Battlegrounds: the Lowest Score High Kills Guy

Caribou77

I’m curious what people who play battlegrounds think about the guy who gets the lowest score but racks up the highest kills (Not Deathmatch mode, obviously).

I’ve seen several players ignore the ball completely in Chaosball, when they had a 100% clear opportunity to grab it, and then it turns out they’re the guy that got 20 kills and by far the lowest score in the game.

I get that people are gonna play however they want, I guess I struggle to understand how it can be any fun or rewarding to simply focus on killing opponents who are running away from you trying to catch the chaosball.

It seems kind of pathetic? For all I know it’s some sweaty 12 year old kid. 😆

Anyway, I’m interested to hear other BGers’ thoughts on the phenomenon.

WrathOfInnos

It could be someone who doesn't know or care about the game mode. However it could also be someone who is contributing to the win in other ways and the scoring system simply doesn't give them credit. For example they may have a tank friend that plans to hold the chaosball while they pick off any attackers. Or maybe they are defending a relic or flag instead of trying to capture others (these don't always give points depending where/when the enemy was killed).

Soarora

I figure they're the people who wished it was deathmatch. Regardless, by killing people who could be getting the ball... they are helping.

Caribou77

Yes, I appreciate that. I’m sometimes guarding my team’s flag/etc, or assisting my team by getting kills, but that’s not what I’m talking about.

There are a few players who clearly care nothing for the game objective, and exploit the situation to get high kills. You can tell when it’s the same player repeatedly regardless of game mode, week, or month.

Does this make it clearer?

Syrusthevirus187

Hmm. Sounds like the result of forcing players to do objective modes they don't wanna do.

JobooAGS

Some people are just too squish to hold the ball. Ie. they build for damage to kill but if they hold the ball, the constant dot and heal debuff will have them go up in flames like tissue paper.

Ominer

Sounds like an actual pvper, I never play objective game modes when I queue for BGs. I want to actually fight players, on PC EU right now BGs are basically the only form of working PvP.

You can't fight players in grey host because it lags even when its pretty empty.
You can't fight players in blackreach because it's empty / just has 1 group PvDooring.
You can't fight player in IC because it's empty.

So, if you want to kill players you have to do BGs.

Also, it's been commented on a lot on the forums but the objectives modes in BGs aren't that engaging for pvpers. They reward players who actively avoid pvp / build not die but do nothing else.

Capture the relic = Capture the fun, entire premise is to capture relics while the other 2 teams are actually fighting
Chaosball = 1 tank running around the map / exploiting random areas to avoid taking damage
Crazy King = Players just avoiding fights to run to empty flags
Domination = arguably the best game mode for pvp (outside of deathmatch) because players tend to actually fight over flags.
Edit: *Scratch that domination also terrible because multiple flags means people just run away to where there isn't actual pvp*

Also, as mentioned above with chaosball, if you pick up the ball on certain classes you can't use half your skills so it's a guaranteed insta death basically.

I don't consider teams going 0-20 with 200k combined damage good gameplay but if they win they win, and thats how they think.

Sythen88411

Caribou77 wrote: »

I’m curious what people who play battlegrounds think about the guy who gets the lowest score but racks up the highest kills (Not Deathmatch mode, obviously).

I’ve seen several players ignore the ball completely in Chaosball, when they had a 100% clear opportunity to grab it, and then it turns out they’re the guy that got 20 kills and by far the lowest score in the game.

I get that people are gonna play however they want, I guess I struggle to understand how it can be any fun or rewarding to simply focus on killing opponents who are running away from you trying to catch the chaosball.

It seems kind of pathetic? For all I know it’s some sweaty 12 year old kid. 😆

Anyway, I’m interested to hear other BGers’ thoughts on the phenomenon.

So your saying if I see someone going after the ball I should just let them be? Should I just sit in my base then till the match is over?




This is a meme post right?

Sythen88411

Caribou77 wrote: »

I’m curious what people who play battlegrounds think about the guy who gets the lowest score but racks up the highest kills (Not Deathmatch mode, obviously).

I’ve seen several players ignore the ball completely in Chaosball, when they had a 100% clear opportunity to grab it, and then it turns out they’re the guy that got 20 kills and by far the lowest score in the game.

I get that people are gonna play however they want, I guess I struggle to understand how it can be any fun or rewarding to simply focus on killing opponents who are running away from you trying to catch the chaosball.

It seems kind of pathetic? For all I know it’s some sweaty 12 year old kid. 😆

Anyway, I’m interested to hear other BGers’ thoughts on the phenomenon.

