New BGs are awesome but need a mercy rule for lopsided matches

xylena_lazarow

Title. When the match is obviously decided in the first few minutes, just call it like you would in non-pro sports, or give teams the option to forfeit, something whatever. No point making everyone sit there basically just waiting for 10 minutes, or slamming them with a 30 minute deserter penalty for not playing out a dead lopsided match.

karthrag_inak

They are most definitely not awesome. The biggest mercy would be to get rid of these travesties, bring back the 3-team bgs and attempt to forget this happened.

But instead, what they are going to do is marry themselves to this mess, and then attempt to repeatedly address the issues these have that 3-team didn't with bandaids and stop gaps and volundrungs.

No thanks.

HatchetHaro

I already miss the 3-team BGs, because any lopsidedness in combat ability there can be made up through superior strategy in either focusing specific teams, or distracting and manipulating the opposing teams into fighting each other while your team grabs objectives. When done well, it makes reverse-sweep comebacks possible, and is very rewarding.

In 4v4s, especially Crazy King, both teams can just stack healers and tanks and the win-condition is determined by who dies first, and after that point it just snowballs. There's no strategy involved, no thinking; just constant combat combat combat. It is a joyless husk of an excuse for Battlegrounds.

For 4v4s to actually be fun, you either need cooldowns on abilities so people can't just spam shields and heals forever, or nerf heals and shields to like 10% effectiveness to emulate PvP gameplay loops in many other games.

xylena_lazarow

The 8v8 solo has me playing more BGs than I have in years, even with the bugs. The 3-sided matches I remember seemed to always degenerate into 2-sided but it's 8v4 against the weakest 4, or everyone turtles because they're afraid to get doubled. Fair to enjoy what you enjoy, but it's a matter of taste, and the 3-sided BGs were not popular. The small self-selecting population remaining was of course the few who actually enjoyed the mode.

IncultaWolf

Personally I wish they would have kept the 3 team format, and just gave us new maps and rewards

Durham

Solo mode it does not matter with 3 factions however. In group mode, you need 3 factions to help with balance.

Theist_VII

• Getting third partied when you’re in second place is the worst experience for a competitive player.
• Getting double teamed as the losing team is the worst experience for a casual player.

Having two teams, eliminates those problem entirely.

People are winning and losing by their own accord, based on the merit of themselves and their group.

Now, I get that it sucks being told to go back to the drawing board with your build, or to have to practice dueling your friends for hours learning how to play, but until the MMR is settled in 4v4, people need to expect to run into others that have already done so.

Theist_VII

^ All of the above said, I fully support a mercy rule when matches are extremely lopsided.

xylena_lazarow

Just did a 4v4 Crazy King and it was the same stack, heal, do nothing that plagued the old BGs. Maybe the problem wasn't 2-sided or 3-sided, but only having 4 players? With 8 you can split objectives thus splitting the ball blobs, and there's enough players to zerg down healers so it gets stalled out less frequently.

That 4v4 Crazy King was also a good example of the need for a mercy rule. My team mathematically didn't have the damage to break through the opposing team's heal stack on the flag chokes, the game should've been over when the score was 200-8, not gone on another 10 minutes of nobody even trying to attack me.

Credible_Joe

Everyone pining for 3 team BGs has already forgotten what prompted this new system to begin with.

Y'all keep saying a losing team can compensate with superior strategy, and while that was definitely true, finding people that played objectives (ESPECIALLY SOLO) was impossible. The CONTEMPT people had for anything other than TDM was overwhelming. Every match I would either have teammates that exclusively wanted to wail on each other without playing objective, leading to an inevitable loss, or everyone else would be doing that while I capped points, held the chaos ball with no opposition, snagged flags with no one chasing or defending.

There are definitely flaws (both technical and design) holding the new BGs back. But I have yet to join a (ranked) match where fighting wasn't fully entwined with the objectives. THAT issue has been solved. That's why the maps are small, and it's working as intended.

That being said, steam rolling off the bat is an issue. Team comp and build checks & counters often decide matches before they begin, and I think it can be solved by borrowing from other genres. Namely, the match progression found in MOBAs.

• Introduce a BattleGround shop in match. A match exclusive currency you build up 1:1 with ult gen (sans heroism effects).
• Level Up and unlock the skill slots on your bars as the match goes on.
• Level cap of 10. 2 skill unlocks per level, getting both bars unlocked at 6, and 10% of your assigned attributes per level
• Buy and equip your armor and jewels as you accumulate match currency.
• Or, even rent PvP sets, in case the gear you brought isn't optimized for your team comp, or if you just wanna try something else.
• Spend more BG Bucks for higher quality gear.
• Gear traits and enchants always match whatever you've brought with
• Lastly, introduce mob spawns. Ranked map size might need to be expanded to accommodate this. Get physical, magical, speed, defense buffs from creep. Spawn a treasure scamp every once in a while.

