Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
BG's still borked?
-
redspecter23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »
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.
It's probably a bit harsh to completely delete something. I was being a bit sarcastic with that statement. However, if it is the case that the queue could never fill if it was put on its own, perhaps opening up BG's to full 12 player premade groups (without rewards, just for fun) could be a way to allow players to play the (apparently) very unpopular format without disrupting the DM only mode.
I still highly doubt there are that few players that an objective only mode would never fill, but just tossing out ideas so everyone can play the way they want.Edited by redspecter23 on 8 November 2021 20:540 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
Exactly. If the BG population is as low as they make it out to be OR the number of players that want a deathmatch are as high as they make it out to be then with the system you and I detail it should be almost impossible for a match at any time to be anything but a DM.
Clearly there must be a significant population of players queueing for Random Solo BG at any point for such matches to even occur. And if that the case then whatever assumption that DMs are as popular as they’re made out to be has to be wrong.Edited by trackdemon5512 on 8 November 2021 21:004 -
ealdwin✭✭✭✭✭
✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »
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.
No one wants to take the deathmatch queue away from players. People just want the random queue to work as expected. And currently, it is not, and therefore needs fixed. DM only queue is working as expected, so can stay as is.1 -
SkaraMinoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I'd be surprised if more than 20% of players want to play Deathmatch at any given time.
The Daily XP provides an incentive for players to queue for battlegrounds. The majority of players prefer PvE and are not hardcore Deathmatch players. Therefore, most players prefer casual objective-based game modes.
This is conjecture but the logic makes sense.PC NA1 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers0 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.Edited by trackdemon5512 on 9 November 2021 00:231 -
maravanaSoul ShrivenAnother anecdotal case to add to the hopper: every non-DM queue since the change has been...a Deathmatch.
My solution? Apologize to the group and drop.3 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers2 -
redspecter23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
2 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
That's the thing. 1 DM player isn't causing lop-sided queues. Most people are queueing deathmatch. The theoretical "1 player can force a DM queue" is moot because realistically 1 player isn't causing queues to spawn deathmatch. It's just what the vast majority of players like.
He admitted that it's working as intended and that random obj queues are still popping up.
It's time to move on from queues.Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers1 -
NagualV✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I love it. LOVE IT. This made my day.1 -
redspecter23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
That's the thing. 1 DM player isn't causing lop-sided queues. Most people are queueing deathmatch. The theoretical "1 player can force a DM queue" is moot because realistically 1 player isn't causing queues to spawn deathmatch. It's just what the vast majority of players like.
He admitted that it's working as intended and that random obj queues are still popping up.
It's time to move on from queues.
Well if objective games pop sometimes that means all 12 queued for random. It does happen occasionally. Also, occasionally there will be 1 for DM and 11 for random. Mathematically that has to happen sometimes. Also 2 DM and 10 random and so on. These situations are happening and the outcome is that DM will always be chosen when they do occur, even if it's not overly often. This is part of the issue that creates such a small number of objective games.
Sometimes the queue will be 1 / 12 DM. It mathematically has to happen sometimes.Edited by redspecter23 on 9 November 2021 02:503 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.2 -
NagualV✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.0 -
redspecter23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
The difference with the dungeon queue is that there are many more buckets and you can intentionally choose to put yourself in more than one specific one. That creates something that feels slightly more random. If you want to run Selene's Web, you can put yourself in that bucket and wait until it fills. We are not being given that option for BG. We aren't being given the option to wait until it fills. That will "never" happen if we did have the option.
BG has only one bucket you can intentionally put yourself into exclusively. The odds of any of the other buckets filling first become ridiculously low, especially if the vast majority actually choose to put themselves in that one exclusive bucket.
I ordered pizza for the family tonight. Everyone wanted cheese and pepperoni, then crazy uncle Bob came in and said he wanted pineapple. We all get to eat pineapple pizza tonight I guess and every single night that uncle Bob comes around ever, until the end of time. We'll never get the chance to eat our preferred pizza. We can't tell Bob to go away. We don't have the ability to kick him out of the house to allow us to have the pizza that the rest of us want. At least Bob is happy.1 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.
No. The people who want objective modes aren’t a vocal minority. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have had the issues of complaints leading to the first Deathmatch only complaints.