I look forward to your hate tells in my folder of fame one day lol.

CameraBeardThePirate

Your statement can very easily be reversed. "How is running away from the fight to an unguarded objective any fun?"

The gamemodes are poorly designed. This shouldn't be a talking point at all; well-designed objective based PvP encourages fighting and engagement to capture the objective.

HiImRex

In all good pvp focused objective based games, the objectives create conflict and also dictate the flow of conflict. Objectives create interesting ways to engage with the combat, which includes disengaging or avoiding combat, but not entirely. Good objective based pvp games, the ones that retain a healthy interest from a loyal playerbase over a long period of time, always force a fight somewhere. Where avoiding combat is a possible strategy for winning, it often takes a lot of effort and taking big risks to pull off. Best examples of this type of game design is found in MOBAS.

ESO battlegrounds (a pvp focused objective based game mode), the objectives actively discourage fighting. Playing strictly by the objectives, all of the risk is on the side whose strategy is to engage in combat, all of the advantage lies with the team who is built around not fighting.

This is not by design. This is because whoever came up the eso battlegrounds did not apply any design intent whatsoever to the game modes besides “ctf was a fun mode in halo 15 years ago let’s add it in”

Caribou77

I appreciate the detailed, insightful comments. Thank you!

Sounds like a lot of people on this thread play BGs due to lag in Cyrodiil being unplayable (that’s the case for me too), and also a number of people don’t enjoy the game objectives.

Like many of you, Deathmatch is my favorite mode, but I do enjoy mixing it up by using different strategies and teamwork in Domination, Capture the Relic, etc.

I wish they would bring back the “Deathmatch or Other” queue option for the players who don’t enjoy the game/objective modes.

I also wish they’d introduce new BG CONTENT. That would be much appreciated and draw more players,I think.

OBJnoob

I think the person that chases kills and intentionally ignores objectives is kinda a jerk. Which isn't to say I don't understand it or wish death matches were more readily available. I also find actual fighting to be the most fun way to PvP... But one would think, if it weren't for these people, the fights would be found at the objectives.

What's really amusing though, and its been reflected here a little bit, is the thought that the majority of pvpers wish for only raw fighting all the time. But the 1 man nipping at the heels of 10 people trying to chase the chaosball should probably realize that they at actually in the minority-- by exactly 10 to 1 in this particular scenario.

So while it is a shame and some things could use some spicing up, the boringness of obj modes is largely exaggerated here on the forums. I play a lot of bgs, try to hold the chaosbsll, capture relics, and flip flags. And I am almost constantly engaged in fighting to do so.

While I do want to kill I also want to win and thankfully, in my experience, and two aren't mutually exclusive. Far from it.

WabanakiWarrior

Here to say the same thing as everyone else. Ignoring the objective and just killing is fun and a perfectly acceptable way to play in BGs. I enjoy playing the objective sometimes, but the game modes really do discourage combat. I appreciate when I see some players in the lobby who I know will ignore objectives and just fight. Usually those matches are the most fun. I suggest you stop worrying about it and just focus on having a good time, man.

Caribou77

Thanks, Wabanaki,

It appears from this thread (sample size error of 99% ) that more people just don't like the game objectives so choose to focus on straight pvp fighting (with the exception of OBJ & myself, who enjoy the game modes and think they provide opportunity for combat while also focusing on different objectives).

In my experience, it really depends on the composition of each BG, but most often, at least 80% of the players are focused on winning the game -- which requires nearly constant combat.

Would most people agree that the queue option "Deathmatch or Other" be a win for everyone?

They used to have this option, I swear.

SkaraMinoc

OBJnoob wrote: »

I think the person that chases kills and intentionally ignores objectives is kinda a jerk.

Some of us have literally played 10000+ battlegrounds over the years. For many players, picking up the relic or chaosball, or standing on a flag loses its appeal over time. We want intense, fast-paced combat. Battlegrounds are, sadly, the only way to find small-scale PvP that lets you get back into the fight <= 20 seconds later.

If you ask your teammates nicely to help you get the 3 win daily quest, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help you. Most Deathmatch players are actually friendly and supportive. When you start screeching "objective.. GET THE BALL" it will have the opposite effect and players won't help.

Caribou77

Weird. Do people do that?

I've been BG-ing xbox NA for a couple years, and have never once had someone tell me to focus on the objective.

It's usualy either "Stay together," or "You all are trash!" Which is hilarious, because I typically do better than the "you all are trash!" whiner by a fair amount.

