The Ultimate Battleground Experience.

Necrotech_Master

charlieb wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

xDeusEJRx wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

How is 1 flag any good? It's just another form of deathmatch, just that you fight in a 5x5 meter area than the whole arena.

Point of objectivemodes is, that it requires strategic and tactical thinking, which is not needed in DM.

Like I said team 3 never has to engage with team 1 and 2(because those 2 are actually PVP'ing while also playing objective) and they can just avoid PVP and just focus solely on objectives

Mhm. Is that a thing on group queue then? I am just running solo queue and have rarely scenes where the teams stack together the whole match.
On flag fights the teams are pretty spread and you often have only 1vs2, 2vs2 minimal fights on flags and rarely big team clashes.

But besides that. That's the part where the strategically decision is made: if you are team 1 and you see a whole stack of team 2 on a flag, then you need to go for another flag, since fighting/turning the flag would cost too much time.

charlieb wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

How is 1 flag any good? It's just another form of deathmatch, just that you fight in a 5x5 meter area than the whole arena.

Point of objectivemodes is, that it requires strategic and tactical thinking, which is not needed in DM.

How is running to a flag that no one is at STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL? Please enlighten me.

I will enlighten you.
In flag fights you gain points for active flags every 5 seconds. If you go for a empty flag, you can turn it fast without problems = profit= points for the team.

Fighting endless fights on flags= flag doesn't turn=no profit= no points for the team.

You are welcome.

[snip]

i personally think that the problem is in the maps themselves mainly:

• the maps being the primary cause of geometry bugs which cause issues in chaosball
• maps being much too large for cases like relic or domination/crazy king

the map with the lava in it is almost perfect size and setup for pretty much any of the game modes, and as others have noted ive had much more enjoyable matches on this map, the other one i would say is alright is the small gladiator arena style map

the very large map that has the small gladiator arena with a huge outside area that you almost have to ride your horse on is way too large for a smallscale map (bad for almost any of the games)

other maps like the one you have to take a portal to get to the actual map feels rife with spawn-camping since the portals place you in very specific spots and do not allow any team to have a "base" (this is horrible for relic games and my least favorite map overall)

other maps that i dont really have much opinion on would be the dwemer style arena with the activatable trap in the middle (not good, but not bad)

other suggestions that you mention like reducing objectives, i could possibly see that for domination, i could see that being dropped to 4 flags, and controlling 3 of them would allow you to win optimally (controlling 2 would be "easier" but also a slower win)

with 5 flags, you have to at minimum control 3 of the flags to even really pull ahead point wise, which means 3 players would have to be good at holding the flag while a 4th is either trying to cap the remaining flags, or helping to control the 3 held flags, which means you either have to be really good at 1vXing the rest of the teams, or you are losing ground by being a "ball" group (you can cap a flag 4x faster with 4 people, but then you have 4 undefended flags to deal with)

[edited to remove quote]

Aldoss

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

How is 1 flag any good? It's just another form of deathmatch, just that you fight in a 5x5 meter area than the whole arena.

Point of objectivemodes is, that it requires strategic and tactical thinking, which is not needed in DM.

Posts like this only serve to show how great the divide is from people who understand the combat mechs of this game vs those who only know how to stack.

DM as it is with 3 teams requires the most amount of tactical decision making along with small scaling against zergs in cyro. You need to stick together, and play off each other's moves. You have to predict when your target's team will push while also checking your flanks to plan your escape path. Getting 3rd partied and backed against a wall is how teams get wiped. Healing is so strong right now. Do you pressure the healer first or do you cc lock the dps before making the swap? Do you risk your positioning to finish a kill when a target is in execute, or do you stay near your team so you don't lose positioning?

1 flag Crazy King sounds excellent. When we run BG tourny's on game modes that aren't DM, there is always a scoreboard with objective points scored simply because teams will reposition wherever provides them the most tactical advantage. Sometimes that's on a flag that means nothing to them (only kills/death/dmg matter in BG tourny's).

With only 1 flag, there is no retreat repositioning and still winning. Do you let one team have the flag, allow the 2nd team to engage and then 3rd party both? Is the loss in points during that decision worth it? Do you race to the flag first and risk getting double teamed?

When objectives are lesser in number than teams, objectives start to matter. As they are, they motivate, incentivize, and reward anyone who chooses to avoid all forms of pvp combat.