This would fundamentally shift BGs from being focused on the build you bring with to the build you make as you play. You'd be able to put together something different if someone happens to counter your build, and they would be able to adapt in response.

It would produce clear early, mid, and endgames for every match, without the result being obvious right from the start.

But most important of all, it would not divorce you from your preferred character build, and preserves the skill ceiling currently present in PvP overall.

xylena_lazarow

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Team comp and build checks & counters often decide matches before they begin, and I think it can be solved by borrowing from other genres.

Void all gear and give everyone the same special PvP build: 1pc Ayleid Torc. 1pc Pale Order Ring.

karthrag_inak

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The 8v8 solo has me playing more BGs than I have in years, even with the bugs. The 3-sided matches I remember seemed to always degenerate into 2-sided but it's 8v4 against the weakest 4, or everyone turtles because they're afraid to get doubled. Fair to enjoy what you enjoy, but it's a matter of taste, and the 3-sided BGs were not popular. The small self-selecting population remaining was of course the few who actually enjoyed the mode.

Hey, that's cool. Khajiit is really glad you're digging it. This one just has a hard time seeing a way that this is going to evolve into something as consistently enjoyable (for khajiit) as the 3-teams were.

ArchMikem

Competition has always been one side vs one side. When you add others in there it just becomes a mess of frustration and almost ALWAYS causes feelings of being double teamed.

I'm looking forward to trying out the 8v8 mode on Console.

buzzclops

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Everyone pining for 3 team BGs has already forgotten what prompted this new system to begin with.

Y'all keep saying a losing team can compensate with superior strategy, and while that was definitely true, finding people that played objectives (ESPECIALLY SOLO) was impossible. The CONTEMPT people had for anything other than TDM was overwhelming. Every match I would either have teammates that exclusively wanted to wail on each other without playing objective, leading to an inevitable loss, or everyone else would be doing that while I capped points, held the chaos ball with no opposition, snagged flags with no one chasing or defending.

There are definitely flaws (both technical and design) holding the new BGs back. But I have yet to join a (ranked) match where fighting wasn't fully entwined with the objectives. THAT issue has been solved. That's why the maps are small, and it's working as intended.

That being said, steam rolling off the bat is an issue. Team comp and build checks & counters often decide matches before they begin, and I think it can be solved by borrowing from other genres. Namely, the match progression found in MOBAs.

• Introduce a BattleGround shop in match. A match exclusive currency you build up 1:1 with ult gen (sans heroism effects).
• Level Up and unlock the skill slots on your bars as the match goes on.
• Level cap of 10. 2 skill unlocks per level, getting both bars unlocked at 6, and 10% of your assigned attributes per level
• Buy and equip your armor and jewels as you accumulate match currency.
• Or, even rent PvP sets, in case the gear you brought isn't optimized for your team comp, or if you just wanna try something else.
• Spend more BG Bucks for higher quality gear.
• Gear traits and enchants always match whatever you've brought with
• Lastly, introduce mob spawns. Ranked map size might need to be expanded to accommodate this. Get physical, magical, speed, defense buffs from creep. Spawn a treasure scamp every once in a while.

This would fundamentally shift BGs from being focused on the build you bring with to the build you make as you play. You'd be able to put together something different if someone happens to counter your build, and they would be able to adapt in response.

It would produce clear early, mid, and endgames for every match, without the result being obvious right from the start.

But most important of all, it would not divorce you from your preferred character build, and preserves the skill ceiling currently present in PvP overall.

Why do you even play this game? You just asking for a complete different game

It’s like I was saying “I don’t like soccer. I think they should use sticks instead and play on ice with a rubber puck. THAT would make soccer great ! “

Sluggy

HatchetHaro wrote: »

For 4v4s to actually be fun, you either need cooldowns on abilities so people can't just spam shields and heals forever, or nerf heals and shields to like 10% effectiveness to emulate PvP gameplay loops in many other games.

Cooldowns would not make the game fun. Even if I didn't know this intuitively I can just point to the time when they DID give massive cooldowns on most skills while in Cyrodiil and it sucked for everyone, everywhere, forever.

