Now that it's been a bit... do you wish for the old BGs back?

Soarora

If you never do / never will do battlegrounds then don't vote.

Soarora

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

Maybe replace 8v8 with 4v4v4. 8v8 feels very impersonable and just a carry run, where somehow bombing builds consistently seem like a good idea. 4v4 feels too team-based for some casual killing funtimes.

chessalavakia_ESO

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

Yeah, while the new maps are nice and pretty I think I would probably be having more fun on the older version.

SeaGtGruff

I'm not going to vote, since I had played only a few old-style BG matches, haven't played any of the new-style matches yet, and don't know if I ever will. These are just a couple of comments without wanting to cast a vote.

It seems unlikely that BGs will ever be changed back after the work that went into the new format and new maps, so it's best to just accept the changes and not keep wishing for the clock to get turned back somehow.

On the other hand, it seems regrettable that the old format wasn't preserved alongside the new. I imagine there were reasons for that, and they must have been good ones, because ZOS must have anticipated that some players would prefer the 4v4v4 format, so they must have felt it wasn't feasible to have both formats in the game.

gariondavey

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

2 options to set up bgs that would actually interest most players.

Option 1:
4v4v4 deathmatch, ranked solo queue
4v4v4 deathmatch, ranked group queue
8v8 objective (no deathmatch) solo queue (can queue as solo or duo)

Option 2
4v4 ranked deathmatch, 1 round of combat with instant respawns + speed boost upon respawn with the round ending at 105/150/255 points OR 3 rounds of combat with no respawns during the round with the round ending after there are 2 deaths on one team

4v4 group ranked deathmatch, 1 round with no respawns and the game ends when one team is all dead

8v8 objective (no deathmatch) solo (can queue as solo or duo) queue

Either one of these set ups would give the majority of players what they want from battlegrounds, while vastly improving on the things they have tried to implement

LunaFlora

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be revamped then brought back permanently

i like 4v4 way more.

i would be fine with 4v4v4 returning if it were completely optional

Thumbless_Bot

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be revamped then brought back permanently

Yes.

Play
The
Way
You
Want

xylena_lazarow

No, they should not come back

Soarora wrote: »

Maybe replace 8v8 with 4v4v4.

Ewww no, 8v8 is the best thing they've added to the game in years, it's like the old Memorial Brawl, or Cyro fights without the ball groups. Pull procs are dumb and shouldn't exist, but that problem isn't unique to BGs.

MATH_COW

Yes, replace the new with the old

Yes and remove those new stupid 2 teams.

It's you roll or you get rolled without any possibility to clutch most of the time.

Domination and Crazy king don't fit at all for 4v4 with those tiny maps but at least fine for 8v8 in those larger maps.

It's mostly sad that they are abandonning a part of the pvp soul of the game removing the 3 teams to go for the classic 2 teams we got everywhere else. What's next? Removing Cyrodiil campaign and make a 2 alliances side map?

EF321

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

I prefer two team all the way, but there is no reason not to keep modes that were already done as an option.
Best is to make checkbox queue for every possible mode, like you can queue for specific dungeons.

Amottica

No, they should not come back

I think the XvX is a better design. Of course, the design of the objective-based matches could use a different approach.

I understand some want the old XvXvX back as we all have different approaches. Unfortunatly ESO lacks a large enough player base to support that many options.

Thumbless_Bot

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be revamped then brought back permanently

Amottica wrote: »

I understand some want the old XvXvX back as we all have different approaches. Unfortunatly ESO lacks a large enough player base to support that many options.

I disagree, respectfully, as i believe this is flawed reasoning and flies directly in the face of the espoused play the way you want principle. By this reasoning we should only have one cyro and IC and force everyone who wants to play to enter that campaign whether it is cp or no cp. Actually we shouldn't even have any ic because none of those campaigns are full outside of annual or semi annual events.

If there aren't enough people to play you wait in queue until there are. I'd rather wait twice or ten times as long for a game that I want to play than be forced into the complete disaster that is two team formats. Reasoning is flawed because it presume this is okay and the way it should be.

Stamicka

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be an event mode

The new design is an improvement in my opinion, but 4v4v4 was sometimes fun too. Most of the complaints I've seen about 4v4 are related to the fact that matches can be much more one sided. That has less to do with the design and more to do with matchmaking and ESO's player base.

I think a good common ground would be to just make a general 4 man queue. That queue should be able to pull you into a 4v4 or a 4v4v4 either by a 50-50 chance or whatever lobby is easier to form at the time.

fizzylu

Yes, replace the new with the old

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I understand some want the old XvXvX back as we all have different approaches. Unfortunatly ESO lacks a large enough player base to support that many options.

I disagree, respectfully, as i believe this is flawed reasoning and flies directly in the face of the espoused play the way you want principle.