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

But besides that. That's the part where the strategically decision is made: if you are team 1 and you see a whole stack of team 2 on a flag, then you need to go for another flag, since fighting/turning the flag would cost too much time.

This statement accurately and in detail describes the problem with objectives as they are while delivering it as a solution and if you don't see the problem with that, then I don't think any further discussion is required.

RealLoveBVB

Aldoss wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

But besides that. That's the part where the strategically decision is made: if you are team 1 and you see a whole stack of team 2 on a flag, then you need to go for another flag, since fighting/turning the flag would cost too much time.

This statement accurately and in detail describes the problem with objectives as they are while delivering it as a solution and if you don't see the problem with that, then I don't think any further discussion is required.

No, it's still normal PvP.

Did you play counter strike? It's exactly the same principe.

Now imagine you have 4 CTs on bombspot A and 1 CT on bombspot B. With your logic you would need to attack bombspot A, because it's all about killing and fighting each other directly. But it's the wrong decision and you are risking to lose the round/match.
So of course you are avoiding this fight and go to bombspot B and your chances to win the round increased a lot, same as running to a empty flag.

Haven't seen anyone complaining in CS for avoiding fights

Dem_kitkats1

Aldoss wrote: »

Posts like this only serve to show how great the divide is from people who understand the combat mechs of this game vs those who only know how to stack.

DM as it is with 3 teams requires the most amount of tactical decision making along with small scaling against zergs in cyro. You need to stick together, and play off each other's moves. You have to predict when your target's team will push while also checking your flanks to plan your escape path. Getting 3rd partied and backed against a wall is how teams get wiped. Healing is so strong right now. Do you pressure the healer first or do you cc lock the dps before making the swap? Do you risk your positioning to finish a kill when a target is in execute, or do you stay near your team so you don't lose positioning?

1 flag Crazy King sounds excellent. When we run BG tourny's on game modes that aren't DM, there is always a scoreboard with objective points scored simply because teams will reposition wherever provides them the most tactical advantage. Sometimes that's on a flag that means nothing to them (only kills/death/dmg matter in BG tourny's).

With only 1 flag, there is no retreat repositioning and still winning. Do you let one team have the flag, allow the 2nd team to engage and then 3rd party both? Is the loss in points during that decision worth it? Do you race to the flag first and risk getting double teamed?

If the Objective modes and maps were redesigned and changed they would require similar tactics? Teams would have to make similar decisions as to when to push for an objective, when to defend, should the team split to cover more territory, or to distract, or stick with the power of 1 full group, depending on what other teams are doing for strategy. This is also what happens in Cyro if you want to compare the two.
* AGAIN, this is if the modes, maps, and scoreboards changed. I am not defending the current design of the Objective modes.

Let's not compare BG tourneys of predetermined teams with voice comms to the experiences of the many players who queue solo or duo and end up on teams with players of mixed skill, no communication, and very different playstyles. There's a lot of stacking and third partying in those DM matches. With OP healing any teams with a decent healer are practically untouchable, so the only tactics required are stack and go. Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

Dem_kitkats1

Aldoss wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

How is 1 flag any good? It's just another form of deathmatch, just that you fight in a 5x5 meter area than the whole arena.

Point of objectivemodes is, that it requires strategic and tactical thinking, which is not needed in DM.

Posts like this only serve to show

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Posts like this only serve to show how great the divide is from people who understand the combat mechs of this game vs those who only know how to stack.

DM as it is with 3 teams requires the most amount of tactical decision making along with small scaling against zergs in cyro. You need to stick together, and play off each other's moves. You have to predict when your target's team will push while also checking your flanks to plan your escape path. Getting 3rd partied and backed against a wall is how teams get wiped. Healing is so strong right now. Do you pressure the healer first or do you cc lock the dps before making the swap? Do you risk your positioning to finish a kill when a target is in execute, or do you stay near your team so you don't lose positioning?

1 flag Crazy King sounds excellent. When we run BG tourny's on game modes that aren't DM, there is always a scoreboard with objective points scored simply because teams will reposition wherever provides them the most tactical advantage. Sometimes that's on a flag that means nothing to them (only kills/death/dmg matter in BG tourny's).