Sometimes, a teammate will text "Kill Green," or even ask the team to focus on a specific player. Humorous stuff.

I do agree with Skara that the majority of players are pretty friendly and helpful.

I wonder why they did away with "Deathmatch or Other"?

I don't think anyone ever complained about it.

gariondavey

Pretty much everyone in high mmr bgs prefers deathmatch.
As has been mentioned, the objectives discourage conflict.
People who have put in thousands of hours into developing pvp skills (not holding down shift and moving to empty flags, or holding right mouse button down in a perma block build) want to fight against like minded people.

OBJnoob

@SkaraMinoc I mean believe it or not I respect that. I have no idea how many bgs I have played or how many hours I've logged honing my PvP skills-- but I have played the game for about 5 years and, from day 1, have had PvP as my only driving ambition. So while I can accept that people, like you for instance, may be better than me run with a more competitive crew/platform or whatever... I do balk at the notion that this alone gives you greater perspective or importance. I myself share so much of your experience, to include everquest and world of Warcraft.

So... While I agree that flipping flags is boring, I have to say 1v1s have become a little boring and for the same reason-- feeling as though its all been done before a million times. So while your own competitive nature is what makes one fun for you and the other boring-- the other satisfies my thrill for diversity.

And whatever most high MMR players prefer should certainly be catered to in some way... But we also can not lose sight of the fact that talented people like you ARE the minority, and this game was not fundamentally designed to be a competitive testing ground with e-sport balance and rigid structure. And there are a few people, like OP and myself, who are perhaps part of your crowd whether you know it or not, and we also like playing objectives.

I solo que on Xbox na as some of you may know. I'm fine with this because my preferred battlefield is cyrodiil and I'm mostly only doing bgs if ravenwatch is dead or hopelessly lopsided or perhaps I'm tired of hearing 12 voices in my head. I don't complain to my teammates and I don't struggle to fulfill daily quests either.

But. If I were to have a 'crew,' and we were capable of pug stomping both of the other teams... I wouldn't let them win because they were running in circles capping flags faster than we could run and pick off stragglers.

I'd pre-empt their rotation, be standing there ALONE at the objective to stop their plan. I'd X them. While my other crew members did the same thing. Using our superior game knowledge and PvP prowess.

Which is, in fact, what I do. And why I find that there is plenty of fighting to be had at objectives. And why I have so often joined these discussions openly making fun of "high MMR" players who see no strategy to obj modes and complain about being defeated by "lesser" players and getting no credit for all their kills.

Ultimately, and this is not meant to be as insulting as it'll probably sound, if you're THAT good-- prove it-- by WINNING.

gariondavey

I think what you are missing is that for many of the people in the high mmr dm crowd, we don't care if the horribly designed game mode (that you have no control over choosing) says you came in 3rd because 8 players scurried around the map, capping flags, after your team of 4 obliterated them.
We won because you are 0-10 and our team has 50+ kills. We aren't even playing the same game.

OBJnoob

Fair point. But here's my counterpoint:

I've never once created a thread complaining about how bgs are or how it effects me.

So not that I can recall you specifically @gariondavey doing so either, but others that you may be speaking for have. So I can't help but find your wise duality and contentment about the topic to be disingenuous or, at least, not how others feel.

gariondavey

When I said "you are 0-10" I didn't mean you specifically, just you as in an individual.
I speak from my experience in a bg guild composed of pretty much exclusively people who like to dm.
Do we wish we could choose the mode? Yes.
Do we wish that if we couldn't choose our mode, that at least the objective modes could be redesigned in way that promoted actual conflict? Yes.
We want good fights. We want conflict.
I only speak to what I know and how my guildmates typically feel regarding the matter. No disingenuous stuff at play here.

SkaraMinoc

OBJnoob wrote: »

I myself share so much of your experience, to include everquest and world of Warcraft.

Yes, we had huge PvP tournaments at the Lake Rathetear arena on Erollisi Marr server in late 1999. 100+ spectators on screen. My group played on Ultima Online Baja server before that. Now I just play solo

OBJnoob

No, I get it, and I'm not taking it personally. But I, like you, am also talking about more than just you and me. And I'm also talking TO more than just you. And the person that is hypothetically 0-10, who in all likelihood only plays the way he does because it is soon obvious to him that your team will smash him face to face-- he deserves representation too. And if there are more of them than there are of you then the game should have them as its priority not you. And if they have found a strategy to win, in their eyes, and your goal is also being met, then I don't honestly see why you're taking the time to debate with me-- though I do appreciate your input.