And when the developers catered to just Deathmatch players if objective players were such a minority then when the BG populations dropped to unsustainable levels whose fault was it? The DM players who abandoned the mode despite clamoring for it? Or the objective players abandoning it who you call a minority?
And now it’s incredibly clear that the system is broken and Rich really isnt understanding. Final week score rallies for BGs will/have shown that and likely will show it again.
And if the stats show that 99% of matches are all Deathmatches as predicted by the players then Rich is unquestionably wrong. You can’t make the argument that DMs are the most popular when you’ve driven all of the players who enjoy the other modes out and then restructure the queues to essentially guarantee DMs at all times.2 -
NagualV✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.
No. The people who want objective modes aren’t a vocal minority. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have had the issues of complaints leading to the first Deathmatch only complaints.
And when the developers catered to just Deathmatch players if objective players were such a minority then when the BG populations dropped to unsustainable levels whose fault was it? The DM players who abandoned the mode despite clamoring for it? Or the objective players abandoning it who you call a minority?
And now it’s incredibly clear that the system is broken and Rich really isnt understanding. Final week score rallies for BGs will/have shown that and likely will show it again.
And if the stats show that 99% of matches are all Deathmatches as predicted by the players then Rich is unquestionably wrong. You can’t make the argument that DMs are the most popular when you’ve driven all of the players who enjoy the other modes out and then restructure the queues to essentially guarantee DMs at all times.
After what Rich said........I mean...........man.
Ok, well, nothing left for me to say.
I do hope that objective mode players get to play the modes they like, I've never been against that. Hopefully they are able to figure out a way.0 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.
No. The people who want objective modes aren’t a vocal minority. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have had the issues of complaints leading to the first Deathmatch only complaints.
And when the developers catered to just Deathmatch players if objective players were such a minority then when the BG populations dropped to unsustainable levels whose fault was it? The DM players who abandoned the mode despite clamoring for it? Or the objective players abandoning it who you call a minority?
And now it’s incredibly clear that the system is broken and Rich really isnt understanding. Final week score rallies for BGs will/have shown that and likely will show it again.
And if the stats show that 99% of matches are all Deathmatches as predicted by the players then Rich is unquestionably wrong. You can’t make the argument that DMs are the most popular when you’ve driven all of the players who enjoy the other modes out and then restructure the queues to essentially guarantee DMs at all times.
After what Rich said........I mean...........man.
Ok, well, nothing left for me to say.
I do hope that objective mode players get to play the modes they like, I've never been against that. Hopefully they are able to figure out a way.
At this point, I don't even care about objective modes anymore. I say delete them from game. That's my stance.
Notice how every response opposing our evidence has been theory, hypothetical situations, stories about pizza. But little facing reality. I'm so over it.Edited by thesarahandcompany on 9 November 2021 03:36Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers3 -
ealdwin✭✭✭✭✭
✭Honestly, he exact ratio of DM players to Objective players to Both is kind of irrelevant.
If a random queue is being offered, then it is expected that that queue will result in reasonably equal chances of triggering each type of BG mode over an extended period of time.
That the random queue is not doing that means that the current system is broken as [snip]
It needs fixed.
(And no, removing it is not a viable or reasonable choice. Taking away that choice would be stupid.)
[edited for profanity bypass]Edited by ZOS_Icy on 13 November 2021 18:532 -
redspecter23✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.
No. The people who want objective modes aren’t a vocal minority. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have had the issues of complaints leading to the first Deathmatch only complaints.
And when the developers catered to just Deathmatch players if objective players were such a minority then when the BG populations dropped to unsustainable levels whose fault was it? The DM players who abandoned the mode despite clamoring for it? Or the objective players abandoning it who you call a minority?
And now it’s incredibly clear that the system is broken and Rich really isnt understanding. Final week score rallies for BGs will/have shown that and likely will show it again.
And if the stats show that 99% of matches are all Deathmatches as predicted by the players then Rich is unquestionably wrong. You can’t make the argument that DMs are the most popular when you’ve driven all of the players who enjoy the other modes out and then restructure the queues to essentially guarantee DMs at all times.
After what Rich said........I mean...........man.
Ok, well, nothing left for me to say.
