why the format change from 3 teams to 2?

IndigoDreams

i cant scan every page on the forums but i checked a couple and hardly anyone is calling for this change.
why?

personally, i wont be playing anymore battlegrounds once this change happens.
its not my style

Sleepsin

ZOS is trying to add new feature's to PvP. making more BG maps was done and would not be impressive. Changing Cryodiil would be a lot of work and if done wrong would be the end of PvP. So making a 2 vs 2 team PvP was the way to go.

IndigoDreams

Sleepsin wrote: »

ZOS is trying to add new feature's to PvP. making more BG maps was done and would not be impressive. Changing Cryodiil would be a lot of work and if done wrong would be the end of PvP. So making a 2 vs 2 team PvP was the way to go.

So they have chosen the Iphone method.....splendid...

CameraBeardThePirate

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

silky_soft

Everyone just going to roll 45k hp warden and do healing. It's going to be great.

IndigoDreams

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

The only game mode i see your argument being valid for is domination.
Crazy king forces you to make a decision as to fight the other teams for a flag or hope for an open flag.

Current domination format is terrible, we seem to agree there.
easy fix? 1 flag, center map....all teams WILL engage....
relic, DM, and chaosball all demand your teams engage.


throwing out the format of 3 teams is trashing the spirit of the game, and i suspect only really makes DM streamers happy overall..

Necrotech_Master

IndigoDreams wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

The only game mode i see your argument being valid for is domination.
Crazy king forces you to make a decision as to fight the other teams for a flag or hope for an open flag.

Current domination format is terrible, we seem to agree there.
easy fix? 1 flag, center map....all teams WILL engage....
relic, DM, and chaosball all demand your teams engage.


throwing out the format of 3 teams is trashing the spirit of the game, and i suspect only really makes DM streamers happy overall..

capture the relic right now usually boils down to team C capturing relics while team A and B are fighting, ending the match pretty quick

chaosball on the current maps, usually boils down to which team can get the ball into the most difficult to access location (some ledge which has a very small area to stand on, somewhere you can only get to through jumping a specific way)

from what ive heard the new maps resolve a lot of these problems and make things more engaging

karthrag_inak

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

Seriously, though, disagree on pretty much every point. The 3 team component does enable the ability to sneak behind the back of the other 2 teams conflicting, but in thousands of BGs, this wasn't a "why bother" solution but more of a optimal strategy, especially against try-hards who want to kill everyone regardless of game mode.

The 3-team configuration also facilitated 2-on-1 play against dominant teams that helped underpowered teams not get completely obliterated. Get ready for super lopsided/rage quit-fest BGs now.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

....or, 2 teams takes away one of the biggest unique and enjoyable components of the ESO battlegrounds and, instead, sets them against all the other standard MOBAs for the player desiring a MOBA experience. Against these games, ESO will not fare very well.

This change, in Khajiit's view, is one of the biggest fails the dev team has ever engaged in.

karthrag_inak

The issue was never team format. The issue was always player engagement. There was just never sufficient reason for the average player to really get into BGs except during Whitestrake-type events. With 3 teams, noobiness was more easily absorbed, since every team had 2x as many enemies, the unintended impact of well-meaning but somewhat lost noobs on both the winners and the losers was of minimal impact. Sure there have been 0-score matches this one has experienced, but he's also won with 2 teamates before.

But with this change, prepare to watch BGs completely evaporate. All it is going to take is for folks to experience one or two blowout defeats at the hands of the l33tz for them to never go back again. There just is no place the other team can hide, no strategy possible, to make up for an under-crewed team or a bunch of folks that are new and don't know what to do.

-sigh-.

Necrotech_Master

karthrag_inak wrote: »

The issue was never team format. The issue was always player engagement. There was just never sufficient reason for the average player to really get into BGs except during Whitestrake-type events. With 3 teams, noobiness was more easily absorbed, since every team had 2x as many enemies, the unintended impact of well-meaning but somewhat lost noobs on both the winners and the losers was of minimal impact. Sure there have been 0-score matches this one has experienced, but he's also won with 2 teamates before.