Not just that, but this doesn't take into account the people who preferred 4v4v4 and won't even bother to play the new BGs (prime example, right here).
I know a handful of people who already aren't playing BGs (and even the game significantly less) because of this update.... and I know even more people, who already barely played ESO as is, that will be even less likely of ever returning to the game again because of them as well.

I've already shifted my attention to another game (New World) and am only logging onto ESO currently because I feel committed to getting the rest of the keys for the event ticket house. I've even already decided that after I get the last one (I'm assuming it will be up during the New Life Festival) that I will be taking a long break from the game, again.
Only chance of this becoming my main MMO again any time soon is if the next chapter has some really good feature in store for it.... but I doubt that. And either way it'll never stick for very long since I no longer enjoy any form of the PvP within the game.

Amottica

No, they should not come back

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I understand some want the old XvXvX back as we all have different approaches. Unfortunatly ESO lacks a large enough player base to support that many options.

I disagree, respectfully, as i believe this is flawed reasoning and flies directly in the face of the espoused play the way you want principle. By this reasoning we should only have one cyro and IC and force everyone who wants to play to enter that campaign whether it is cp or no cp. Actually we shouldn't even have any ic because none of those campaigns are full outside of annual or semi annual events.

If there aren't enough people to play you wait in queue until there are. I'd rather wait twice or ten times as long for a game that I want to play than be forced into the complete disaster that is two team formats. Reasoning is flawed because it presume this is okay and the way it should be.

Well, first of all, most Cyrodiil campaigns are fairly empty.

Most importantly, though, a fairly empty BG queue makes the BG setup worthless. Even if the population queueing for BGs were split evenly between XvXvX and the current XvX, the queues would be much longer.

Comparing BGs, which require queueing and waiting for enough people to queue, does not compare well to Cyrodiil and IC. It can't fly directly into the fact of anything as the comparison sinks like a lead balloon.

It's great that someone would rather have a long wait. However, others will make that wait longer because we will not be bothered by such an inconvenience. We do not like flying in lead balloons.

Below is just a couple of threads from a long list complaining about long queue times for BGs (there is a longer list for dungeons). I like the one where the guy fell asleep waiting for his queue to pop. LOL. Basically, I am not alone.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/662968/over-an-hour-in-queue-for-battlegrounds
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/617990/bg-group-queue-times-are-unreasonable-at-best
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/601865/i-missed-my-battleground-queue-because-i-fell-asleep

WoppaBoem

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

4v4 is boring mostly unbalanced very small maps. 8v8 matches are way to fast double score needed to 1000. The three way was and is brilliant very fun too play. The biggest problem was simply zero development on the existing maps and new maps same as cyrodil. The game configuration aint the issue that needs fixing develop it be creative, change the map, create new objectives, new buffs, new events. But yeah i quit sone time ago now not planning to come back

StarOfElyon

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

I say yes and no: I want the old battle grounds back but with the new stage designs added. Change 8 v 8 into 4v4v4v4 (that's right, FOUR TEAMS OF FOUR).

MincMincMinc

No, they should not come back

Problem is there are only so many players that que. Even if we only had one que, there arent even enough people to have a functioning mmr system that wont have 40 min ques for a 5 min game.

If anything there should only be under 500cp bgs and over 500cp bgs. From there have a simple mmr system of you win a match and gain 1mmr you lose a match and lose 1mmr. Players in que the longest are prio for basing the match's mmr on, that picks the next 15 other people closest. After a month or two you can figure out the top end of players mmr taper and impose an mmr cap to keep top end players from experiencing an abnormally long que.

As for 2 team or 3 team it is a question of what would you rather.... A game where one team spawn camps the other OR a game where the 3rd party team ignores pvp in a pvp game and just runs flags while the other teams spawncamp each other.

fizzylu

Yes, replace the new with the old

StarOfElyon wrote: »

Change 8 v 8 into 4v4v4v4 (that's right, FOUR TEAMS OF FOUR).

Honestly.... I would love to see this happen, haha. I find the 2 teams so boring and this would bring me right back to the game just as fast as 4v4v4 being returned to it's rightful place.

karthrag_inak

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

Khajiit misses 3 team desperately, and refuses to play in the current invariably 1-sided fiascos.

Thumbless_Bot

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be revamped then brought back permanently

Amottica wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I understand some want the old XvXvX back as we all have different approaches. Unfortunatly ESO lacks a large enough player base to support that many options.

I disagree, respectfully, as i believe this is flawed reasoning and flies directly in the face of the espoused play the way you want principle. By this reasoning we should only have one cyro and IC and force everyone who wants to play to enter that campaign whether it is cp or no cp. Actually we shouldn't even have any ic because none of those campaigns are full outside of annual or semi annual events.

If there aren't enough people to play you wait in queue until there are. I'd rather wait twice or ten times as long for a game that I want to play than be forced into the complete disaster that is two team formats. Reasoning is flawed because it presume this is okay and the way it should be.

