Do you think 4v4 is good "competitive" BG gameplay?

fizzylu

Ignoring the bug where the teams don't fill and the matches fail to start.... I would like to hear some peoples opinions on the new BG modes, but am especially curious about how players feel about the 4v4 style and it being the official "competitive" BG.

Personally, I think 8v8 is solid and I can see people who didn't enjoy the 4v4v4 style actually playing it. Definitely a hot mess, but a mindless fun one that doesn't put as much stress on the players. Overall, I can definitely see it having it's place in the game.
But 4v4.... I have to say, it's pretty terrible. Coming from someone who has won some and lost some, neither felt very good. It really seems to always just come down to a team gap caused by the team compositions (and I don't only mean MMR, but classes/build styles) between the two teams rather than actual skill or playing smart. I think this being the only way to get on the leaderboard is a mistake too and don't see why 8v8 doesn't have it's own to begin with.
And unlike 8v8, I don't really see who this mode is for. I can't see players who do like the playstyle of the 8v8 matches enjoying it much, and I don't see people who liked the 4v4v4 BG format enjoying it very much either....

I know I would have liked to see 4v4v4 maps/modes remain as the "competitive" BGs, since unlike the new 4v4 setup.... even if one team just clearly had a better composition or a flat power gap, there were still ways to win and outplay them (picking off kills, flat-out KSing, sneaking objectives, etc).
Then if Zenimax really wanted to still do one small team against another small team, I think actual PvP style 2v2 (or even 1v1) arenas would have made more sense-- and probably be better balanced than 4v4 where you can get so much cross-healing that some teams just don't die and where some build styles seem to just not really have their place (I have seen nightblades and hit-and-run stamsorcs not really enjoying the 4v4s).

Please share your thoughts below : )
Edit: and while I know MMR and the leaderboard scoring is an issue, I really mean to ask this in the sense of if a 4v4 setup makes for good competitive/ranked battleground gameplay in ESO

CameraBeardThePirate

No

Can't call them competitive if the leaderboard tracks a cumulative score that only goes up and never goes down.

Can't call them competitive if the leaderboard system favors certain builds (healers with high crit) and basically disregards others (Necromancers and Shielder builds).

These issues were pointed out Week 1 of PTS. It's a farce.

Olen_Mikko

If it lures the Cyrodiil tryhards from resource towers into the competitive battlegrounds, it'd be the best improvement ever.

But I highly doubt it, since they might realize the cheesiness of their builds going against one.

LunaFlora

Yes

i would rather have 2 teams than 3 teams at once so to me 4v4 is better

Auberon1983

Haven't played them yet, but I think it doesn't sound/look good

On PS5 so haven't had a chance at the new BGs yet. However, I'm not liking so far what I've been reading.

FWIW, my only "real" PvP toon (meaning not some cobbled together PvP build on a PvE toon for transmute crystals) is a Warden Healer. Apparently the new BGs would heavily favor me in scoring and leaderboards, but I don't think that's fair. I shouldn't have a higher score with my whopping zero kills than people with 20+ every match.

Maybe things will change in the future?

fizzylu

No

@CameraBeardThePirate
@Auberon1983
I did edit my post to clarify, but let's say BGs had the perfect MMR+leaderboard system; would you then think the 4v4 setup is the ideal form of competitive BG gameplay in ESO.... or like me, would you still think it alienates many PvP playstyles and would still just be a battle of who has the better/most cheese team comp, fully eliminating the opportunistic/tactical style gameplay the original 4v4v4 BGs had?

Auberon1983

Haven't played them yet, but I think it doesn't sound/look good

fizzylu wrote: »

@CameraBeardThePirate
@Auberon1983
I did edit my post to clarify, but let's say BGs had the perfect MMR system; would you then think the 4v4 setup is the ideal form of competitive BG gameplay in ESO.... or like me, would you still think it alienates many PvP playstyles and would still just be a battle of who has the better/most cheese team comp, fully eliminating the opportunistic/tactical style gameplay the original 4v4v4 BGs had?

In that case, I agree with you. I'd much prefer the old 4v4v4.

I mostly play Cyrodiil for PvP, and it's largely devolved into "cookie cutter" builds. BGs were always where you got to see the experimental/unique builds. I really don't want BGs to become "Cyrodiil Junior"

fizzylu

No

Auberon1983 wrote: »

I really don't want BGs to become "Cyrodiil Junior"

Sadly this is exactly what the 4v4 mode feels like so far to me and some people I've discussed it with.