But with this change, prepare to watch BGs completely evaporate. All it is going to take is for folks to experience one or two blowout defeats at the hands of the l33tz for them to never go back again. There just is no place the other team can hide, no strategy possible, to make up for an under-crewed team or a bunch of folks that are new and don't know what to do.

-sigh-.

i already have that problem with existing BGs in most cases, the poor matchmaking system (or lack of people to support the MMR) already provides extremely lopsided matches, so i dont really think anything will change on that front

i think the problem your seeing is the difference between "competitive" and "casual" pvp

competitive pvpers want fights, which due to the map sizes and 3 team setup, combat is usually actively avoided to win matches, team A ends up farming team B letting team C win due to free reign of the objectives, especially if team A is trying to be more competitive (combat oriented) pvp

going with the new format, 2 4-person teams for competitive mode will give those people who are looking for more active matches that arent just running to objectives, and the 2 8-person teams will be better for a casual experience as you will have twice as many allies as you do now, but the same amount of enemies (your enemy count is still 8 but your ally count is now also 7, instead 3)

IndigoDreams

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

IndigoDreams wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

The only game mode i see your argument being valid for is domination.
Crazy king forces you to make a decision as to fight the other teams for a flag or hope for an open flag.

Current domination format is terrible, we seem to agree there.
easy fix? 1 flag, center map....all teams WILL engage....
relic, DM, and chaosball all demand your teams engage.


throwing out the format of 3 teams is trashing the spirit of the game, and i suspect only really makes DM streamers happy overall..

capture the relic right now usually boils down to team C capturing relics while team A and B are fighting, ending the match pretty quick

chaosball on the current maps, usually boils down to which team can get the ball into the most difficult to access location (some ledge which has a very small area to stand on, somewhere you can only get to through jumping a specific way)

from what ive heard the new maps resolve a lot of these problems and make things more engaging

And what is to stop teams from ignoring the map objectives and just fighting in random spaces in the new mode?
what you said is NOT unique to current BG format....

Techwolf_Lupindo

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

Only because there was no way to que for non-deathmatch games. Every qued match had a deathmatch group that ruined the battleground match. A separate que for deathmatchers and non-deathmatchers would have fixed that problem

ZOS_Kevin

We do explain some of the logic behind the change in our Battlegrounds article: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/66847

CameraBeardThePirate

Techwolf_Lupindo wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

Only because there was no way to que for non-deathmatch games. Every qued match had a deathmatch group that ruined the battleground match. A separate que for deathmatchers and non-deathmatchers would have fixed that problem

Even if there were an objective queue, objective modes are inherently flawed in a 3 team format with how drawn out fights can be in this game.

The optimal strategy with 3 teams is always to ignore any and all fights and sprint to the nearest unguarded objective. That's the core issue.

They could have also fixed it by reducing the number of objectives in each mode down to 1 or 2 flags/relics, but they chose this option instead.

Stafford197

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Techwolf_Lupindo wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

Only because there was no way to que for non-deathmatch games. Every qued match had a deathmatch group that ruined the battleground match. A separate que for deathmatchers and non-deathmatchers would have fixed that problem

Even if there were an objective queue, objective modes are inherently flawed in a 3 team format with how drawn out fights can be in this game.

The optimal strategy with 3 teams is always to ignore any and all fights and sprint to the nearest unguarded objective. That's the core issue.

They could have also fixed it by reducing the number of objectives in each mode down to 1 or 2 flags/relics, but they chose this option instead.

That’s because ZOS does not properly handle Objective formats. They reward avoiding PvP altogether, when the answer has always been that PvP should be incentivized on Objective points.

A good example is Chaosball. We should gain extra score for earning kills while carrying the Chaosball, and less if we are just running away from all combat. It should be a game mode of protecting the VIP/Ball Carrier, not running away at max speed with big heals.

Objective modes can be great but it has to incentivize playing PvP instead of avoiding PvP. Should be obvious though.