I do hope that objective mode players get to play the modes they like, I've never been against that. Hopefully they are able to figure out a way.
At this point, I don't even care about objective modes anymore. I say delete them from game. That's my stance.
Notice how every response opposing our evidence has been theory, hypothetical situations, stories about pizza. But little facing reality. I'm so over it.
I liked my pizza story. Like I said, it's not about someone getting their way. I don't even play BG. If they removed objective BG tomorrow, I'd likely be fine with it, but I understand that the game is more than just what I want. I believe that players should have a reasonable expectation of receiving a random outcome if they select a random queue.
Perhaps that queue could be renamed to "backfill" as that's what it actually is. That would remove any expectations of any random element as there really isn't one currently.
There is exactly one queue that can be backfilled and the rest of the people not queuing for that one are all backfills. It's kind of stacking the odds.0 -
SkaraMinoc✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I love it. LOVE IT. This made my day.
@Magio_
PC NA2 -
Wolf_Eye✭✭✭✭✭
✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.
No. The people who want objective modes aren’t a vocal minority. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have had the issues of complaints leading to the first Deathmatch only complaints.
And when the developers catered to just Deathmatch players if objective players were such a minority then when the BG populations dropped to unsustainable levels whose fault was it? The DM players who abandoned the mode despite clamoring for it? Or the objective players abandoning it who you call a minority?
And now it’s incredibly clear that the system is broken and Rich really isnt understanding. Final week score rallies for BGs will/have shown that and likely will show it again.
And if the stats show that 99% of matches are all Deathmatches as predicted by the players then Rich is unquestionably wrong. You can’t make the argument that DMs are the most popular when you’ve driven all of the players who enjoy the other modes out and then restructure the queues to essentially guarantee DMs at all times.
After what Rich said........I mean...........man.
Ok, well, nothing left for me to say.
I do hope that objective mode players get to play the modes they like, I've never been against that. Hopefully they are able to figure out a way.
At this point, I don't even care about objective modes anymore. I say delete them from game. That's my stance.
Notice how every response opposing our evidence has been theory, hypothetical situations, stories about pizza. But little facing reality. I'm so over it.
What about the achievements, dyes, titles, and furnishings that were exclusive to objective modes? They must still remain obtainable in some way.1 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »redspecter23 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »thesarahandcompany wrote: »SkaraMinoc wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »
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.
We can theorize all day but every time I queue a BG, I know about half or more of players queueing it are specifically queueing death match. It’s not realistic that this scenario you’re illustrating here is happening all day to cause BG queue issues.
Most players are queueing deathmatch and the random queue would never pop if we took deathmatch out of the queue equation.
ESO isn’t the first to have these issues, World of Warcraft is another example where objective games are just not as popular.
Also the idea that deathmatch is only sweaty players is a false assumption.
I would rather delete objective modes at this point and balance deathmatch better, because the queues are never going to be fixed and most players prefer deathmatch.
Except there is no possible way you can know that more than half the players you queue up with every time want DM. If you were just one that queued for DM solo you’ve already guaranteed that 12 people are going into a Deathmatch.
In fact if there were only 12 people playing BGs and 11 of them didn’t want to play DM ever, they still are putting in for DM due to the nature of the ticketing system. And you would never ever know that if you kept putting in for solo Deathmatch.
If Rich Lambert can see how many players queue up for Random Battleground, even if it doesn’t actually result in any kind of BG match going forward, that would be a much better indicator of the popularity of flag games versus dm.
That’s not what’s happening. Rich clearly only sees the matches being done and as we point out they’re improperly weighted to where it’s almost 100% Deathmatch.
If most players prefer Deathmatch we will see if BG player populations improve or collapse further in the coming weeks.
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
There is your clarification. Enough about the queues. Time to move on and start talking content changes.
Even if that's true, it doesn't make the bucket system a good way to determine a random queue assuming it works as described. A vast majority of players can queue for deathmatch and force deathmatch a vast majority of the time, but some players would like non deathmatch and they have no ability to actually make that happen.
This argument would be the exact same if it were the other way around and 95%+ of BG's were objective based.