In your hypothetical... The winning team is all 0-10. Your team is +50 as a whole with no deaths. The game ended in 8 minutes because they ran the obj super fast. If they conformed to your play style and engaged you face to face for 15 minutes what would their score be? 0-10 still? 2-10? More likely 0-20 and me, you, and they know it.

So you and others want to redesign game modes so there is only one winning strategy which just happens to be what you are great at and they are bad at. So you can smash them AND win. And they can... Bend over and take it.

Nah. You're looking after your guild. I'm looking after the game.

OBJnoob

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

OBJnoob wrote: »

I myself share so much of your experience, to include everquest and world of Warcraft.

Yes, we had huge PvP tournaments at the Lake Rathetear arena on Erollisi Marr server in late 1999. 100+ spectators on screen. My group played on Ultima Online Baja server before that. Now I just play solo

That sounds awesome. I was probably then, and now, not quite on your level. But was very good, particularly at WoW. I can't remember the servers but what I do remember is, at a time when ret pallies were supposed to be the bees knees I was proudly rocking a prot paladin. Then, as now, I neglected pve because its boring so I didn't always have the best gear (though buying the gladiator stuff was good ofc,) and I never had much in game currency. But I scrounged and saved up for the ability altering rune(were they called runes?) That made the paladin shield throw stun hit 3 targets instead of 1 and my life changed. Id spend HOURS in warsong gulch fighting outnumbered like a raid boss when I had the relic. You just couldn't kill me... I'd slap ret pallies around left and right. I remember once I was in a 2v2 arena with a real life friend (he was good at the game but insisted on playing a survival hunter so, meh,) and he got focused and clapped in like 10 seconds by two heavy DPS warriors. I admit I should've laid hands but was probably too slow. But I proceeded to face tank and kill both of them, my buddy behind my computer chair in real life cheering me on.

Good times.

Dem_kitkats1

Honestly, I can't knock either side. The designs and the scoring systems of the modes encourage and reward certain build choices and combat avoidant strategies. You can't really fault the players who adhere to that, because that is how you secure a win. However, you also can't fault players for wanting to participate in combat, because that is what PvP is essentially about, and that's what they expect in matches. Now their ability to chose the one mode that promoted that is gone, and they're forced to participate in a completely disproportionate RNG system. So in that respect, I can understand the players that ignore the objective and chose to engage with other players instead. It's unfortunate that the modes are not designed to curate a healthy balance of both objective and combat. Instead, it's chose either one or the other, which is creating lots of polarization between players.

OBJnoob

They really do need to just go back to having DM and Other ques... This time done correctly and separately. As a solo player juuust good enough to accidentally put myself into premade populated mmrs I suffered during time periods where it was like this. But I would gladly shoulder that burden for something that makes sense and pleases people.

Icyfire369

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Your statement can very easily be reversed. "How is running away from the fight to an unguarded objective any fun?"

The gamemodes are poorly designed. This shouldn't be a talking point at all; well-designed objective based PvP encourages fighting and engagement to capture the objective.

@ZOS_Kevin -- what do you genuinely think about this? I think Camera phrased it beautifully.

I don't think we need NEW PvP content, but redesigned QoL improvements for BGs. I think it'll go a long way.

gariondavey

OBJnoob wrote: »

No, I get it, and I'm not taking it personally. But I, like you, am also talking about more than just you and me. And I'm also talking TO more than just you. And the person that is hypothetically 0-10, who in all likelihood only plays the way he does because it is soon obvious to him that your team will smash him face to face-- he deserves representation too. And if there are more of them than there are of you then the game should have them as its priority not you. And if they have found a strategy to win, in their eyes, and your goal is also being met, then I don't honestly see why you're taking the time to debate with me-- though I do appreciate your input.

In your hypothetical... The winning team is all 0-10. Your team is +50 as a whole with no deaths. The game ended in 8 minutes because they ran the obj super fast. If they conformed to your play style and engaged you face to face for 15 minutes what would their score be? 0-10 still? 2-10? More likely 0-20 and me, you, and they know it.

So you and others want to redesign game modes so there is only one winning strategy which just happens to be what you are great at and they are bad at. So you can smash them AND win. And they can... Bend over and take it.

Nah. You're looking after your guild. I'm looking after the game.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The way the modes are designed encourages behavior that results in players not knowing how TO fight.
I want to see all players improve in actual combat so that the bg community grows.
I am looking after the game, and seeking to see it's player base grow.
The flawed current design inhibits that.

