is battlegrounds awful now?

CoronHR

i played a 4x4 game for the first time the other day, and it was really awful, like a totally dumbed down experience. just 2 teams in a small arena in deathmatch. the other team got beaten badly and just quit. but it was ridiculous. we stood around and waited for the timer to run out (i think that's what happened)

Theist_VII

4v4 is in desperate need of a role-queue or an Armory station in spawn, because like you said, the games are way too much of a landslide.

Right now I’ve found solo 8v8 to be the most fun, and have had much closer games.

Necrotech_Master

i havent tried 4v4 yet, but i would agree that the solo 8v8 queue is pretty fun

tsaescishoeshiner

I've been enjoying it more than before, and I expected that I wouldn't like the 2-team matches as much as 4v4v4. I think it's more intimate because you get to know the other team better, but it also makes one-sided matches feel more one-sided, and you come in last place 50% more often than with the 3-sided matches.

I also feel like I've been seeing the same players in a lot of my matches, so I think it hasn't pulled too many new players in yet.

Also, the queue system still has issues with many matches failing to fill and start, wasting 5-10 minutes of queue plus the 5-minute match timer.

It would be better if you could queue for multiple game modes at once, such as solo 4v4 + solo 8v8 (like how you can queue for multiple dungeons) without an addon (Better Scoreboard lets you multi-queue).

fizzylu

"Awful" is one way to describe them, that's for sure.

Major_Mangle

The new BG`s are better in every way. A large majority of the resentment posts you see from people are based on "I don´t like to lose" bitterness. The biggest issue right now is the lack of a good mmr/ranking system, which was an issue with the previous BG format as well.

fizzylu

Major_Mangle wrote: »

A large majority of the resentment posts you see from people are based on "I don´t like to lose" bitterness.

I'm not sure which posts you are seeing, haha.

DigiAngel

BG has always been awful.

disintegr8

Always was awful, especially for those of us with lag.

Thumbless_Bot

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The new BG`s are better in every way. A large majority of the resentment posts you see from people are based on "I don´t like to lose" bitterness. The biggest issue right now is the lack of a good mmr/ranking system, which was an issue with the previous BG format as well.

By this logic people lose now but didn't before? Did everyone get participation trophies before? This makes zero sense.

People who hate to lose didn't appear on the scene the day u44 dropped and they lose just as much as they used to. Again, nonsensical.

People are upset because zos destroyed a part of the game people enjoy. The proof is in the pudding. Queues are fixed and we can't even get half our bgs to fill up because they are so bad.

You may enjoy them if and when they fire, but bro, Better in every way? Smh... I don't believe you believe this, not for a second.

peacenote

The fact that this update seemed pretty polarizing -- some people devastated, some people raving positively - has caused me to check them out, because I used to love BG's. Personally, it seems mixed and not that different from what I remembered, either way. However, keep in mind that I only heavily played BG's when they first came out. I boycotted them when they were changed to solo queue because I prefer to play with friends, and when group queuing was finally restored I just didn't have time to really try them again.

So far, I've spent one morning queuing solo for 8v8 as I happened to be playing solo. I did not try 4v4. I was doing surveys in between the queue times. The Good: I won some battles and lost some. Queue speed seemed fine to me although as I mentioned I did surveys in between. There was a lot of fighting and I felt I was making a difference in the battles. It kept my focus and they felt exciting. I had one experience where the opposing team seemed like an organized ball group with similar tactics and sets, and even that match was pretty interesting. The Meh: Objective matches seemed less fun to me sometimes than when there were three teams. For example in a relic match, if one team is a bit stronger than the other you find yourselves in the same guarding pattern, but with three teams the tables can turn more often. With three teams, if two teams are at a standoff the third can disrupt. I am undecided about the smaller maps - sometimes I felt they were nice and encouraged more fighting. Sometimes I felt they were annoying because they didn't allow for any craftiness to surprise your opponent. Everyone was guarding the same chokepoints. If I know my build can't beat another build and that person is doing the guarding, there aren't a lot of options to sneak around another way. It makes my options more limited/repetitive for what to "try."