It's not about wanting more DM or wanting DM to be removed or anything. It's about an unfair bucket system that creates absolutely lopsided random in many, many situations. The fact that 1 DM player can force DM to occur when 11 do not want it is a possibility, even if it doesn't actually occur often. Maybe it's 7 DM players and 5 random but that still means no chance of an objective game. The numbers have been posted above. Objective games are occurring, but at a ratio that is so ridiculously small, it might as well not exist at all. That is simply not balanced.
They simply aren’t getting it.
There is no way, from a straight statistical standpoint, that if a system is working correctly that players would get 20, 30, or even 40 Deathmatches in a row.
And I can see Rich sitting in that clip, nonchalantly answering questions but doing it without properly understanding again. The way they’re putting players into BGs is inherently broken. The system may be “working” but it’s obviously doing its job terribly if all you get are DMs.
The same way a random dungeon queue is broken if all you get is Fungal Grotto 1.
I'm sorry.....I really am....but you need to just admit you were wrong on this one. It's ok to admit being wrong, no one is infallible. If he would have responded the opposite, I would have come back here and admitted it.
In the same way that ZOS has made decisions about overland difficulty content, based on data they have, they've made this decision based on data as well. It might not be the outcome some want, but.....
In this instance, just like the people who want harder overland content, the people who prefer objective modes are a vocal minority.
No. The people who want objective modes aren’t a vocal minority. If that were the case then we wouldn’t have had the issues of complaints leading to the first Deathmatch only complaints.
And when the developers catered to just Deathmatch players if objective players were such a minority then when the BG populations dropped to unsustainable levels whose fault was it? The DM players who abandoned the mode despite clamoring for it? Or the objective players abandoning it who you call a minority?
And now it’s incredibly clear that the system is broken and Rich really isnt understanding. Final week score rallies for BGs will/have shown that and likely will show it again.
And if the stats show that 99% of matches are all Deathmatches as predicted by the players then Rich is unquestionably wrong. You can’t make the argument that DMs are the most popular when you’ve driven all of the players who enjoy the other modes out and then restructure the queues to essentially guarantee DMs at all times.
After what Rich said........I mean...........man.
Ok, well, nothing left for me to say.
I do hope that objective mode players get to play the modes they like, I've never been against that. Hopefully they are able to figure out a way.
At this point, I don't even care about objective modes anymore. I say delete them from game. That's my stance.
Notice how every response opposing our evidence has been theory, hypothetical situations, stories about pizza. But little facing reality. I'm so over it.
What about the achievements, dyes, titles, and furnishings that were exclusive to objective modes? They must still remain obtainable in some way.
Could reshape them to be obtainable in deathmatch with the change of a few words. I really think it will be better for the overall health of BGs to delete the objective modes.
Less is more sometimes. Right now the amount of BG modes (most of which aren't that engaging) is really an overchoice, when we could instead increase the content and complexity of deathmatch.
You really see the issue of overchoice shining through for objective modes because, like Rich said, they would never get a pop because enough players don't like or queue for objective modes.Edited by thesarahandcompany on 9 November 2021 14:46Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers0 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
The premise everyone using math to prove their bias is using is that 11 queue random vs 1 queue dm, you get dm.
Multiply that 3 times, you have 33 players choosing random and 3 choosing TDM.
You don't think they have the ability to know that? If that scenario were playing out, you don't think they'd make a change? I get that ZOS has a track record, but if anything, ZOS's track record is to do things that go directly against the "sweaties".
To everyone saying switch the queue bonus to be only tied to random... That used to happen. There was a span of time where group queue was removed and solo only was the only option and you were allowed to queue for random for the bonus, or abstain from the bonus and choose your mode.
Guess which mode was still the most popular during that time?
I'm not saying that it's a bad idea because it's not 100% effective. It might be a good idea for ZOS to implement it again because anything might be better than nothing, but these issues are deep rooted.
Back when we could choose modes, there was only solo queue. Now we have group and solo, both of which are important to keep over everything else because, let's be real, this is a social game and I expect to be able to play it with my friends. ZOS says doing that split the queues and dropped the numbers. Now they need to walk the tight rope to figure out how to benefit the most people.