SaffronCitrusflower

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

It's far, far worse with only 2 teams. And now that this 2 team system has gone live we can say for certain BG's will be even less popular going forward than they were prior to U44. There simply isn't anyone at ZOS who knows or cares enough about PvP to make it better or even try to revive what Cyrodiil PvP used to be. ZOS has been moving away from everything PvP for over 5 years now. The 2 team BG system was almost certainly implemented to save resources and developments inputs. Nobody I knew ever touched BG's before this change, and even fewer will now after this change. Cyrodiil is where people PvP in ESO and we aren't even allowed to ask devs about Cyrodiil or PvP during live streams. That's where PvP is at in ESO.

Joy_Division

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

It's far, far worse with only 2 teams. And now that this 2 team system has gone live we can say for certain BG's will be even less popular going forward than they were prior to U44. There simply isn't anyone at ZOS who knows or cares enough about PvP to make it better or even try to revive what Cyrodiil PvP used to be. ZOS has been moving away from everything PvP for over 5 years now. The 2 team BG system was almost certainly implemented to save resources and developments inputs. Nobody I knew ever touched BG's before this change, and even fewer will now after this change. Cyrodiil is where people PvP in ESO and we aren't even allowed to ask devs about Cyrodiil or PvP during live streams. That's where PvP is at in ESO.

While I agree with your sentiments about the murky future of BGs, I would be real money ZOS implemented the BG system because the 3 team mode was 1) not popular and 2) received a lot of complaints (of which are not hard to find. I have consistently expressed my dissatisfaction with the three team format and I have not been alone).

It certainly would have been less expensive and less resource intensive to maintain the system that was already in place rather than changing it. They changed it because, I'll repeat, BGs with the 3 team format was not a popular game system so it was logical to try and change that in an update dedicated to BGs.

In just about ever other PvP game I've ever played, there were always two teams because two teams makes a lot of intuitive sense. In just about every other game we play: basketball, spades, chess, boxing, even silly things like cops and robbers on a school playground, there are two teams because we've figured out a long time ago that is the best way to foster a competitive environment.

The whole idea that a third team is kind of needed to prevent one team from mercilessly wiping the other team is an indictment of ESO's combat and the way ZOS has structured battlegrounds.

The mistake ZOS made in the BG update was forgetting that its combat was not originally designed for a 4v4 or 8v8 scale and isn't suited for it unless the teams are perfectly matched. Because experienced players with good builds will basically never run out of resources and never die to average or even a decent player, any skill disparity in the two teams will basically result in the lesser skilled team getting consistently wiped and then spawn camped.

Aldoss

As a "DM-only" player for the last several years (since the queue was taken from us), today I participated in a crazy king and domination match for the first time and it felt rewarding and thrilling.

We started the domination by engaging the team 4v4 first. After a good first engagement, we popped one of them, and quickly wiped the rest. We then took one flag as the opposing team started the take the other and we engaged again. Once again, we had a great 1 min long battle, before we wiped them and we took the second flag.

From there, it was awesome running back and forth, engaging and reacting.

The BGs tonight were a totally different feel from before. They were quick, exhilarating, and actually got my heart rate going.

The mechanics of the spawns, match making, the medal scoring, leaderboards, and the overall terrible balance of combat is ruining it, but I will say, this format is 100% better than what we had before.

I'll happily play objectives now.

Bammlschwamml

They disabled the old battlegrounds? Does this mean that we might not be able to play old dungeons, trials, zones, quests etc. in the future?

Coo_PnT

I had a lot of fun and excitement playing Battlegrounds for the first time in a long time. I may still have some issues with the 2-team system, but let me just say thank you for the fun update.

Chilly-McFreeze

Joy_Division wrote: »

The whole idea that a third team is kind of needed to prevent one team from mercilessly wiping the other team is an indictment of ESO's combat and the way ZOS has structured battlegrounds.

The mistake ZOS made in the BG update was forgetting that its combat was not originally designed for a 4v4 or 8v8 scale and isn't suited for it unless the teams are perfectly matched. Because experienced players with good builds will basically never run out of resources and never die to average or even a decent player, any skill disparity in the two teams will basically result in the lesser skilled team getting consistently wiped and then spawn camped.

So, are you happy now with how it turned out or do you find ESO's structural/ design issues outweigh the theoretical pros of a standard 2 team match?

