Why remove a functioning part of the game: BGs

Thumbless_Bot · October 31

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

Cooperharley · October 31

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

Thumbless_Bot · October 31

Cooperharley wrote: »

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps. There was no reason for this. Other games are still there and people can go play them. Also 2 sided bgs will still be there and people can go play those. There was no reason to remove 4v4v4 bgs or the maps... none whatsoever.

Cooperharley · October 31

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Cooperharley wrote: »

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps. There was no reason for this. Other games are still there and people can go play them. Also 2 sided bgs will still be there and people can go play those. There was no reason to remove 4v4v4 bgs or the maps... none whatsoever.

I see what you're saying - you mean removing 4 v 4 v4 as an option. Yea they mentioned it was because they didn't want to split up the playerbase a lot, but I agree, it would at least give people the option, but given the already annoying feature where the game drops if you don't have full teams of 8v8, that'd exacerbate that problem unless they fix that.

Chilly-McFreeze · October 31

Then they should rotate game mode (4v4v4 / 4v4 / 8v8) on a weekly/ daily etc basis. Every format has it’s downsides so there is no „arguably better“ Variation. With that you also wouldnt split up the playerbase

Thumbless_Bot · October 31

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Then they should rotate game mode (4v4v4 / 4v4 / 8v8) on a weekly/ daily etc basis. Every format has it’s downsides so there is no „arguably better“ Variation. With that you also wouldnt split up the playerbase

This is another option but I do not agree with it personally. Extending this logic we should round Robin cp and no cp cyro and IC because there aren't enough people to keep each full.

Why not just let people... drum roll... play the way they want?

Chilly-McFreeze · October 31

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Then they should rotate game mode (4v4v4 / 4v4 / 8v8) on a weekly/ daily etc basis. Every format has it’s downsides so there is no „arguably better“ Variation. With that you also wouldnt split up the playerbase

This is another option but I do not agree with it personally. Extending this logic we should round Robin cp and no cp cyro and IC because there aren't enough people to keep each full.

Why not just let people... drum roll... play the way they want?

Fundamentally I agree with you in keeping all options open all the time. But the ones claiming that we don't have enough participants to fill up all the ques in reasonable time have a point as well.
Personally, I'd be fine if we return to BGs from last week.

fizzylu · November 1

Realistically, most people who liked 4v4v4 and not 4v4 or 8v8 are simply going to barely queue for them in the long-run and possibly quit the game entirely.

The idea that "we can't split up the queues too much because there's not enough players" is already kind of bs when you realize that they already have split the queues up even more than they were before the update anyway.

At the end of the day though, Zenimax just went about this update the worst way possible. It would have made more sense to keep 4v4v4 BGs as the main and competitive/ranked version then added the solo and group queue 8v8 for players who didn't like 4v4v4, those trying to learn/adjust to smaller scale PvP, and just for a change of pace if one wants it. This would have divided the BG queues into the same exact amount we have now, btw.

THEN, 4v4 should have been released as an entirely new PvP feature (most logically PvP deathmatch arenas) and not shoehorned into the BG category. That way it could have also been expanded on to 2v2s or even 1v1 aka the desired ranked dueling some players have wanted brought to the game.
But no.... instead they removed a gameplay mode some players loved, replaced it with a version that puts everything wrong with ESO combat on full display, and limited themselves on what could have been an entirely new form of PvP.

Thumbless_Bot · November 1

fizzylu wrote: »

Realistically, most people who liked 4v4v4 and not 4v4 or 8v8 are simply going to barely queue for them in the long-run and possibly quit the game entirely.

The idea that "we can't split up the queues too much because there's not enough players" is already kind of bs when you realize that they already have split the queues up even more than they were before the update anyway.

At the end of the day though, Zenimax just went about this update the worst way possible. It would have made more sense to keep 4v4v4 BGs as the main and competitive/ranked version then added the solo and group queue 8v8 for players who didn't like 4v4v4, those trying to learn/adjust to smaller scale PvP, and just for a change of pace if one wants it. This would have divided the BG queues into the same exact amount we have now, btw.

THEN, 4v4 should have been released as an entirely new PvP feature (most logically PvP deathmatch arenas) and not shoehorned into the BG category. That way it could have also been expanded on to 2v2s or even 1v1 aka the desired ranked dueling some players have wanted brought to the game.
But no.... instead they removed a gameplay mode some players loved, replaced it with a version that puts everything wrong with ESO combat on full display, and limited themselves on what could have been an entirely new form of PvP.