I'm skeptical that this issue is being created because 3 out of 36 people only queue for TDM, as is being suggested. How badly is it skewed in favor of TDM? I don't know. I don't have the numbers, but ZOS seems to think it's bad enough to warrant this change.0 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.9 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
Amen. Great post.PC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden3 -
WhyEvenTry✭✭✭
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
Fully agree. Great post 👍3 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.Edited by thesarahandcompany on 11 November 2021 19:05Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers0 -
ealdwin✭✭✭✭✭
✭thesarahandcompany wrote: »
You're right they don't and shouldn't publish data, but when Rich Lambert answered questions about the Queue system he's sharing information that no player posting here has access to. He specifically mentions that the Deathmatch Queue is being used by the majority of players. Evidenced by the fact that Rich also says they're not able to "fix" that, since it's not really an issue with the queues. He mentions World of Warcraft having the same problem Warsong Gulch, an objective mode Battleground. The queue wouldn't pop because nobody queued for it. He also goes on to say how if they completely separated Objective Modes into its own queue, it would never pop.All of these arguments, on both sides, are speculation because ZOS will not (and should not) post internal data publicly.
Even then, ZOS already forced DM players into Objective modes with a fully random queue. We all know how that went. Objective gamers came to the forums to complain that every match was being played as a DM, no matter the mode. If the DM community was as small as Objective gamers say it is, the "Every Match is DM" epidemic wouldn't have been as big of a problem as it was.
PLEASE NOTE THESE SCREENSHOTS WERE TAKEN AT A TIME YOU COULD SPECIFICALLY QUEUE FOR DEATHMATCH, LAND GRAB, AND/OR FLAG GAMES. The Leaderboards shown clearly show Deathmatch was way more popular than Objective Modes when people could queue for whatever they wanted.
DM:
Flag Games:
Land Grab:
If you can see, 2,455 Medal Score in Deathmatch is not enough to get ranked in the Top 100. Yet a mere 2,600 Medal Score, which you can get from one match is enough to get Ranked 39 in Flag Games. Top 40, for one match after a whole day. Top 5 is Flag Games is 4,634 Medal Score. Top 5 for 2 matches worth. Sadly, the player didn't have a Medal Score for Land Grab, so we have no idea what it takes to break or not break into the Top 100, but looking at the spread of Medal Score it's easy to tell it's very similar to the Flag Games Leaderboard. Top 5 for only four matches worth of medals.
This coupled with all the anecdata of many players in the forums admitting that queueing for a Random BG, which filled partially filled matches for all three queue types, had a disproportionate chance of being DM, way bigger than the paltry under 15% chance we had when it was fully random as seen here:
This is why Every-Match-Is-DM was a problem. ZOS forced the majority to play and fill games for the minority.
Seems like one of the biggest detractors to the current system in this thread knows the diehard Objective Mode community is small. Emphasis mine.trackdemon5512 wrote: »you’ll never fill flag games except with the same small group of ppl.
Another detractor:I think those truly interested in PvP will not care about which match they get.
But only until ZOS looks at the data and implements a queue that goes against what you personally want?Further, I am going to lean on Zenimax for queue time projections as they have the real information to base their decisions on.
Truth is, Objective Modes are not popular enough to merit their own queue. Imho, it's because of the 3 Team system. Maybe rework Objective Modes, or even all BG modes into Head-to-Head arenas just like the popular games ESO objective gamers like to bring up as examples of Objectives being "real PvP", and the competitiveness and popularity of ESO BGs will grow.
For now Objective Gamers, you have to do what Deathmatch players did almost every day during the dark times of fully Random Queue. Go to your Discords full of people interested in your preferred BG Mode and get 12 people to queue up at the same time. At least until they revisit queues in a year from now, knowing ZOS.
This is super well said. My only differing point is that, I think we still need to just abolish the objective queue and make BGs a deathmatch-only thing, and just lean into that more. You can change death match to be multiple different things in a deathmatch queue such as...
Some ideas that would need polishing are:
1) Get as many kills as possible in 15 minutes
2) Knockout: every team has 510 points and every death subtracts 15 points, teams that get kills get a stacking damage buff of some sort until they die (to prevent healer teams for turtling to win)
3) First to 510 wins
etc. etc.
Removing the objective modes is not a valid solution.
ZOS just needs to fix their broken *** queue system so it works as advertised. Period.Edited by ealdwin on 11 November 2021 19:191