With only 1 flag, there is no retreat repositioning and still winning. Do you let one team have the flag, allow the 2nd team to engage and then 3rd party both? Is the loss in points during that decision worth it? Do you race to the flag first and risk getting double teamed?

If the Objective modes and maps were redesigned and changed they would require similar tactics? Teams would have to make similar decisions as to when to push for an objective, when to defend, should the team split to cover more territory, or to distract, or stick with the power of 1 full group, depending on what other teams are doing for strategy. This is also what happens in Cyro if you want to compare the two.
* AGAIN, this is if the modes, maps, and scoreboards changed. I am not defending the current design of the Objective modes.

Let's not compare BG tourneys of predetermined teams with voice comms to the experiences of the many players who queue solo or duo and ending up on teams with players of mixed skill, no communication, and very different playstyles. There's a lot of stacking and third partying in those DM matches. With OP healing any teams with a decent healer are practically untouchable, so the only tactics required are stack and go. Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

Urzigurumash

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

But besides that. That's the part where the strategically decision is made: if you are team 1 and you see a whole stack of team 2 on a flag, then you need to go for another flag, since fighting/turning the flag would cost too much time.

This statement accurately and in detail describes the problem with objectives as they are while delivering it as a solution and if you don't see the problem with that, then I don't think any further discussion is required.

No, it's still normal PvP.

Did you play counter strike? It's exactly the same principe.

Now imagine you have 4 CTs on bombspot A and 1 CT on bombspot B. With your logic you would need to attack bombspot A, because it's all about killing and fighting each other directly. But it's the wrong decision and you are risking to lose the round/match.
So of course you are avoiding this fight and go to bombspot B and your chances to win the round increased a lot, same as running to a empty flag.

Haven't seen anyone complaining in CS for avoiding fights

I don't know about that game, but to be concise, the issue many have with some of the current objective modes is that you'll lose if you fight, or seek to fight.

Aldoss

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Did you play counter strike?

Say it with me:

"How many teams are there in Counter Strike?"

Aldoss

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

I really mean this respectfully: that sounds like an mmr problem and not a game mode problem. People that know combat in this game actually don't even need voice comms to coordinate, especially if some of them are using obvious abilities such as pulls, heals, or cc dumps. That goes for teammates as well as opponents.

YoureWrongImRight

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

I really mean this respectfully: that sounds like an mmr problem and not a game mode problem. People that know combat in this game actually don't even need voice comms to coordinate, especially if some of them are using obvious abilities such as pulls, heals, or cc dumps. That goes for teammates as well as opponents.

I mean this respectfully; there is no such thing as mmr in ESO. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but there's literally no ranking system for PvP in this game, it's not a competitive game. It never has been, and it never will be. Is there a ranked queue? No there's not. So we can just disregard that entire notion right off the bat.

Most of the time in DM you just get a bunch of morons running around hitting different targets (and all of them are wrong), you're forced to then run around attempting to be "good" and target assist on various ranked unkillable targets. I guess this is an MMR issue? What else can be done here?

By nature of the terrible PvP design of the game you basically cannot kill anyone with half a brain without assisting and rarely does anyone you get paired with in DM understand this and actually want to do so.

RealLoveBVB

YoureWrongImRight wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

I really mean this respectfully: that sounds like an mmr problem and not a game mode problem. People that know combat in this game actually don't even need voice comms to coordinate, especially if some of them are using obvious abilities such as pulls, heals, or cc dumps. That goes for teammates as well as opponents.

I mean this respectfully; there is no such thing as mmr in ESO. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but there's literally no ranking system for PvP in this game, it's not a competitive game. It never has been, and it never will be. Is there a ranked queue? No there's not. So we can just disregard that entire notion right off the bat.

Most of the time in DM you just get a bunch of morons running around hitting different targets (and all of them are wrong), you're forced to then run around attempting to be "good" and target assist on various ranked unkillable targets. I guess this is an MMR issue? What else can be done here?

By nature of the terrible PvP design of the game you basically cannot kill anyone with half a brain without assisting and rarely does anyone you get paired with in DM understand this and actually want to do so.

There is a mmr. You can see it on the fact alone, that you get always queued with the same people and on a high mmr always the same tryhard players.