Thank you. You put it way better than I could have.

bladenick · November 2

Can't disagree, 4v4v4 shall keeped for most casual player.

leave the 4v4 to those try hard one... it MMO, need grinding for gear.. it will dramaticlly limit the overall PVP population and make large scale balacne cross class and gear totoally impossible... may there small number of try hard prefer competivie PVP. just let them fight each other, just dont farm casual player/

colossalvoids · November 2

There's no players to have a population for both, iirc they have said already that those might return for the events and such as they're existing, but unaccessible content.

Thumbless_Bot · November 2

bladenick wrote: »

Can't disagree, 4v4v4 shall keeped for most casual player.

leave the 4v4 to those try hard one... it MMO, need grinding for gear.. it will dramaticlly limit the overall PVP population and make large scale balacne cross class and gear totoally impossible... may there small number of try hard prefer competivie PVP. just let them fight each other, just dont farm casual player/

Really good idea imho. This would prevent newer players from being turned off from bgs because they're getting overwhelmed and give us sweaties a place to slap each other around. This could have a long term effect of increasing bg population which is good for the game and everyone who plays it.

colossalvoids wrote: »

There's no players to have a population for both, iirc they have said already that those might return for the events and such as they're existing, but unaccessible content.

Not sure how others feel but I would rather get one good bg every 30 minutes than 3 unfun, completely lopsided bgs every 30 minutes.

Jaimeh · November 2

I miss the old BG modes and maps too, I wish they would have kept them (also because you can't really choose what mode you want to play now, only the group size), and I don't find the new ones that interesting in comparison. Most of the 4v4 ones end up being a game of hide and seek between two LOS points and it gets repetitive, while the 8v8 are usually one group steamrolling everything, no tactical play whatsover, just a giant mosh pit. The previous maps were much nicer, especially the ones with multiple levels and the instant port sigils. I'm really disappointed they didn't keep them, and I really hope they will bring them back @ZOS_BrianWheeler

IndigoDreams · November 2

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

All the complaints i have read and have been shared on my own post are due to the PLAYERS, not the map, 3 team format, etc.....(excepting maybe how the flags work but i already suggested an easy fix to make that exciting)

all i hear is a compilation of [snip] videos screeching "3rd party"
no one can change the format to make you better or the other worse but its easy to remove an entire team which CRUSHES the spirit of the game

[edited for baiting]

huskandhunger · November 2

If some of the long-standing issues in hybridized healing, cross-healing could be addressed and some of the issues with the maps (you can attack players in their own spawn / maybe adding more relics, chaosballs picked up while transformed etc) maybe the current battlegrounds could be more fun.

I still think the system should be additive and just have each form 4v4 or 4v4v4 as optional. This way players can choose the mode they enjoy most and still play in the old maps too.

IndigoDreams · November 2

im thinking that this is it for bttlegrounds

excepting massive pushback, i doubt they will bother.
a tiny percentage of the population got the DM only battleground thing to happen, and that failed spectaculary

they wont consider changing it unless if fails.

Amottica · November 2

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Cooperharley wrote: »

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps. There was no reason for this. Other games are still there and people can go play them. Also 2 sided bgs will still be there and people can go play those. There was no reason to remove 4v4v4 bgs or the maps... none whatsoever.

I suggest that the game's population interested in BGs is insufficient to support queues for both 3-team and 2-team BGs.

I forgot about the failed DM-only queue until I saw @IndigoDreams's post. The 3-team format could not support two queues without the DM-only queue pulling from the random queue. Either there was a severe lack of interest in the DM-only queue, or there were not enough players to support both.

Thumbless_Bot · November 2

IndigoDreams wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

All the complaints i have read and have been shared on my own post are due to the PLAYERS, not the map, 3 team format, etc.....(excepting maybe how the flags work but i already suggested an easy fix to make that exciting)

all i hear is a compilation of [snip] videos screeching "3rd party"
no one can change the format to make you better or the other worse but its easy to remove an entire team which CRUSHES the spirit of the game

Removing part of the game that people log into enjoy has absolutely nothing to do with the players... well, except for the players now not being able to enjoy part of the game they once did.

It is absolutely about the maps... they literally removed them.

This post has nothing to do with skill. It's about how zos has taken a dynamic and exciting part of the game and made it two dimensional and dry.