Joy_Division

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Joy_Division wrote: »

The whole idea that a third team is kind of needed to prevent one team from mercilessly wiping the other team is an indictment of ESO's combat and the way ZOS has structured battlegrounds.

The mistake ZOS made in the BG update was forgetting that its combat was not originally designed for a 4v4 or 8v8 scale and isn't suited for it unless the teams are perfectly matched. Because experienced players with good builds will basically never run out of resources and never die to average or even a decent player, any skill disparity in the two teams will basically result in the lesser skilled team getting consistently wiped and then spawn camped.

So, are you happy now with how it turned out or do you find ESO's structural/ design issues outweigh the theoretical pros of a standard 2 team match?

Absolutely not happy. The devs have done little in the past 4 years or so that have made me happy or genuinely enjoy the game. Homogenization of classes, the constant nerfs to anything that make the game interesting or distinctive to play, Cyrodiil being the same as 2019 except lower pop caps, updates that are basically offering us a popular add-on, etc., have all made me convinced the developers forgot the number one reason people play games: because they are fun.

The original devs had explicitly stated that ESO's combat, with its lack of cooldowns and "play as you want" matra, was not designed for fights on this scale and it shows. Average players are basically dead weight because they cant kill experienced players and those experienced players have no need for tanks or healers so they can run around freely and delete said average players.

Nothing about ESO's PvP combat from u43 to u44 to has changed the way we PvP and thus made BG combat better. 5% heal reduction to sorc shields isn't going to do diddly squat to stop that class from being so dominant. Toggle to Cloak will not prevent the best NB players from doing what they have done for a decade. They nerf classes that are mid tier (Arcanist). They spend years trying to make Templars decent tanks or melee specs and have accomplished nothing. They are so concerned about gear that dares outperform a 6 year old proc sets they just slam a nerf-hammer and remove the one thing that dared threatened organized groups because somehow their complaints/feedback gets catered too while everyone else's get ignored.

Yeah, not happy.

So just because ZOS changed one thing about BGs that I disliked (3 team) and added some new rewards I don;t care about, doesn't mean that BGs are all of a sudden appealing to me.

All reverting to the 3-team format will do is give the illusion that players aren't as average as they actually are because they won;t be getting killed as often. That's not going to make BGs any more popular than they were pre U43 and will basically be an admission that U44's update was a waste of time and development resources. Other PvP games have managed to present systems in which the millennia long tradition of one team Vs. another team doesn't devolve into spawn camping: there are actual meaningful objectives players must attend to, there are different spawn points, there is a considerable amount of distance between the team teams starting points which help defeat teams reorganize themselves, they have not incessantly nerfed anything offensively threatening so good players actual die occasionally to average players.

SaffronCitrusflower

Joy_Division wrote: »

SaffronCitrusflower wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Because most of the game modes with 3 teams are utter garbage.

All of the objective gamemodes besides Chaosball and the first half of Crazy King actively discourage engaging in combat. Afterall, why bother fighting Team A if it's just gonna give Team B time to cap the objectives? You frequently run into matches where everyone is just running around the map to the next unguarded objective.

2 teams fixes that. The teams are now forced to engage before going for the objective, or forced to engage on the objective, and you won't run into scenarios where the optimal play is to just run away.

It's far, far worse with only 2 teams. And now that this 2 team system has gone live we can say for certain BG's will be even less popular going forward than they were prior to U44. There simply isn't anyone at ZOS who knows or cares enough about PvP to make it better or even try to revive what Cyrodiil PvP used to be. ZOS has been moving away from everything PvP for over 5 years now. The 2 team BG system was almost certainly implemented to save resources and developments inputs. Nobody I knew ever touched BG's before this change, and even fewer will now after this change. Cyrodiil is where people PvP in ESO and we aren't even allowed to ask devs about Cyrodiil or PvP during live streams. That's where PvP is at in ESO.

While I agree with your sentiments about the murky future of BGs, I would be real money ZOS implemented the BG system because the 3 team mode was 1) not popular and 2) received a lot of complaints (of which are not hard to find. I have consistently expressed my dissatisfaction with the three team format and I have not been alone).