Emmagoldman

No

I like the aspect of 3 teams. You have to take a lot more attention to situational awareness and really consider positioning.

gariondavey

Yes

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Can't call them competitive if the leaderboard tracks a cumulative score that only goes up and never goes down.

Can't call them competitive if the leaderboard system favors certain builds (healers with high crit) and basically disregards others (Necromancers and Shielder builds).

These issues were pointed out Week 1 of PTS. It's a farce.

Totally agreed.
I voted yes on the theory of 4v4 being good competitive gameplay but the lack of listening on zos's end from the ACTUAL COMPETITIVE CROWD is just mind boggling.

CameraBeardThePirate

No

fizzylu wrote: »

@CameraBeardThePirate
@Auberon1983
I did edit my post to clarify, but let's say BGs had the perfect MMR system; would you then think the 4v4 setup is the ideal form of competitive BG gameplay in ESO.... or like me, would you still think it alienates many PvP playstyles and would still just be a battle of who has the better/most cheese team comp, fully eliminating the opportunistic/tactical style gameplay the original 4v4v4 BGs had?

Leaderboards aren't an MMR thing - they have little to do with MMR according to ZOS.

Leaderboards are a reward and standings thing. You cannot have a good competitive system without a rewards and standings system that makes sense.

Right now, you could be an absolutely terrible player, but easily have rank #1 on the leaderboard and reap the rewards by simply playing more and spamming more crit heals than everyone else.

Conversely, you could be the #1 support player in terms of skill and win rate, but never even have your name show up on the leaderboard because you play a shielder and literally nothing you do is tracked by the game.

Edit to add: If the "competitive" system you implement doesn't reward skill, winning, or in the case of the current system, actively punishes playing certain builds or classes (even when effective), it's a broken system.

fizzylu

No

@CameraBeardThePirate
....okay-- edited my reply and post to be absolutely specific, haha. But my question still stands.

CameraBeardThePirate

No

fizzylu wrote: »

@CameraBeardThePirate
....okay-- edited my reply to be absolutely specific, haha. But my question still stands.

4v4 is fine. The problem with the actual modes stem from other factors like the per player spawn limit, being able to sit in spawn for 2 minutes, being able to simply not respawn, etc.

4v4 can be a very skilled system. You might say it's whomever has the most "cheese comp" but that's literally the point of the game - would you say the #1 trial running raid group simply has a "cheese comp" because they min maxed all their builds?

The truth is that 4v4v4s were fun and 4v4v4 DM did have an interesting added layer of strategy; however 4v4v4 also instilled a lot of bad habits in the vast majority of the playerbase.

As more players realize that BGs are going to take a lot more mechanical attention to detail and DM focused builds (as there is less margin for error when you dont have the added X factor of a 3rd team), players will adapt and the meta will shift.

fizzylu

No

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

4v4 can be a very skilled system. You might say it's whomever has the most "cheese comp" but that's literally the point of the game - would you say the #1 trial running raid group simply has a "cheese comp" because they min maxed all their builds?

I wouldn't even think to compare PvE to it, but to clarify my actual stance here even though I know our opinions on gameplay differ greatly from your comments about bad habits and what counts as needing more mechanical attention to detail.... but the way I see it is that ESO has problems other games do not.
In most games, every person cannot heal the other. Tanks can't do nearly as much damage or healing as ones in ESO can. Dedicated healers in ESO are some of the most busted things I've seen in any online game. The list could go on....
So it isn't a question or problem about the "cheese" being inherently bad or no skill, but a discussion about whether it's good that one of the few gameplay modes that was not really restricted by that playstyle of min/maxing and playing very specific ways/builds now has it's ONLY competitive mode as something that will/already does require you to do those things-- instead of being the place for more unique builds and diverse playstyles where people could use different skill sets to achieve things/perform well, like it originally was.

So, does 4v4 actually make for good battleground competitive gameplay? In my opinion, no. Now could it have been it's own little feature or a new mode entirely? Yes, I even said I would have liked to see that in the original post.... just that I would have preferred a 2v2 setting to minimize cross-healing and to not create as much of a setting where build/playstyle diversity goes to die, haha. But calling the 4v4 the "competitive battleground" mode.... well, honestly; I just kind of find it sad as a fan of the original 4v4v4 setting and I really don't know what Zenimax wants players like me to do and think here other than to lose even more interest in the game.