If it were me making the choice, I'd opt to remove healing entirely from PvP and make all healing skills only provide shields. Reduce their effectiveness by avoiding stacking identical sources (always by taking the strongest one, otherwise you end up with potential trolling exploits) and then reduce their effectiveness slightly more than they are currently. This would at least introduce the potential for "combat entropy". Health would never recover so eventually people are going to fall.

Credible_Joe

buzzclops wrote: »

Why do you even play this game? You just asking for a complete different game

It’s like I was saying “I don’t like soccer. I think they should use sticks instead and play on ice with a rubber puck. THAT would make soccer great ! “

Nothing you just wrote represents my suggestion in any way shape or form. I really don't understand how you got to that conclusion; it's like you saw how long my post was, TL;DR'd, and assumed I wanted to refactor the whole game.

Foundationally, the only change I suggested to Battlegrounds is starting everyone on a level playing field and growing their power and equipment as the match goes on.

End game in the system I proposed would be almost the same as the whole match is currently. I simply introduced scaling mechanics to the experience, so players won't immediately be discouraged when they see which way the wind is blowing right off the bat. It's important in any competitive medium to have a chance to turn things around.

That doesn't qualify in any way proposing an entirely different game or experience. The game modes stay the same. You can bring in whatever build you want. Matches remain quick paced and decisive.

Besides; we JUST got the battlegrounds refactored. It's not like there's an established fan base yet that knows they like it the way it is now. We're just now getting to know it, and I've submit a suggestion to address the issues that are immediately apparent on launch. Telling me to go play a different game in response is wild, man.

Cooperharley

I just don't think the issue is 2 teams. I think the issue is heal stacking and stuff personally. I also totally agree with having a mercy rule just like in any FPS game

buzzclops

Credible_Joe wrote: »

buzzclops wrote: »

Why do you even play this game? You just asking for a complete different game

It’s like I was saying “I don’t like soccer. I think they should use sticks instead and play on ice with a rubber puck. THAT would make soccer great ! “

Nothing you just wrote represents my suggestion in any way shape or form. I really don't understand how you got to that conclusion; it's like you saw how long my post was, TL;DR'd, and assumed I wanted to refactor the whole game.

Foundationally, the only change I suggested to Battlegrounds is starting everyone on a level playing field and growing their power and equipment as the match goes on.

End game in the system I proposed would be almost the same as the whole match is currently. I simply introduced scaling mechanics to the experience, so players won't immediately be discouraged when they see which way the wind is blowing right off the bat. It's important in any competitive medium to have a chance to turn things around.

That doesn't qualify in any way proposing an entirely different game or experience. The game modes stay the same. You can bring in whatever build you want. Matches remain quick paced and decisive.

Besides; we JUST got the battlegrounds refactored. It's not like there's an established fan base yet that knows they like it the way it is now. We're just now getting to know it, and I've submit a suggestion to address the issues that are immediately apparent on launch. Telling me to go play a different game in response is wild, man.

well that is a different game. its like a league or Fortnite. that was never how mmorpg played. no players playing eso want to start games like that there are already games that do this. agree to disagree I guess

Credible_Joe

buzzclops wrote: »

well that is a different game. its like a league or Fortnite. that was never how mmorpg played. no players playing eso want to start games like that there are already games that do this. agree to disagree I guess

It really isn't. Battlegrounds as they stand now are just the endgame of any MOBA match. Every aspect is there, including building up your character, choosing equipment and items, grinding levels on creep; only we do that outside the match and then jump straight into the endgame of whatever mode we're playing.

The result makes it immediately apparent why every MOBA starts you off small and builds you up throughout the match. When team comp decides the result of the match, there isn't a point in playing. You see how every fight goes, and once it's clear who's superior, the rest of the match becomes a formality.

I'm not saying turn BGs into three lane tower & base defense (although... I hate to admit, I would play this). I'm saying take the systems that are proven to effectively balance matches that are already known and incorporate them into what we have.

fizzylu

They should have done the logical thing and left BGs alone and released 4v4 under a new PvP arena feature.

Cooperharley wrote: »

I just don't think the issue is 2 teams. I think the issue is heal stacking and stuff personally.

And exactly, but those issues aren't going away because of how the game works.... so having the only ranked/competitive BGs be a PvP mode that puts them on blast, well, in my opinion it's obvious how that will be bad for the game. At least 4v4v4 created a tactical playstyle environment that could level the playing field so that the problems with ESO combat weren't so apparent and didn't determine the outcome of every match.

buzzclops

Credible_Joe wrote: »

buzzclops wrote: »

well that is a different game. its like a league or Fortnite. that was never how mmorpg played. no players playing eso want to start games like that there are already games that do this. agree to disagree I guess

It really isn't. Battlegrounds as they stand now are just the endgame of any MOBA match. Every aspect is there, including building up your character, choosing equipment and items, grinding levels on creep; only we do that outside the match and then jump straight into the endgame of whatever mode we're playing.