It certainly would have been less expensive and less resource intensive to maintain the system that was already in place rather than changing it. They changed it because, I'll repeat, BGs with the 3 team format was not a popular game system so it was logical to try and change that in an update dedicated to BGs.

In just about ever other PvP game I've ever played, there were always two teams because two teams makes a lot of intuitive sense. In just about every other game we play: basketball, spades, chess, boxing, even silly things like cops and robbers on a school playground, there are two teams because we've figured out a long time ago that is the best way to foster a competitive environment.

The whole idea that a third team is kind of needed to prevent one team from mercilessly wiping the other team is an indictment of ESO's combat and the way ZOS has structured battlegrounds.

The mistake ZOS made in the BG update was forgetting that its combat was not originally designed for a 4v4 or 8v8 scale and isn't suited for it unless the teams are perfectly matched. Because experienced players with good builds will basically never run out of resources and never die to average or even a decent player, any skill disparity in the two teams will basically result in the lesser skilled team getting consistently wiped and then spawn camped.

..which brings us back to why the three team format is a better way to go than only 2 teams.

IndigoDreams

so i read the article from the green post

all i gleaned was its easier to make maps, which it is.
someone who posted earlier said how thrilling it was to have 2 teams in a flag game



they said "we fought at first flag, we killed them, then sat on flag. Then opposing team sat on different flag, while we sat on ours. exhilirating"

this sounds the same as the 3 team format problems. this just sounds like the cry babies shouting "3rd party" are the loudest and most dominant....

if the average PvP'er posted here, ZoS would learn the issues but most average PvP'ers just dont QUE
so when ZoS sees "no one que" and then reads ONLY THE MOST VOCAL PEOPLE...they get what they want..

its a flawed system, in a setting where removing the ENTIRE SPIRIT OF THE GAME WAS FAVORED.

and to echo the words of others
we dont get to talk about PvP on update streams

High isle TEASED a PvP update.....
thanks for nothing

buzzclops

The PvP players have been vocal for once since the pts. We’re being ignored tbh go look at the pts forum you’ll see

IndigoDreams

buzzclops wrote: »

The PvP players have been vocal for once since the pts. We’re being ignored tbh go look at the pts forum you’ll see

thanks, i dont go to PTS forums cause i cant use PTS

maybe i should anyway it seems

the high isle thing is what really set me off....
thats old news now but just a reminder of the importance this portion of the player base has.

im 1 Dum dum meat pupppet but i can already think of how to improve the 2 flag games
domination - 1 flag, center map
crazy king - 1 flag, random spawn

the crybabies about capture the relic will never be happy, in my opinon anyway
thanks though for the support

IndigoDreams

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

We do explain some of the logic behind the change in our Battlegrounds article: https://www.elderscrollsonline.com/en-us/news/post/66847

the logic sounds like
"its easier to map for 2 teams, so thats what we did"

whats next, removal of 3rd alliance from Imperial city and Cyrodill?
this is the Iphone method....horrible

darvaria

A lot of players want PVP experiences that are 2 sides, like they have in WOW.

And yes, they might as well remove the 3rd Alliance from Cyrodiil. Maybe that would produce 2 fairly even teams for most of the day. This map hording is getting old there as one side creams the map with simply having more players.

Chilly-McFreeze

darvaria wrote: »

A lot of players want PVP experiences that are 2 sides, like they have in WOW.

And yes, they might as well remove the 3rd Alliance from Cyrodiil. Maybe that would produce 2 fairly even teams for most of the day. This map hording is getting old there as one side creams the map with simply having more players.

And with two sides "simply having more players" isn't an option? Night capping won't exist?

karthrag_inak

Much like physical dimensions, going from 3 teams to 2 teams has made the BGs that khajiit has experienced seem quite flat and 2 dimensional. Very little interest in returning.

Solariken

The change to 2 teams was likely the right decision.

However, and this is a HUGE however, the problem with healers has been greatly exacerbated. Without a 3rd team to focus, when the opposing team has dedicated healer(s) it's a slog fest with barely anyone dying.

ZOS, you need to get healing under control!

Self-healing is in an okay spot, but under no circumstances should your game allow healers to also be tanks. Healers should be the glassiest of all specs if you want PVP to function well.