If you play regularly, then you probably noticed that you don't have "casuals" in your matches anymore. And this happens, because you are not matching their mmr

YoureWrongImRight

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

YoureWrongImRight wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

I really mean this respectfully: that sounds like an mmr problem and not a game mode problem. People that know combat in this game actually don't even need voice comms to coordinate, especially if some of them are using obvious abilities such as pulls, heals, or cc dumps. That goes for teammates as well as opponents.

I mean this respectfully; there is no such thing as mmr in ESO. Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but there's literally no ranking system for PvP in this game, it's not a competitive game. It never has been, and it never will be. Is there a ranked queue? No there's not. So we can just disregard that entire notion right off the bat.

Most of the time in DM you just get a bunch of morons running around hitting different targets (and all of them are wrong), you're forced to then run around attempting to be "good" and target assist on various ranked unkillable targets. I guess this is an MMR issue? What else can be done here?

By nature of the terrible PvP design of the game you basically cannot kill anyone with half a brain without assisting and rarely does anyone you get paired with in DM understand this and actually want to do so.

There is a mmr. You can see it on the fact alone, that you get always queued with the same people and on a high mmr always the same tryhard players.

If you play regularly, then you probably noticed that you don't have "casuals" in your matches anymore. And this happens, because you are not matching their mmr

lol a system based upon total lifetime medal score is not an mmr system, you play a character in bg's for 2 weeks and you're at max "mmr" which can never go down. Naturally if everyone was so terrible compared to these other players and are constantly losing to them, in a real mmr system their rank would decrease and they would not encounter them anymore... because that's literally how mmr works.

[snip]
[edited for naming-and-shaming]

Dem_kitkats1

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

I really mean this respectfully: that sounds like an mmr problem and not a game mode problem. People that know combat in this game actually don't even need voice comms to coordinate, especially if some of them are using obvious abilities such as pulls, heals, or cc dumps. That goes for teammates as well as opponents.

This is not a learn to play issue. I've spent way too much time in BGs to be included in "low MMR". On teams in "high MMR", with well known players, there wasn't any more coordination than a lowbie match. Players just had more knowledge of skills and combat, and had better instincts to know what to avoid and when to attack. Yeah basic tactics such as stacking near a healer or a player with the best group utility were applied, but those tactics are not unique to DMs, or even PvP at all.

YoureWrongImRight wrote: »

lol a system based upon total lifetime medal score is not an mmr system, you play a character in bg's for 2 weeks and you're at max "mmr" which can never go down. Naturally if everyone was so terrible compared to these other players and are constantly losing to them, in a real mmr system their rank would decrease and they would not encounter them anymore... because that's literally how mmr works.

[snip]

Yes people don't seem to understand the current MMR is clearly not a real elo ranking system. Or you wouldn't have such mixed bags for teams.

[edited to remove quote]

CameraBeardThePirate

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

But besides that. That's the part where the strategically decision is made: if you are team 1 and you see a whole stack of team 2 on a flag, then you need to go for another flag, since fighting/turning the flag would cost too much time.

This statement accurately and in detail describes the problem with objectives as they are while delivering it as a solution and if you don't see the problem with that, then I don't think any further discussion is required.

No, it's still normal PvP.

Did you play counter strike? It's exactly the same principe.

Now imagine you have 4 CTs on bombspot A and 1 CT on bombspot B. With your logic you would need to attack bombspot A, because it's all about killing and fighting each other directly. But it's the wrong decision and you are risking to lose the round/match.
So of course you are avoiding this fight and go to bombspot B and your chances to win the round increased a lot, same as running to a empty flag.

Haven't seen anyone complaining in CS for avoiding fights

This is a ridiculous comparison for a number of reasons. First, in CS there's only an offense or defense. Terrorists on offense and CTs on defense, the CTs aren't simultaneously trying to capture or destroy a point.

Secondly, there's only 2 teams in CS. There's no 3rd team to plant on other points while the first two teams engage with each other. You also, on your own scenario, still have to fight to cap. You still have to kill that one player, there aren't 2 other undefended points.

Finally, CS actually does encourage fighting a lot. If you die in a CS round, you don't respawn, making fighting/killing a team very rewarding for the round.

charlieb

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Unless you are 3 equal teams, there is very little tactical thinking teamwise in many of the DMs that I've played.

I really mean this respectfully: that sounds like an mmr problem and not a game mode problem. People that know combat in this game actually don't even need voice comms to coordinate, especially if some of them are using obvious abilities such as pulls, heals, or cc dumps. That goes for teammates as well as opponents.

