjoys the current difficulty, etc"....

Those same people, when THEY dont like something, when something doesnt "go their way", all of a sudden, they guy in charge doesnt understand..........

For the record, although I personally would not have minded a difficulty slider, or harder overland mode, I agree with the folks who say the majority of the playerbase doesnt want it and that ZOS had made a wise business decision in not implementing it.

Well guess what folks, those same informed folks have spoken on the battleground issue- according to their analysis of their data(which we dont have access to), DEATHMATCH IS THE MOST POPULAR GAME MODE, and if they split the queues, non deathmatch queue wait times are going to go up, possibly hurting the overall player experience.

Remember when you argued that ZOS made the right decision based on data, and that the players who wanted harder overland content were a loud and vocal minority..........it almost sounds like the people complaining about current battlegrounds are a loud but vocal minority......

Yeah except you see in real time for this one instance that the process by which they’re using to put people in BGs this patch is demonstrably flawed. That’s very different from people not doing any overland content and leaving the game which has far more data.

11 people queue for solo DM. A group of 12 always gets solo DM
1 person queues for solo DM. A group of 12 ALWAYS gets solo DM
12 people queue for solo BG. A group of 12 has a 1/4 chance of getting DM

No matter what way you look at it if you or the vast majority of people in any random population want a BG other than DM currently the odds are against them.

That’s the system putting them into content they don’t want versus overland where they can easily choose what not to participate in. If you want a more apt analogy it’s like queuing into a random normal dungeon and getting Fungal Grotto 1 all the time. That can’t possibly reflect that all players want to do is FG1 but if the system is biased towards it then that’s what you get.

As for Rich it’s clearly he misunderstood what was being asked in real time while multitasking with a dungeon run. It’s not that the majority of people are choosing DM, it’s that the system is designed by his own admission to basically put everyone in a DM regardless of choice.

Lol....

So when it comes to overland content being harder, the experts have all the data, we should trust their judgement, they have far more data and access to it, and the game is all the more successful for it.

When it's something I DONT LIKE, the dev's are wrong, they are misinterpreting data, their testing methods are incorrect, let me selectively choose quotes that support my position while ignoring ones that go against.... exactly the thing that people in that gigantic overland content thread did who argued for harder content ...

It's just funny to me, that's all. I know you see it "differently", and that the scenarios are "different" in your mind, and its just pointless to discuss it further.

I sit 12 people down to a table. 1 I tell to always want RANDOM DEATHMATCH. The other 11 I tell to always want RANDOM BG.

I give each of the 11 who want RANDOM BG 4 different color tickets.

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH.
- 1 represents CHAOSBALL
- 1 represents DOMINATION
- 1 represents CAPTURE THE RELIC

I give the One Individual who wants RANDOM DEATHMATCH a single ticket

- 1 represents DEATHMATCH

I ask the group what they want. 11 put out tickets for every mode. 1 puts out a ticket for just Deathmatch.

EVERY SINGLE TIME IT WILL RESULT IN DEATHMATCH WITH A 100% probability. That is how Rich explained it.

It’s not 12 votes for Deathmatch, 11 for each of the others, let’s amalgamate the total and then randomly choose a game by its potential chance.

It’s 12 votes for Deathmatch beats 11 votes for whatever else. Every Single Time.

In no universe could you actually use said data as an indicator of what mode is most popular, esp if you can only see the final result which is what games are being played.

In fact for a non-Deathmatch to even get played you have to randomly group 12 people at 1 time who all 12 chose random BG. Now did they want DM or just any mode that isn’t DM? It’s impossible to tell! But even then they still have a 1 in 4 chance of getting Deathmatch.

That’s very very different from the hard overland content issue.

That's not what is happening. It's not just 1 player queueing for deathmatch. A majority are. He said that.

No. He said when you queue you’re given a ticket. If you queue for Deathmatch you get a Deathmatch ticket. If you queue for Random BG you get tickets for Deathmatch, Domination, Relic, and Chaos. You get 4 tickets at once.

You then put 12 random people into a group. Whichever has the most tickets plays that game. That means there will always be 12 tickets for Deathmatch and 12 or less tickets for the other 3 modes. Whichever mode has the most tickets automatically wins. If all four are tied (as is the case only if 12 players choose random BG) then is a lot drawn to what mode should be chosen.

Deathmatch ALWAYS wins out. That’s not a popularity contest or people choosing Deathmatch. The system virtually guarantees Deathmatch every single time because there will always be 12 yays for Deathmatch.

And if you don’t want Deathmatch well too bad because the random BG option still makes you cast a vote for Deathmatch.

Except he literally said that if you pulled deathmatch out of the random lotto then the random queues would never pop because everyone is queueing deathmatch.

I agree with you.....but I think you're wasting your time. I dont think you're changing anyone's mind, regardless of what you say to them.

I find it a bit odd that he used the word "never", implying that the queue for objective BG would never, over any period of time, ever accumulate up to 12 people. That is a very bold statement, but he does have the data. If that queue sat there for 12 hours, still it wouldn't fill? If it sat for 1 week solid, they still could "never" have 12 players queue for objective BG? Again, very bold to state that.

But assuming that is true, I draw the conclusion that over even the most populated timeframe, they can "never" get 12 people who want objective BG in the queue. If this really, truly is the case, just delete them. Apparently there are only a small handful of players that would even notice, right?

I fully support deleting objective game modes. I think it's a great idea. Less is more sometimes. Makes balancing easier.

SkaraMinoc

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Easily disproved.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7438986/#Comment_7438986

Those land grab and flag games happened because nobody queued for Deathmatch at that time.

A simple way of visualizing it:

Player 1: DM
Player 2: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 3: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 4: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 5: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 6: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 7: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 8: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 9: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 10: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 11: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King
Player 12: DM, CTR, Chaosball, Domination, Crazy King

DM: 12
CTR: 11
Chaosball: 11
Domination: 11
Crazy King: 11

All it takes is 1 player to force everyone currently queued into playing Deathmatch.