The result makes it immediately apparent why every MOBA starts you off small and builds you up throughout the match. When team comp decides the result of the match, there isn't a point in playing. You see how every fight goes, and once it's clear who's superior, the rest of the match becomes a formality.

I'm not saying turn BGs into three lane tower & base defense (although... I hate to admit, I would play this). I'm saying take the systems that are proven to effectively balance matches that are already known and incorporate them into what we have.

This is why having 3 teams worked for that type of pvp. im sorry but hardcore pvp players and veterans of the game all said it during the pts that this would be the issue. A lot of this game is more than the build. its how good APM you have how reactive your defense is. as a veteran of 10 years in eso pvp it doesn't matter if you strip my character of its stats I would still destroy a casual in the scenario your a building. There's a lot more to it than build contrary to what ppl say. its about the game being fast paced with no cooldowns (which is the reason I play eso). There's no Rock Paper Scissors type of balance and cooldowns to make games have a lot of different factors. That's why having 3 teams made momentum shifts possible. Basically proving the point I've been trying to make on more than this post. 2 TEAMS DOES NOT WORK

Credible_Joe

buzzclops wrote: »

This is why having 3 teams worked for that type of pvp. im sorry but hardcore pvp players and veterans of the game all said it during the pts that this would be the issue. A lot of this game is more than the build. its how good APM you have how reactive your defense is. as a veteran of 10 years in eso pvp it doesn't matter if you strip my character of its stats I would still destroy a casual in the scenario your a building. There's a lot more to it than build contrary to what ppl say. its about the game being fast paced with no cooldowns (which is the reason I play eso). There's no Rock Paper Scissors type of balance and cooldowns to make games have a lot of different factors. That's why having 3 teams made momentum shifts possible. Basically proving the point I've been trying to make on more than this post. 2 TEAMS DOES NOT WORK

Ten years, wow. We must have had way different experiences because what I've observed in that time is that a single dedicated healer or tank on any one party back on 3 team would dominate the field because no one ever brings builds to counter them.

It would then devolve into two teams TDM'ing while the team with the healer sat on objectives. So much fun.

Sure would have been convenient if there was a way to swap out gear for armor pen / true damage or heal absorb during the match. Too bad that would make it too much like a MOBA, as if it weren't already.

xylena_lazarow

buzzclops wrote: »

A lot of this game is more than the build. its how good APM you have how reactive your defense is. as a veteran of 10 years in eso pvp it doesn't matter if you strip my character of its stats I would still destroy a casual in the scenario your a building. There's a lot more to it than build contrary to what ppl say. its about the game being fast paced with no cooldowns (which is the reason I play eso).

Hard agree with this much, yet my conclusion is that 2-sided is more competitive because you're not getting third-partied. Already been in 8v8 solo matches (especially Chaosball and CTR) where the momentum swings back and forth and the game ends close. Throw another team in there and it's lopsided because they keep turning it into an 8v4.

fizzylu

Credible_Joe wrote: »

Ten years, wow. We must have had way different experiences because what I've observed in that time is that a single dedicated healer or tank on any one party back on 3 team would dominate the field because no one ever brings builds to counter them.

In my experience this wasn't really that big of a problem. Like yeah, having a healer definitely could be an advantage.... but I've also seen teams with healers still lose, plenty of times. I've even seen teams get upset that they had tanks/healers because they were actually quite useless standing on an objective alone or being unable to help secure kills.

I would have quit long ago if it was that bad.

fizzylu

@xylena_lazarow
You voted in my poll that you think 4v4 makes for good competitive BG gameplay so I find this thread interesting, haha. But I agree that 8v8 definitely has close games and momentum shifts-- I quite enjoy that mode so far as some nonsensical fun.... so really the problem isn't 2 teams vs 3 teams but imo, 4v4.