This is not a learn to play issue. I've spent way too much time in BGs to be included in "low MMR". On teams in "high MMR", with well known players, there wasn't any more coordination than a lowbie match. Players just had more knowledge of skills and combat, and had better instincts to know what to avoid and when to attack. Yeah basic tactics such as stacking near a healer or a player with the best group utility were applied, but those tactics are not unique to DMs, or even PvP at all.

YoureWrongImRight wrote: »

lol a system based upon total lifetime medal score is not an mmr system, you play a character in bg's for 2 weeks and you're at max "mmr" which can never go down. Naturally if everyone was so terrible compared to these other players and are constantly losing to them, in a real mmr system their rank would decrease and they would not encounter them anymore... because that's literally how mmr works.

[snip]

Yes people don't seem to understand the current MMR is clearly not a real elo ranking system. Or you wouldn't have such mixed bags for teams.

Do you happen to be Emazing69? I don’t think I’ve seen you in any BGs but your name on the forums could also be different than in-game. What’s your in-game if you don’t mind me asking. DM if you’d like.

[edited to remove quote]

Aldoss

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

This is not a learn to play issue. I've spent way too much time in BGs to be included in "low MMR". On teams in "high MMR", with well known players, there wasn't any more coordination than a lowbie match. Players just had more knowledge of skills and combat, and had better instincts to know what to avoid and when to attack. Yeah basic tactics such as stacking near a healer or a player with the best group utility were applied, but those tactics are not unique to DMs, or even PvP at all.

[snip] Are you on pcna? What's your @name so I can get some context for your perspective? Mine is @ImHerHusband and I almost exclusively bg with @ImHisWife.

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Yes people don't seem to understand the current MMR is clearly not a real elo ranking system. Or you wouldn't have such mixed bags for teams.

The MMR we have currently is painfully simplistic, however, I disagree to your notion that newbies are included in comments alluding to "high MMR" matches. If you were constantly rolled on, time and time again, with no improvement, no changes to your play style, or no investment in your progress, would you continue to queue for these matches day in and day out?

While it does happen that new players sometimes pull the lottery and get placed in matches that are 90% vets, it doesn't happen enough to completely discredit anyone using the term to refer to matches mostly comprised of skilled, experienced, vet players.

[edited for minor baiting]

CameraBeardThePirate

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

This is not a learn to play issue. I've spent way too much time in BGs to be included in "low MMR". On teams in "high MMR", with well known players, there wasn't any more coordination than a lowbie match. Players just had more knowledge of skills and combat, and had better instincts to know what to avoid and when to attack. Yeah basic tactics such as stacking near a healer or a player with the best group utility were applied, but those tactics are not unique to DMs, or even PvP at all.

[snip] Are you on pcna? What's your @name so I can get some context for your perspective? Mine is @ImHerHusband and I almost exclusively bg with @ImHisWife.

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Yes people don't seem to understand the current MMR is clearly not a real elo ranking system. Or you wouldn't have such mixed bags for teams.

The MMR we have currently is painfully simplistic, however, I disagree to your notion that newbies are included in comments alluding to "high MMR" matches. If you were constantly rolled on, time and time again, with no improvement, no changes to your play style, or no investment in your progress, would you continue to queue for these matches day in and day out?

While it does happen that new players sometimes pull the lottery and get placed in matches that are 90% vets, it doesn't happen enough to completely discredit anyone using the term to refer to matches mostly comprised of skilled, experienced, vet players.

[snip] I see a lot of people in the forums claiming that DMs have no tactics and its just going at eavh other over and over but that's just not true and if you think it's true then it's obvious you don't really understand what goes into successfully playing as a team, even without comms. Yes sticking together is important, but so are things like guessing when the enemy has their ult up, knowing what the enemy's kill combo is and how to survive it, knowing which targets you should be focusing are, knowing what your teammates kill combos are in order to combo with them, quickly adjusting for how much or little your team can brawl, who on your team can escape without help, who on your team likely needs help to escape, knowing which team likes to try to third party and when they might do so. Even with imbalanced teams, a proper build played by an intelligent player can shepherd them to a much closer match by just trying to play off of the other player's ults.