I understand your thoughts but I don't think they are in response to this particular set of concerns about removing a functioning part of the game.

[edited to remove quote]

IndigoDreams · November 3

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

IndigoDreams wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

All the complaints i have read and have been shared on my own post are due to the PLAYERS, not the map, 3 team format, etc.....(excepting maybe how the flags work but i already suggested an easy fix to make that exciting)

all i hear is a compilation of [snip] videos screeching "3rd party"
no one can change the format to make you better or the other worse but its easy to remove an entire team which CRUSHES the spirit of the game

Removing part of the game that people log into enjoy has absolutely nothing to do with the players... well, except for the players now not being able to enjoy part of the game they once did.

It is absolutely about the maps... they literally removed them.

This post has nothing to do with skill. It's about how zos has taken a dynamic and exciting part of the game and made it two dimensional and dry.

I understand your thoughts but I don't think they are in response to this particular set of concerns about removing a functioning part of the game.

thanks for understanding, i might have misread some of this.
Yea i started a different forum post that got 1 green text response.
I hear ya, removing the maps burns.
They could have made news maps with the 3 team format, to stay in spirit of the game.

battlegrounds is small and faster paced, updating maps periodically makes a lot more sense.
imperial city and cyrodill stay the same, for good reason.

battlegrounds are places to get into combat fast, we dont need maps to stay the same like the others.
I am somewhat glad to hear the responses, because if it fails, we get a shot at them fixing it...

[edited to remove quote]

fizzylu · November 4

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Removing part of the game that people log into enjoy has absolutely nothing to do with the players... well, except for the players now not being able to enjoy part of the game they once did.

Yeah, I've had zero desire to do BGs for days now-- which is sad since after this game first released and I quit within the first week, the only reason why I ever gave this game a chance again was because I heard they added BGs. I quickly fell in love with them, but without BGs I know I would have never given this game a second look. Now I am attached to my character, my house, and have grown to like the more casual style of the entirety of ESO.... but I can see the new BGs making me play way less consistently than I already have been for the last couple years.

Now, I don't think 8v8 is terrible.... but it just doesn't leave me with the same feelings 4v4v4 did. I don't find myself working hard to reach/accomplish an objective. I'm not playing tactically to work in my teams favor and to take advantage of an opening one other team left. I don't find myself laughing, being amazed by how someone played, it's just.... what it is? And it's not great.

Solo 4v4 is by far the worst experience on the planet on the other hand; just one-sided fights on top of one-sided fights. No matter which side I'm with, the winners or losers, I don't find it fun.

So yeah.... safe to say I won't be doing BGs very much and ESO might as well be the Sims for me now (love my house, but come on). And I already know quite a decent amount of people who are standing in this line with me, just waiting for the game that finally gives us our official door out (some have already found theirs).

IndigoDreams · November 4

The further changes only reinforce my desire to avoid playing battlegrounds....

xylena_lazarow · November 9

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps.

3-sided objective modes were not functional.

Thumbless_Bot · November 9

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps.

3-sided objective modes were not functional.

This is semantics and you are equivacating quite loosely. They functioned as well as any other part of the game. No reason to remove them.

fizzylu · November 9

@Thumbless_Bot
They simply didn't like 3-sided objective modes, and they seem to also not realize that many people did.

Aldoss · November 9

fizzylu wrote: »

@Thumbless_Bot
They simply didn't like 3-sided objective modes, and they seem to also not realize that many people did.

Many people also disliked the 4v4v4 mode. If that weren't the case, I doubt ZOS would have wasted a year's worth of investment into changing it.

The 4v4v4 was not anything close to "functioning". If they were, the community would have been growing, not dying, as it did steadily from 2021 to U43.

U44 hasn't succeeded in fixing that only because the delivery of this change was astronomically mismanaged. The queue issue is an extreme turn off. The failure to deliver an MMR is ridiculous. The unwillingness to give this update the time it needed for proper feedback is pretty indicative of the direction issues that ZOS suffers from.

U44 is 100% a beta test. I think it's fair for non PvPers to be pissed at this because they lost out on an entire content patch to make way for a rough draft that brought them no real content.

My only issue with this is the mismanagement. The format is great and shows a lot of promise. Most people I talk to agree that 4v4 is really awful because of how poorly thought out that set up was. It needs to be an arena and needs a proper MMR.