I've also spent at least two play sessions (4ish hours each session) trying to queue as a duo, both in 4v4 or 8v8. This was a complete failure. The queue only popped once, and when it did the teams filled unevenly and the BG timed out and disbanded with an error message about not being able to fill the BG. We spent all of our time in Cyro, waiting to try out the new BG's.

Since I much prefer to queue with a friend, and I don't play solo often, if I continue to see this issue where the queue when I'm in a duo never ever ever pops... well, then the functionality is almost pointless to me. Definitely "awful." Probably we'll only try one more play session before we forget about it entirely. But if I could get the experience as a duo that I had the day when I tried it solo... then I'd say it's at least as equally good (some tradeoffs) as the version of BG's I used to enjoy. Always room for improvement, of course.

CoronHR

i think they ruined a good thing. i liked the way it was before, but maybe didn't realise that until they released this. so, it'd be nice if they brought back the old games and gave you the option of participating in a three-way match. seems like it'd be easy enough for them to offer that, considering they already have the framework

EF321

Worst two team BG modes are better than best three team BG modes

Major_Mangle

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The new BG`s are better in every way. A large majority of the resentment posts you see from people are based on "I don´t like to lose" bitterness. The biggest issue right now is the lack of a good mmr/ranking system, which was an issue with the previous BG format as well.

By this logic people lose now but didn't before? Did everyone get participation trophies before? This makes zero sense.

People who hate to lose didn't appear on the scene the day u44 dropped and they lose just as much as they used to. Again, nonsensical.

People are upset because zos destroyed a part of the game people enjoy. The proof is in the pudding. Queues are fixed and we can't even get half our bgs to fill up because they are so bad.

You may enjoy them if and when they fire, but bro, Better in every way? Smh... I don't believe you believe this, not for a second.

I'll make it more clear what I mean. The format we've now is way better for majority of game modes than the 4v4v4 we had before. The only time I really enjoyed the 4v4v4 was during deathmatches because it added a layer of positioning/situational awareness that was interesting.

The new format is however way way better for the objective modes (not perfect but a lot better) since it actually encourages you to fight your opponent compared to the 4v4v4, where the best tactic was to avoid other players and fighting (which should never be the case in a PvP environment). There was nothing tactical or "big brain 4d chess moments" to the old objective modes. Just run between point A and B and if someone is there run to point C. I understand why a more casual PvP audience would prefer that over actual PvP where you interact and fight other players, but lets be honest, it wasn't a good design.

The problems with the bew BG's has funny enough nothing to do with the format itself but rather:

* Technical problems/bugs: Like games not begin filled, random crashes and other stuff you'd consider as bugs.

* The absence of a good rating/mmr system to prevent one sided games and unnecessarylong queue times: This was a problem with the old BG's as well. Resolving this particular aspect would genuinely solve 90% of the complaints I see people having with the new BG's.

The TL:DR is that the new format itself isn't the problem, it's the things around the format itself that ZOS hasn't manage to fix yet, and to a certain degree the mentally of the ESO player base where losing games or "not winning" seems to be the main centre point of why the new BG's are bad.

Thrasher91604

Too many lopsided games now. It’s unusual to have a close match.

Aardappelboom

I had a few good experiences, a few close matches and all in all a good time playing the new BG.

8v8 is a bit messy in the current maps, they're too small to be fun for such a large group. 4v4 is okay but the maps are also a bit small for those.

Deathmatch is weird to me, I miss the "normal" DM battles where you just kill/kill/kill and try to get the highest score. A few things are nice additions (I like the idea of having 3 respawns for one) but the execution is cumbersome. I even got kicked due to inactivity because someone was stalling and the wait times are a bit long.

I also see a lot of bugs that need to be ironed out, I got stuck in a crafting screen while que-ing resulting in an inresponsive menu and I had to quit the game and got a penalty of 30 minutes, which is frustrating obviously.

I also saw some players complaining about LOS, but I think the maps are pretty okay in terms of LOS, PVP is all about mobility, position and burst. The maps do tend to allow this kind of gameplay, which is fine to me.

I do pretty well in BG so I haven't had the landslide experience, the spawn camping is there though which can be frustrating.