Someone higher up claimed that in imbalanced matches against a team with a healer the only tactic is to "stack and go" but that is such a large oversimplification. There is much more timing and recognition involved. Is the healer's ult up? Has the healer been pressured enough recently to be low resources? Are the dps peeling for the healer?

[edited for minor baiting & to remove quote]

Dem_kitkats1

@charlieb
I am a woman of many mysteries.

@Aldoss I love your @ names!
I totally agree with you that new players should not be mixed in with the sweaty vets, and some kind of new MMR would benefit the community. I just don't think that the game has the foundation for a competitive ranking system...yet. I think that some of the larger issues of why so many players have left the game in the first place needs to be the focus (ie, performance, player burnout from massive balance swings, lack of new content, etc).

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

This is not a learn to play issue. I've spent way too much time in BGs to be included in "low MMR". On teams in "high MMR", with well known players, there wasn't any more coordination than a lowbie match. Players just had more knowledge of skills and combat, and had better instincts to know what to avoid and when to attack. Yeah basic tactics such as stacking near a healer or a player with the best group utility were applied, but those tactics are not unique to DMs, or even PvP at all.

[snip] Are you on pcna? What's your @name so I can get some context for your perspective? Mine is @ImHerHusband and I almost exclusively bg with @ImHisWife.

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Yes people don't seem to understand the current MMR is clearly not a real elo ranking system. Or you wouldn't have such mixed bags for teams.

The MMR we have currently is painfully simplistic, however, I disagree to your notion that newbies are included in comments alluding to "high MMR" matches. If you were constantly rolled on, time and time again, with no improvement, no changes to your play style, or no investment in your progress, would you continue to queue for these matches day in and day out?

While it does happen that new players sometimes pull the lottery and get placed in matches that are 90% vets, it doesn't happen enough to completely discredit anyone using the term to refer to matches mostly comprised of skilled, experienced, vet players.

[snip] I see a lot of people in the forums claiming that DMs have no tactics and its just going at eavh other over and over but that's just not true and if you think it's true then it's obvious you don't really understand what goes into successfully playing as a team, even without comms. Yes sticking together is important, but so are things like guessing when the enemy has their ult up, knowing what the enemy's kill combo is and how to survive it, knowing which targets you should be focusing are, knowing what your teammates kill combos are in order to combo with them, quickly adjusting for how much or little your team can brawl, who on your team can escape without help, who on your team likely needs help to escape, knowing which team likes to try to third party and when they might do so. Even with imbalanced teams, a proper build played by an intelligent player can shepherd them to a much closer match by just trying to play off of the other player's ults.

Someone higher up claimed that in imbalanced matches against a team with a healer the only tactic is to "stack and go" but that is such a large oversimplification. There is much more timing and recognition involved. Is the healer's ult up? Has the healer been pressured enough recently to be low resources? Are the dps peeling for the healer?

[edited for minor baiting & to remove quote]

If you're on premades against other premades, yes, I can understand how tactical play, coordination, and timing is very important. My example of stack and go was mainly about premades against uncoordinated teams. You cannot deny that premades have a huge advantage over teams that are simply hoping that their teammates have some idea as to what they're doing. Premades are literally the ball groups of BGs. And ball groups in Cyro are causing all kinds of chaos. You don't need to apply as much tactical thinking when there are no tactics being deployed by the other teams against you. On a teams of randoms it's hard enough just to figure out which targets people are even going for, let alone different play styles and how to make it work in the span of one match, and sometimes you also get players who really want nothing to do with the team in the first place. Sometimes you gel with your teams and sometimes you don't.

In this meta, even reaching a healer is pretty much impossible if that team is skilled. DDs are pumping out thousands in healing alone, along with heal stacking on top of that, and there are so many forms of damage mitigation available to players now. Pressuring a healer as a tactic is much more difficult to accomplish now.

Miracle19

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

@charlieb
I am a woman of many mysteries.

@Aldoss I love your @ names!
I totally agree with you that new players should not be mixed in with the sweaty vets, and some kind of new MMR would benefit the community. I just don't think that the game has the foundation for a competitive ranking system...yet. I think that some of the larger issues of why so many players have left the game in the first place needs to be the focus (ie, performance, player burnout from massive balance swings, lack of new content, etc).