8v8's are really fun... except in the group queue when 1 4-stack joins. Then it's a waste of time, as I predicted would be the case in the PTS. Otherwise, there's a lot of great stuff here. ZOS just needed to deliver this as the beta test that it is and not sugar coat it saying it's a full update when it isn't.

Thumbless_Bot · November 9

Aldoss wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

@Thumbless_Bot
They simply didn't like 3-sided objective modes, and they seem to also not realize that many people did.

Many people also disliked the 4v4v4 mode. If that weren't the case, I doubt ZOS would have wasted a year's worth of investment into changing it.

The 4v4v4 was not anything close to "functioning". If they were, the community would have been growing, not dying, as it did steadily from 2021 to U43.

U44 hasn't succeeded in fixing that only because the delivery of this change was astronomically mismanaged. The queue issue is an extreme turn off. The failure to deliver an MMR is ridiculous. The unwillingness to give this update the time it needed for proper feedback is pretty indicative of the direction issues that ZOS suffers from.

U44 is 100% a beta test. I think it's fair for non PvPers to be pissed at this because they lost out on an entire content patch to make way for a rough draft that brought them no real content.

My only issue with this is the mismanagement. The format is great and shows a lot of promise. Most people I talk to agree that 4v4 is really awful because of how poorly thought out that set up was. It needs to be an arena and needs a proper MMR.

8v8's are really fun... except in the group queue when 1 4-stack joins. Then it's a waste of time, as I predicted would be the case in the PTS. Otherwise, there's a lot of great stuff here. ZOS just needed to deliver this as the beta test that it is and not sugar coat it saying it's a full update when it isn't.

You are making up your own definition of functional to equate with some ideal. They worked... they functioned properly... and people queued for them. They werent perfect. Nothing is. I think tho old format was better and some might disagree. Nothing wrong with that. Some folks like fungal grotto and some like white gold tower. They dont remove one dungeon to add another.

They certainly could ADD more functional parts of the game but why remove others? Makes no sense. Makes absolutely no sense.

fizzylu · November 9

Aldoss wrote: »

Many people also disliked the 4v4v4 mode. If that weren't the case, I doubt ZOS would have wasted a year's worth of investment into changing it.

Yeah, because Zenimax has never made questionable calls when it comes to the game....

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

You are making up your own definition of functional to equate with some ideal. They worked... they functioned properly... and people queued for them. They werent perfect. Nothing is. I think tho old format was better and some might disagree. Nothing wrong with that. Some folks like fungal grotto and some like white gold tower. They dont remove one dungeon to add another.

Seriously, just this.

And the entire ESO PvP playerbase has been "dying". It's not like BGs were just a specific issue or problem within the game, they held their regular players just as much as Cyrodiil did. If anything, all this BG update has done is push out the consistent/regular BG players and has them playing significantly less or not at all.... and seemingly, hasn't pulled in a bunch of new BG players or somehow suddenly seen them increase in popularity outside of the first week hype.

Aldoss · November 10

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

@Thumbless_Bot
They simply didn't like 3-sided objective modes, and they seem to also not realize that many people did.

Many people also disliked the 4v4v4 mode. If that weren't the case, I doubt ZOS would have wasted a year's worth of investment into changing it.

The 4v4v4 was not anything close to "functioning". If they were, the community would have been growing, not dying, as it did steadily from 2021 to U43.

U44 hasn't succeeded in fixing that only because the delivery of this change was astronomically mismanaged. The queue issue is an extreme turn off. The failure to deliver an MMR is ridiculous. The unwillingness to give this update the time it needed for proper feedback is pretty indicative of the direction issues that ZOS suffers from.

U44 is 100% a beta test. I think it's fair for non PvPers to be pissed at this because they lost out on an entire content patch to make way for a rough draft that brought them no real content.

My only issue with this is the mismanagement. The format is great and shows a lot of promise. Most people I talk to agree that 4v4 is really awful because of how poorly thought out that set up was. It needs to be an arena and needs a proper MMR.

8v8's are really fun... except in the group queue when 1 4-stack joins. Then it's a waste of time, as I predicted would be the case in the PTS. Otherwise, there's a lot of great stuff here. ZOS just needed to deliver this as the beta test that it is and not sugar coat it saying it's a full update when it isn't.

You are making up your own definition of functional to equate with some ideal.

I think it's fair to call what I did hyperbole, but that would also make the argument being posed in the OP also hyperbole.