OBJnoob

That's funny you think having a guild devoted to premade DM style smashing through BG modes is going to help grow the BG community. It was a good discussion, but I'm out of things to say. I'm very happy with how I worded my previous posts and couldn't say more but to repeat myself.

Solantris

Chiming in to add my two cents, wholly agree with Skara on this one.

Many of us endgame pvpers are really looking to strictly brawl with other people. Battlegrounds provide an opportunity to get those juicy smallscale fights where both parties can return to the fight relatively quickly, and are largely free of the performance concerns that plague cyro and (to a lesser extent) the underpopulated IC. They also provide the only current avenue where you can pvp with all sets enabled in a no-cp environment, which is preferable in and of itself for a lot of us, as defensive CP tends to result in a lot of stalemates.

What people mean when they talk about game modes discouraging pvp has a lot to do with their current design (with the debatable exception of chaosball). The most efficient strategy to win in each mode generally means avoiding pvp as much as possible. With relic, being a three way fight, the best way to win is sneaking unguarded bases while the other two teams fight. Crazy king encourages a centralized fight in the beginning, but the best way to win endgame is again speedrunning to unguarded flags as they freshly spawn - point to time ratio, it's more efficient to get an empty flag than flip a taken one, let alone fight over one. Domination splits the fight from the get go; while the flags are static, there's so many that it means it's more efficient to split the team and maintain two flags while other teams get caught up fighting. In all of these modes, engaging in a prolonged fight is directly counter to the most efficient winning strategy, as medal score is attributed to those who fight but game score is not. Add to that the fact winning BGs really has no in-game reward: second place is good enough for the daily box/xp and the total medal score is effectively useless with no substantive reward system in place; there's really no incentive for endgame players to push for a win at all. Add extended queue times (upwards of 20m in many cases), you end up with a lot of deathmatch-style players just choosing to ignore the objective mode entirely and just looking for a fight they can enjoy where they can get one. With the removal of a separate deathmatch queue, this kind of player has a 1 in 5 chance of getting a mode that encourages them to fight the way they want to fight. This can often be frustrating, particularly when they've waited a substantial amount of time for a BG and finally find a decent fight, only for the match to end in minutes because a single objective player speedruns unguarded objectives in the background.

It's worth noting that they did test engagement by making modes deathmatch only for a while, which was great for this type of player, but obviously reflected a drop in total BG engagement as there are many players who do enjoy the objective modes. They used this justification to drop the deathmatch only queue, but this decision is directly responsible for this phenomenon you're encountering. Fact is, there are two opposing and distinct groups of players - those who purely enjoy deathmatch and those who purely enjoy objectives, with the majority of players falling somewhere in the middle. As it currently stands, the ends of this spectrum represent two distinct and opposing groups of players who find their fun in completely different (and opposing) ways. Now they can no longer segregate themselves, you're seeing bleed into the randomly selected games.

Having said all that, it is important to note that there was quite a lot of outcry when there was a separate deathmatch queue option. This happened because players queuing random and landing a deathmatch would be put in the same lobbies as those queuing deathmatch only; the segregation was purely surface level and the games themselves were pulling from both queue pools. Players queuing for their daily random hated this - understandably - as they'd roll a deathmatch and run into 4 man sweat balls queuing purely to fight. The response to this was our current group vs solo queue, which was a good choice, albeit with the unintended consequence of lengthening queue times (particularly at the higher mmr level) as the population split across these two pools. But the point of distinction wasn't and isn't the group size, it's really the end goal of the players queuing in the first place.

The solution to this and the problem you're describing is very much the same: implementing a properly separated deathmatch queue, distinct from random-queue lobbies completely. A brawling lobby, if you will, meaning players who queue for their random and get a deathmatch are matched against others queuing random and getting deathmatch - not purpose-built brawlers looking to fight other purpose-built brawlers. Sweats get to sweat, objective players get to objective, and all the population gets to choose.

There's nothing inherently wrong with any of these playstyles, it's really all about where you get your fun. Unfortunately, there's currently no way for players with opposing objectives to self select out of each other's games, resulting in the high kill but low score guy chilling in your bgs looking for a fight. He's doing it because he doesn't have a choice, and he'd be out of there if he had the option to, I can promise you that.

TLDR: give us a deathmatch brawl mode distinct from the random pool lobbies. (Personally, I'd love to see it minus the 500point cap: 15 minutes, most kills win... sure jesus I'd have a field day).