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

This is not a learn to play issue. I've spent way too much time in BGs to be included in "low MMR". On teams in "high MMR", with well known players, there wasn't any more coordination than a lowbie match. Players just had more knowledge of skills and combat, and had better instincts to know what to avoid and when to attack. Yeah basic tactics such as stacking near a healer or a player with the best group utility were applied, but those tactics are not unique to DMs, or even PvP at all.

[snip] Are you on pcna? What's your @name so I can get some context for your perspective? Mine is @ImHerHusband and I almost exclusively bg with @ImHisWife.

Dem_kitkats1 wrote: »

Yes people don't seem to understand the current MMR is clearly not a real elo ranking system. Or you wouldn't have such mixed bags for teams.

The MMR we have currently is painfully simplistic, however, I disagree to your notion that newbies are included in comments alluding to "high MMR" matches. If you were constantly rolled on, time and time again, with no improvement, no changes to your play style, or no investment in your progress, would you continue to queue for these matches day in and day out?

While it does happen that new players sometimes pull the lottery and get placed in matches that are 90% vets, it doesn't happen enough to completely discredit anyone using the term to refer to matches mostly comprised of skilled, experienced, vet players.

[snip] I see a lot of people in the forums claiming that DMs have no tactics and its just going at eavh other over and over but that's just not true and if you think it's true then it's obvious you don't really understand what goes into successfully playing as a team, even without comms. Yes sticking together is important, but so are things like guessing when the enemy has their ult up, knowing what the enemy's kill combo is and how to survive it, knowing which targets you should be focusing are, knowing what your teammates kill combos are in order to combo with them, quickly adjusting for how much or little your team can brawl, who on your team can escape without help, who on your team likely needs help to escape, knowing which team likes to try to third party and when they might do so. Even with imbalanced teams, a proper build played by an intelligent player can shepherd them to a much closer match by just trying to play off of the other player's ults.

Someone higher up claimed that in imbalanced matches against a team with a healer the only tactic is to "stack and go" but that is such a large oversimplification. There is much more timing and recognition involved. Is the healer's ult up? Has the healer been pressured enough recently to be low resources? Are the dps peeling for the healer?

[edited for minor baiting & to remove quote]

If you're on premades against other premades, yes, I can understand how tactical play, coordination, and timing is very important. My example of stack and go was mainly about premades against uncoordinated teams. You cannot deny that premades have a huge advantage over teams that are simply hoping that their teammates have some idea as to what they're doing. Premades are literally the ball groups of BGs. And ball groups in Cyro are causing all kinds of chaos. You don't need to apply as much tactical thinking when there are no tactics being deployed by the other teams against you. On a teams of randoms it's hard enough just to figure out which targets people are even going for, let alone different play styles and how to make it work in the span of one match, and sometimes you also get players who really want nothing to do with the team in the first place. Sometimes you gel with your teams and sometimes you don't.

In this meta, even reaching a healer is pretty much impossible if that team is skilled. DDs are pumping out thousands in healing alone, along with heal stacking on top of that, and there are so many forms of damage mitigation available to players now. Pressuring a healer as a tactic is much more difficult to accomplish now.

Pressuring a healer is still very effective. One of 2 things will happen. The healer will explode or the dps will stop doing damage to heal the healer and the healer will die a slower death.

In premades where coordination and comms are being used, that’s never an issue. Of course if you’re solo against a premade is going to be a lot harder, not because of the heal stacking but mainly because the player base skill level is severely low compared to even just 2 years ago when as a duo you could beat premades because your other teammates were still competent. That is no longer the case

koopdaville68

My response is to the OP... So at the risk of being crush by veteran PvP players I have a total noob perspective. I have been very reluctant doing PvP because it all just happens too fast for me. My boys are always asking me to play fortnite with them and if there is any kind of firefight, I die within seconds!! LOL! I know my toon is not set up for PvP(my opinion) but I am looking at getting some skills in the assault line. And Battleground seems to be the fastest way to do it.

The OP states the dread when players join with 24k health or lower..... sorry, I am one of those types of players. I am not joining to ruin your night or lessen your gaming experience, I am grinding to get what I need. And I fight til I die then fight again!

I knew going in that I wasn't going to fair well and it took me a few matches to understand the rules/objectives of each game. But if the objective of the game is to win, which I believe it is, who cares how many time a players dies? Did you win? If I remember correctly, most matches I died at least 10 time, but I had 4-5 kills in those matches. Did we win, nope but we came close and I got in there and mixed it up best I could.