Still say it would have been best for them to leave 4v4v4 as the competitive/ranked BGs, add the 8v8 as a more casual one to appeal to those that didn't like the 3 team gameplay, and then 4v4 should have been an entire new PvP feature (again, PvP arenas).

buzzclops

Credible_Joe wrote: »

buzzclops wrote: »

This is why having 3 teams worked for that type of pvp. im sorry but hardcore pvp players and veterans of the game all said it during the pts that this would be the issue. A lot of this game is more than the build. its how good APM you have how reactive your defense is. as a veteran of 10 years in eso pvp it doesn't matter if you strip my character of its stats I would still destroy a casual in the scenario your a building. There's a lot more to it than build contrary to what ppl say. its about the game being fast paced with no cooldowns (which is the reason I play eso). There's no Rock Paper Scissors type of balance and cooldowns to make games have a lot of different factors. That's why having 3 teams made momentum shifts possible. Basically proving the point I've been trying to make on more than this post. 2 TEAMS DOES NOT WORK

Ten years, wow. We must have had way different experiences because what I've observed in that time is that a single dedicated healer or tank on any one party back on 3 team would dominate the field because no one ever brings builds to counter them.

It would then devolve into two teams TDM'ing while the team with the healer sat on objectives. So much fun.

Sure would have been convenient if there was a way to swap out gear for armor pen / true damage or heal absorb during the match. Too bad that would make it too much like a MOBA, as if it weren't already.

again here it shows you haven't played in the same games I have. I do agree healing is overturned but Ive never had trouble killing healer or tanks. If you dont build to kill them why are you even queuing. Im not saying its easy but there are plenty of top tier pvpers that are able to. You need good pressure and players that know how to focus targets and use CC. (kill the Dps most of the time keep healer for last) counter intuitive from other games I know. when I play with my brother we always make sure one of us has an unblockable stun for the burst. Im not trying to sound elitist by saying that but we most likely don't play in the same bracket. In lower mmr all of which you are saying is exacerbated by the parity of players being even worse. In high mmr its always the same 40-50 players from Stunhs Goon and Ulfnar ( ON PC NA ) and solo q was pretty chill in bgs and mostly fair games.

we did premade guild nights with multiple 4 man teams queuing and it was fun and you could actually come back from wiping on the initial fight by using strategy and positioning. stealing kills and being opportunist too.

Also tanks have never been good in bgs. you can stand and not fight them and pick up objectives. Ppl just death matching all around would make it seem that the tanks are OP cause they were ignored. But trust me if good players decide to play the objectives then having a tank means less dmg in your team and you will lose every team fight and eventually lose the objective. Healers are overturned but not unkillable.

buzzclops

fizzylu wrote: »

@xylena_lazarow
You voted in my poll that you think 4v4 makes for good competitive BG gameplay so I find this thread interesting, haha. But I agree that 8v8 definitely has close games and momentum shifts-- I quite enjoy that mode so far as some nonsensical fun.... so really the problem isn't 2 teams vs 3 teams but imo, 4v4.

Still say it would have been best for them to leave 4v4v4 as the competitive/ranked BGs, add the 8v8 as a more casual one to appeal to those that didn't like the 3 team gameplay, and then 4v4 should have been an entire new PvP feature (again, PvP arenas).

I kinda agree with this

fizzylu

@buzzclops
Yep, I'd say it was very easy to make a tank irrelevant in BG matches. Healers were a bit more tricky because they are so overpowered, but they were never that big of a problem either and definitely not a winning ticket no questions asked. You could easily focus down their team members making it so that the healer just had to give up/run away to regroup even if you couldn't kill the healer specifically.

Theist_VII

fizzylu wrote: »

@buzzclops
Yep, I'd say it was very easy to make a tank irrelevant in BG matches. Healers were a bit more tricky because they are so overpowered, but they were never that big of a problem either and definitely not a winning ticket no questions asked. You could easily focus down their team members making it so that the healer just had to give up/run away to regroup even if you couldn't kill the healer specifically.

You both have missed the point.
In PvP, Healers are Tanks.

That’s the problem, you can provide so much healing for absolutely no reason whatsoever while building strong enough to survive both teams of 4 attacking you.

While they should have kept 4v4v4 as an option, there was absolutely nothing competitive about it.

buzzclops

Theist_VII wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

@buzzclops
Yep, I'd say it was very easy to make a tank irrelevant in BG matches. Healers were a bit more tricky because they are so overpowered, but they were never that big of a problem either and definitely not a winning ticket no questions asked. You could easily focus down their team members making it so that the healer just had to give up/run away to regroup even if you couldn't kill the healer specifically.

You both have missed the point.
In PvP, Healers are Tanks.

That’s the problem, you can provide so much healing for absolutely no reason whatsoever while building strong enough to survive both teams of 4 attacking you.

While they should have kept 4v4v4 as an option, there was absolutely nothing competitive about it.

they do soak up a lot of damage. but they are not "tanks"

fizzylu

Theist_VII wrote: »

You both have missed the point..

Tbh, I don't even know your point.