I also think it's important to note that 4v4 is the intended competitive mode for solos as well, not just premades.... it feels like that's not getting acknowledged very much, along with how it will probably result in even more one-sided fights than 4v4v4 BGs ever did.

Deimus

Other and may explain

Yes, I think the framework is good for competitive pvp, but isn't finished yet. If they continue to add on to it like antiquities, mythics, etc I can see it shaping up into a very good competitve pvp mode.

The things I would like to see them add other than those stated multiple times about score tracking not account for pets and shields for 4v4 groups are:

• Established seasons that we as players know the duration of a couple of weeks, 1 month, maybe 2 months.
• Team registration for 4v4 groups to track their ranking on the leaderboards. Once a team completes a match during the season their roster is locked(that @ account and character) like faction locked cyro, but more specific. The team must participate in x amount of battlegrounds per week or their rank drops.
• Rewards for the teams based on performance top 10, top 3, etc. Maybe unique titles for the season and team ranks.
• A couple of new maps added every year, one maybe at dlc release or anniversary the other at q4. The new battleground maps are 10/10 design for me.
• Down the line after the dust settles I'd like to see the system expanded to duos 2v2 and a solo 1v1 (dueling) competitive leaderboards.

SkaraMinoc

No

Without a competitive leaderboard, there is no competitive 4v4.

SkaraMinoc

No

Imagine chess where the more games you play, the higher your rating.

Soarora

I just want old BGs back

Yes, 4v4 feels competitive, but it really also does seem like whoever gets in first or whoever is the stronger team will win and then you waste what feels like 10 minutes either fully winning or fully losing. What strategy there was with 4v4v4 objective games no longer exists as far as I have seen yet.

fizzylu

No

@Soarora
Same, although I don't really think I consider it to feel competitive at all since almost every match I have been in always seems to be one team with a clear upper-hand. I've seen more head-to-head team fighting and closer matches in the 8v8 mode.

Stafford197

No

The problem is that ESO is incredibly imbalanced. Pitting two teams of players against each other puts the balance issue on full blast. BGs might just go back to having minimal population as soon as the initial hype dies down over the next few months.

Soarora

I just want old BGs back

fizzylu wrote: »

@Soarora
Same, although I don't really think I consider it to feel competitive at all since almost every match I have been in always seems to be one team with a clear upper-hand. I've seen more head-to-head team fighting and closer matches in the 8v8 mode.

True, I guess instead of competitive I should’ve said intimate. There’s less people to hide behind and less people to keep track of.

Aldoss

No

Soarora wrote: »

whoever is the stronger team will win

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

Anyway, I chose no because the scoring and leaderboard system is a joke.

4v4 on its own though is way more enjoyable than what we had before. The joy is just getting sucked away from it because the ZOS combat team haven't done anywhere close to enough to bring balance to the game.

Healing is so massively overtuned. Cross healing needs to get reigned in and a full heal needs to stop being as oppressive as they are.

fizzylu

No

Aldoss wrote: »

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

For people who genuinely enjoyed the 4v4v4 gameplay, it is.

colossalvoids

Other and may explain

Maybe I was lucky but my 4v4s were absolutely amazing compared to 3 team matches I was getting prior, probably one day of the new patch gave me more emotions than half a year with old ones. Balance was spot on for all just one match I had. 8v8 ones are just bad imo, probably cool for people for like to have no idea what's going on oh have amazing frame rates always no matter ball groups around. I'd prefer them make 8v8 on way bigger maps, maybe something akin to a castle clashes with more verticality, jumping etc. or a siege, as those are peak PvP things that got devalued years ago due to various reasons. As for 4v4 I've read enough bad experiences whilst not experiencing them myself so would like to wait out a month or so to judge anything when some bugs will be ironed out and MMR would kick in.

If the question is what system is better in vacuum and on paper it's 4v4 easily for me, but changing one aspect of BG's isn't changing BG's enough because there's a whole game that's designed a certain way and various issues with that. I'm not sure that this half baked update was a good idea and it needed actually way more substantial work and changes to PvP in general first or accompanying it rather than couple set nerfs to make ball groups happy, remind you we're not playing to have fun but to suffer through, obviously.

Aldoss

No

fizzylu wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

For people who genuinely enjoyed the 4v4v4 gameplay, it is.