4v4v4 had a lot of issues. Team vs Team currently has a lot of issues. We traded issues for issues.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

They dont remove one dungeon to add another.

They certainly could ADD more functional parts of the game but why remove others? Makes no sense. Makes absolutely no sense.

They don't have to remove dungeons because the dungeon queue is not anywhere close to being analogous to the BG matchmaking system.

BGs have a small queuing population. The queues are already bad, as they are. Prior to U44 we had two queues, solo and group, and the queue times were still disappointing for many. U44 doubled those queues and is luckily still performing alright considering how awful this lobby failed bug is and how long it's lasting. Our longest queue tonight was 12 minutes.

I think it would have been risky to leave the 4v4v4's, but you're talking about taking a small population that was split between two queues and suddenly tripling it to 6 queues: 4v4v4 solos, 4v4v4 group, 4v4 solo, 4v4 group, 8v8 solo, 8v8 group.

That's a lot of fracturing. That's more fracturing than when ZOS allowed us to choose which game mode we wanted to queue for.

In that regard, I think it makes a lot of sense to remove the other two queues.

Here's an irl example:

I'm involved in a business to consumer industry that relies heavily on scheduling group based services (think fitness classes). When you have a small pool of customers, but many different options for them to go to, convenience is high, but the result of those options is that few people join any given service. When there's only 1 or 2 people in a service, the chance of that service growing is drastically low. People feel weird when they're the only one in something that is supposed to be a group based thing.

If instead, you start with 1 or 2 service times and force people into them, more people join the service and the community actually starts to grow. Demand grows and you open more times and spread people out. You repeat this process until you maximize your location or your schedule.

This is why I even think 4 queues is too many for this community. If ZOS were to only have 4v4 group and 8v8 solo/duo combined, with 4v4 being an MMR deathmatch arena, BGs would pop faster, there would be a larger pool of people for matchmaking to properly match people up into healthier lobbies, and you would actually increase the likelihood that people have an enjoyable time and continue to make the BG queue experience a larger part of their ESO play time, growing the community.

Build the community, then spread it out with more and more options. I'd love to see 4v4v4 come back, but 6 queues is way too much too soon.

IndigoDreams · November 10

i used to consistenly play BG's and it was a huge draw for my.
my life circumstances are surely differerent and the format was great for me....

not anymore...
the deathmatch mode sounds abysmal.....
the remiaining flag games sound pointless...
the power ups sound way out of place, especially considering what exists in other PvP spaces already...
how did this get out of PTS?

following to keep reminding myself why i made the correct choice to BOYCOTT battlegrounds

just like i did when it was ALL Deathmatch mode....

fizzylu · November 10

IndigoDreams wrote: »

how did this get out of PTS?

Because what goes into PTS and comes out of it both have little to nothing to do with player feedback.

gariondavey · November 11

There are several issues at stake here:

-One issue is there used to be a big bg population. 3 or 4 mass exodus over the years, starting back in 2018, have resulted in a population probably 1/10th of what it was before that.

-Another issue here is the inability to choose game mode. When you could choose modes back before 2019, deathmatch historically had much more interest, as evidenced by the leaderboards (which "worked" back then, unlike for years when they did not). Historically many of us bg players have advocated for objective modes to be reworked or to only have 2 teams BECAUSE zos hasn't given us the ability to queue for specific modes.

When the queue had a deathmatch queue + a "random" queue, the random queue included deathmatch, which resulted in deathmatch games only being played. If zos had actually separated deathmatch from random queue, this set up would have appeased most people.

-Another issue here is massive team imbalance, which is more related to the high skill and theorycraft gaps possible in eso. This is one of the best aspects of eso, of course, it just can result in uneven games.

2 possible solutions exist that are pretty simple:

1) revert all the changes (back to 4v4v4 format), ranked solo deathmatch, ranked group deathmatch, ranked solo objective (with no deathmatch games). This will satisfy around 80 percent of the current existing bg population, maybe more.

2) keep the current system, but do a large overhaul. -4v4 ranked group should only be deathmatch, and should only be 1 round.
-4v4 ranked solo should either be 3 rounds deathmatch, with no respawning during rounds, or to 10 kills (150 points) with no rounds and instant respawns if someone dies.
-8v8 unranked, max 2 person group queue.
This would also satisfy around 80 percent of the bg population.

And of course, mmr should only be from wins, losses. Medal score should be tied to extra rewards, and medals need to be reworked so shielders, necros, both get credit for doing stuff.