All in all it's not bad, there's a few good ideas there, but it does need some more work.

Cooperharley

Well, I for one like the 8 v 8

The problem in my opinion is a lack of incentivization to play PvP, some structural problems like games cancelling if both teams aren’t full, and a massive skill gap generally between new players trying PvP and 40k health tank/dps PvP gods. Because PvP doesn’t have a huge population due to extremely sparse, if any, updates over the last 7 or so years, MMR is largely nonexistent. You’ll see a lot of the same people over and over again.

Sure; the new mode is great and has some novelty, but what’s to keep a new player playing? No seasonal model with cool seasonal rewards. We got a bear mount sure. But losing nets you nothing, etc etc etc

There are fundamental issues with the game’s PvP in general that have been now placed under the spotlight even more so with these changes. All of the most popular PvP games in general have 2 teams. 2 teams is great. The problems lie within the overall structure and incentivization of the game’s PvP

Stafford197

Console player here. Finally had a chance to try the new BGs a lot.

Healing medals are as crazy as we all thought they’d be. Sad to see the Leaderboard is not competitive.

Three team format was a lot more balanced since weaker teams could attack the stronger team or at least hinder them in Objective modes. Matches more often felt like everyone had a chance at victory. Two team format has turned into Team A dominating Team B most times. Not a great experience but I still think there is plenty of potential for BGs to be fun and I’ve enjoyed certain new maps.

Please do something about combat balance in PvP. BGs would be a lot more popular if you could figure out Non-CP balance

Chilly-McFreeze

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The new BG`s are better in every way. A large majority of the resentment posts you see from people are based on "I don´t like to lose" bitterness. The biggest issue right now is the lack of a good mmr/ranking system, which was an issue with the previous BG format as well.

By this logic people lose now but didn't before? Did everyone get participation trophies before? This makes zero sense.

People who hate to lose didn't appear on the scene the day u44 dropped and they lose just as much as they used to. Again, nonsensical.

People are upset because zos destroyed a part of the game people enjoy. The proof is in the pudding. Queues are fixed and we can't even get half our bgs to fill up because they are so bad.

You may enjoy them if and when they fire, but bro, Better in every way? Smh... I don't believe you believe this, not for a second.

The new format is however way way better for the objective modes (not perfect but a lot better) since it actually encourages you to fight your opponent compared to the 4v4v4, where the best tactic was to avoid other players and fighting (which should never be the case in a PvP environment). There was nothing tactical or "big brain 4d chess moments" to the old objective modes. Just run between point A and B and if someone is there run to point C. I understand why a more casual PvP audience would prefer that over actual PvP where you interact and fight other players, but lets be honest, it wasn't a good design.

Is it hard for you to get a point across with belittling other players?

And for the quoted point specifically: the current objectives / maps are designed in a better way than the old ones (transformations on chaosball aside) but it's nothing they couldn't tweak in old 3 team set ups (like reducing numbers of flags etc).
However the latest 8v8 dominations, especially on the ship/ jungle map, was just two trains avoiding each other as best as they could. While team A ran for the ship, team B went for the hill. Then they switched. At the middle flag some pew pew while running past each other but nothing like "Oh stop and have a train wreck". So don't act like avoiding a fight to play objectives isn't a thing nowadays.

And towards OP: I had a very bad start when the update released. Currently I have mixed feelings. When teams are somewhat even it's nice. But often they are not. In 4v4 you feel a weak link more than in 4v4v4. 8v8 sometimes turns into a ballgroup / mini zerg fest. Not my style personally but each to their own.

I'd love if they somehow reinstate the old BGs in addition to the current ones. Or at least rotate them every so often. I read a few comments that there aren't enough players to support more queues. Maybe they could melt 4v4v4 into one of the others so It's kinda random if you get new or old. Not ideal but better than currently

Thumbless_Bot

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The new BG`s are better in every way. A large majority of the resentment posts you see from people are based on "I don´t like to lose" bitterness. The biggest issue right now is the lack of a good mmr/ranking system, which was an issue with the previous BG format as well.

By this logic people lose now but didn't before? Did everyone get participation trophies before? This makes zero sense.