Ah, so they're staying it out loud that the thing that some people enjoyed from the 4v4v4s was that the game modes (minus DM) allowed a weaker team to win?

Seems like poor design. This new one is much better.

PeacefulAnarchy

No

Aldoss wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

whoever is the stronger team will win

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

For some people the strength is in the build and execution. do your abilities do the most damage, have the strongest heals? For some the strength is in their strategy. do you know when to flee to recover, which objective to target, stay together or split up, etc. 3 group bgs had a mix of appeal to both of these strengths. you could out brute force the other teams, but you could also, with the right strats and a reasonably close power gap, make up the deficit. It meant more matches were some level of competitive because of the variety of strengths people could bring. 4v4, from what I've seen and what other people report, favours specific types of strength and neuters others. It makes comebacks or tight matches much less likely than before. Maybe this will be sorted out eventually once mmr settles, but the mode has inherent biases that limit in match competitiveness, and that makes it tiresome to actually participate in once the conclusion is obvious to everyone.

fizzylu

No

Aldoss wrote: »

Ah, so they're staying it out loud that the thing that some people enjoyed from the 4v4v4s was that the game modes (minus DM) allowed a weaker team to win?

Seems like poor design. This new one is much better.

Yes.... because it required different tactics of playing to achieve a win rather than "just beat them into the ground and you're good".
It also was a more enjoyable place for solos who could potentially carry by securing kills, being a smart/good relic runner, knowing how to rotate for flags.... and yes, even if their team wasn't that great. They could still pull off feats and achievements in a match to win, even in DM. I personally find that amazing and ESO was one of the few MMOs that offered something like that when it came to PvP. Seeing players do stuff like that even when there was a stronger team just steamrolling entire groups of players in the match is what made me remember players names.... and now, one of the few reasons why I and many people I know still bothered giving this game our money is just gone and replaced with micro Cyrodiil, of all things.

Not everything needs to be built around "which team is the better/stronger comp" and BGs were one part of the game where that "rule" didn't apply, which is why many of the existing BG fans liked it prior to the update.... this completely takes that away from the game.
And again, I'm not saying 4v4 shouldn't be a thing period (like I originally said; they should have just made them PvP arenas, not shoehorned them in as BGs).... just that their place in the game as the only competitive/ranked BG mode is kind of a huge slap in the face to people who did enjoy 4v4v4, and to me and this poll so far, seems quite out-of-touch with what most players actually want. Not that that's a surprise coming from Zenimax.

Soarora

I just want old BGs back

Aldoss wrote: »

Soarora wrote: »

whoever is the stronger team will win

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

Because you took part of my sentence out of context. It isn’t fun to be steamrolled for 10 minutes. I don’t have a problem with stronger players winning, but not when there’s absolutely no way to win and all you can do is wait out the battleground.

bladenick

I just want old BGs back

I’m casual player, queried as solo 4v4
There no fun for current 2 side setup, it only matter of luck regarding team balance, as both team get random teammate, in most case we will found 1 team is overwhelming in 2 mins, then the rest of time is just trash time for weaker team, especially that god damn Round setting for death match,
There barely be a problem in old 3 side BG, you still can be opportunist since there 3 team there

Amottica

Aldoss wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

For people who genuinely enjoyed the 4v4v4 gameplay, it is.

Ah, so they're staying it out loud that the thing that some people enjoyed from the 4v4v4s was that the game modes (minus DM) allowed a weaker team to win?

Seems like poor design. This new one is much better.

I am curious. @Aldoss, your answer to the poll was "No," which means the 4v4 is not good for competitive gameplay, yet this post seems to suggest this new 4v4 is much better than what we have.

I figure there is a reason for the contradiction, which is why I ask. Granted, it is odd that "no" comes before "yes."

fizzylu

No

@bladenick
Pretty much how it is, yeah. Even my first 4v4 match today; the first round was a 500 to 0 score and I had to tell my teammates to jump down from spawn to accept defeat the second round. They just had too much healing/sustain when stacked for us to DPS through and my teammates were more on the squishy side as well (bow builds mostly), and the only reason we got any points the second round was because I got a kill on someone who separated from their other team members.
The first 8v8 I did was also pretty one-sided, but not as bad (haven't been able to get into anymore yet because of the bug).

Btw, those bow builds on my team probably would of been able to play pretty decently in the old 4v4v4 setup (examples of 4v4 killing build diversity already in play).