I am not sure what players like me, noobs and terrible PvP-ers can do, if we need/want specific skills.

Aldoss

@koopdaville68 ZOS did you wrong. Going to Cyrodill on the setup you're describing will not only be faster, it will also likely be more rewarding and enjoyable, even with the terrible lag in that zone.

All you need to do is ask in zone for a group or ask where the battle is. If you see an explosion icon over one of your alliance keeps, get to it asap and go set up some siege. You need no gear to siege (you can do it naked). If the battle is already over, slot some door repair kits and go find a door to repair or do the same thing with wall repair kits.

All you need to get in a Defense Tick (d-tick) is one tick of alliance point gain in the area. That means: 1 door repair kit used, or 1 wall repair kit used, or 1 kill in the area that gained you any amount of alliance points (even 1 alliance point would count). If your faction wins the battle, you get a share of the alliance points earned which can sometimes be tens of thousands. I once brought a new toon to Cyro and went from tier 1 to tier 3 in one keep battle that lasted ~30 minutes.

That said, if you want to play BGs and have the skill line gain be a nice benefit from that participation, you should ask someone for assistance in finding a way to be more of a contributor to your team than just a body on a flag. This assistance typically starts with tweaking a build setup that not only suits your style, but will try and balance out survivability along with it.

From there, learning how burst combos work for and against you is a huge learning experience, understanding how and when to block, as well as learning how to spot shifts in a battle or where to position yourself, all go into making your pvp experience less "oh great... I'm dead...".

koopdaville68

Aldoss wrote: »

@koopdaville68 ZOS did you wrong. Going to Cyrodill on the setup you're describing will not only be faster, it will also likely be more rewarding and enjoyable, even with the terrible lag in that zone.

All you need to do is ask in zone for a group or ask where the battle is. If you see an explosion icon over one of your alliance keeps, get to it asap and go set up some siege. You need no gear to siege (you can do it naked). If the battle is already over, slot some door repair kits and go find a door to repair or do the same thing with wall repair kits.

All you need to get in a Defense Tick (d-tick) is one tick of alliance point gain in the area. That means: 1 door repair kit used, or 1 wall repair kit used, or 1 kill in the area that gained you any amount of alliance points (even 1 alliance point would count). If your faction wins the battle, you get a share of the alliance points earned which can sometimes be tens of thousands. I once brought a new toon to Cyro and went from tier 1 to tier 3 in one keep battle that lasted ~30 minutes.

That said, if you want to play BGs and have the skill line gain be a nice benefit from that participation, you should ask someone for assistance in finding a way to be more of a contributor to your team than just a body on a flag. This assistance typically starts with tweaking a build setup that not only suits your style, but will try and balance out survivability along with it.

From there, learning how burst combos work for and against you is a huge learning experience, understanding how and when to block, as well as learning how to spot shifts in a battle or where to position yourself, all go into making your pvp experience less "oh great... I'm dead...".

OMG! what isn't fun while naked!? <---(rhetorical question)

But seriously thank you! I needed that info and it is very helpful. I respect PvP and in no way want to diminish it, it is just not my favorite thing to do while gaming.

Thank you again! It is appreciated!

Ezorus

This but cringe at DKs and Templars with close or over thsn 30k health

CameraBeardThePirate

Ezorus wrote: »

This but cringe at DKs and Templars with close or over thsn 30k health

What does this even mean? Everyone should be shooting for 30k health nowadays, damage is too high to not go that high. Any lower and you have a real good chance of getting vaporized by most damage combos

Quelindor

Without ranked system, this kind of pvp always will turn to Deathmatch apart from its mode.
Because killing people is always funnier than winning the game. Only exception is if you win the game you rank up, by this way you can play for win.

If you can't get anything by winning the game? Why bother?

FangOfTheTwoMoons

Quelindor wrote: »

Without ranked system, this kind of pvp always will turn to Deathmatch apart from its mode.
Because killing people is always funnier than winning the game. Only exception is if you win the game you rank up, by this way you can play for win.

If you can't get anything by winning the game? Why bother?

Exactly, there's just no incentive to win the match. If the rewards for winning were actually good maybe people would play an objective mode and actually do the objective.

Having an actual rank would be fantastic too. It just makes sense.