People who hate to lose didn't appear on the scene the day u44 dropped and they lose just as much as they used to. Again, nonsensical.

People are upset because zos destroyed a part of the game people enjoy. The proof is in the pudding. Queues are fixed and we can't even get half our bgs to fill up because they are so bad.

You may enjoy them if and when they fire, but bro, Better in every way? Smh... I don't believe you believe this, not for a second.

I'll make it more clear what I mean. The format we've now is way better for majority of game modes than the 4v4v4 we had before. The only time I really enjoyed the 4v4v4 was during deathmatches because it added a layer of positioning/situational awareness that was interesting.

The new format is however way way better for the objective modes (not perfect but a lot better) since it actually encourages you to fight your opponent compared to the 4v4v4, where the best tactic was to avoid other players and fighting (which should never be the case in a PvP environment). There was nothing tactical or "big brain 4d chess moments" to the old objective modes. Just run between point A and B and if someone is there run to point C. I understand why a more casual PvP audience would prefer that over actual PvP where you interact and fight other players, but lets be honest, it wasn't a good design.

The problems with the bew BG's has funny enough nothing to do with the format itself but rather:

* Technical problems/bugs: Like games not begin filled, random crashes and other stuff you'd consider as bugs.

* The absence of a good rating/mmr system to prevent one sided games and unnecessarylong queue times: This was a problem with the old BG's as well. Resolving this particular aspect would genuinely solve 90% of the complaints I see people having with the new BG's.

The TL:DR is that the new format itself isn't the problem, it's the things around the format itself that ZOS hasn't manage to fix yet, and to a certain degree the mentally of the ESO player base where losing games or "not winning" seems to be the main centre point of why the new BG's are bad.

Most of your comments are about how people play the game and negative. People will continue to play the game they way they want to, no matter what zos does, and should be able to. Your disdain for the way others enjoy the game shines through brightly though. You like the new format because you think it makes people play the game the way YOU think it should be played. That's fine. You should be able to sit in your xvx bg queues with the other six people in the world who like this format... nothing wrong with that . The rest of us shouldn't be pigeon holed, shoe horned, hamfisted into it. We should be able to play the format we want and enjoy.

Lastly, this new format stinks not because of the bugs or horrendous roll out, but because it has taken an Incredibly fun and dynamic part of the game and made it simplistic, boring, predictable, dry and the antithesis of fun. Again, if you like this, more power to you. Most of us don't and want our old bgs back. This solves your problem as well because you won't have to worry about playing with the players who play a way that you obviously don't like.

manukartofanu

EF321 wrote: »

Worst two team BG modes are better than best three team BG modes

The fact that no one agrees with you speaks volumes.

Thumbless_Bot

EF321 wrote: »

Worst two team BG modes are better than best three team BG modes

Seyverin

Just played 4 vs 4 BG for the first time. Wow, what have they done, it was an absolute awful experience lol

Thumbless_Bot

Seyverin wrote: »

Just played 4 vs 4 BG for the first time. Wow, what have they done, it was an absolute awful experience lol

Muriel_La_Strega

Absolutely yes...

EF321

manukartofanu wrote: »

EF321 wrote: »

Worst two team BG modes are better than best three team BG modes

The fact that no one agrees with you speaks volumes.

Literally next post after quoted one says that new format is better? And plenty of other posts in this very thread saying they like new bgs?
I was not aware this was some sort of anonymous agree counter contest and didn't click on any of those, thought it's people stating in words which game format they personally prefer more.

Avran_Sylt

4v4v4 means if there is a lopside, it can become a 4v8 sometimes, being a bit of dynamic balancing with agency dependent on player action.

4v4 or 8v8 will just show how bad the game is balanced for players that are not min-maxed with their gear, or strictly enforce meta-play.

Wonder if they'll start to enforce stricter MMR or gear-rating stuff.

fizzylu

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

4v4 or 8v8 will just show how bad the game is balanced for players that are not min-maxed with their gear, or strictly enforce meta-play.

Seriously.... I just find it funny at this point that they either accidentally or intentionally created a mode that kills build diversity and playstyles. Like what a great way to make a game even less popular than it already was, haha.