Well, first of all, most Cyrodiil campaigns are fairly empty.

Most importantly, though, a fairly empty BG queue makes the BG setup worthless. Even if the population queueing for BGs were split evenly between XvXvX and the current XvX, the queues would be much longer.

Comparing BGs, which require queueing and waiting for enough people to queue, does not compare well to Cyrodiil and IC. It can't fly directly into the fact of anything as the comparison sinks like a lead balloon.

It's great that someone would rather have a long wait. However, others will make that wait longer because we will not be bothered by such an inconvenience. We do not like flying in lead balloons.

Below is just a couple of threads from a long list complaining about long queue times for BGs (there is a longer list for dungeons). I like the one where the guy fell asleep waiting for his queue to pop. LOL. Basically, I am not alone.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/662968/over-an-hour-in-queue-for-battlegrounds
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/617990/bg-group-queue-times-are-unreasonable-at-best
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/601865/i-missed-my-battleground-queue-because-i-fell-asleep

Falling asleep while waiting... hahaha. That reminds of a time in cyro when I ran womith a group and my crown began snoring on voice comms... good times

tsaescishoeshiner

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be an event mode

More options = worse queues, unless they have a random option. (We're missing that on Live atm)

darvaria

No, they should not come back

Your questionnaire does NOT meet standards of a valid and reliable research instrument design. Your choices overlap and are not clear. Voters could legitimately choose more than one. Therefore, this survey is deficit of two basic requirements for unbiased research .... validity and reliability. In layman's terms, the results are not suitable for decision making.

Soarora

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

tsaescishoeshiner wrote: »

More options = worse queues, unless they have a random option. (We're missing that on Live atm)

I wouldn’t mind having a random option. Though, one also has to consider how many (if any) people won’t play bgs at all now due to only liking 4v4v4.

darvaria wrote: »

Your questionnaire does NOT meet standards of a valid and reliable research instrument design. Your choices overlap and are not clear. Voters could legitimately choose more than one. Therefore, this survey is deficit of two basic requirements for unbiased research .... validity and reliability. In layman's terms, the results are not suitable for decision making.

Okay? I’m not ZOS or a professional pollster and you’re not my professor. I know I could’ve worded the poll better, but I just wanted to facilitate discussion and see what the community thinks out of personal curiosity. There is also a reason most polls have multiple questions. On the forums, you can only have one poll per post, so I shoved all my questions into the poll options when in a proper poll they would be spread across multiple q&as.

Sarannah

Yes, replace the new with the old

Having played a few capture the relic and crazy king 8x8 BG's yesterday, for the golden pursuits... I absolutely HATE these new BG's. I do not like PvP at all, but the 2 team format is just plainly the worst. No tactics, running head first into the other group, no way to make a comeback, no way to counter anything, no way to get the daily BG bonus, too many obstacles in the new maps, too easily getting outnumbered in small battles, etc.

Atleast as a casual PvPer the 3 team format could still be somewhat fun, due to tactics and getting the daily bonus when finishing second. All of that is gone now, and absolutely no reason left to play these BG's as a casual.

This is the worst change to BG's ever!

Veinblood1965

Not voting, I ran a handful of both and the new bg's are worse due to the wait times after you get in. Made me never want to try it again, it made me feel like the players do no matter when that was implemented as part of the new design. I didn't play the old ones much either but at least I didn't come away feeling sick from waiting 45 seconds every time.

cytex_uo

No, they should not come back

absolutely not. the old way catered even more the the daily rewards pve'r. it was way too spread out and the non pvpers could just escape combat and do objectives. I like the 2 teams, cyr should be 2 teams so its not a third group just trolling and popshotting u from a distance or one button chump ball grouping your backside while you are fight another large group. It could definitely be revamped, I made a post on how it should be revamped. but there's very few actual pvpers, and if you are a casual you shouldn't be trying to make rules that are beneficial to you. PVE is 90% of the game, pvpers get 10% we should be the ones listened to for that portion and yall should have to adapt to it, and just get better. But we don't buy stacks worth of crowns from them for housing nonsense so we don't get listened to. lol. pvp is dead because of it, just waiting for a game with similar pvp autonomy to come out one day. praying to the pvp godsss

Soarora

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

cytex_uo wrote: »

absolutely not. the old way catered even more the the daily rewards pve'r. it was way too spread out and the non pvpers could just escape combat and do objectives. I like the 2 teams, cyr should be 2 teams so its not a third group just trolling and popshotting u from a distance or one button chump ball grouping your backside while you are fight another large group. It could definitely be revamped, I made a post on how it should be revamped. but there's very few actual pvpers, and if you are a casual you shouldn't be trying to make rules that are beneficial to you. PVE is 90% of the game, pvpers get 10% we should be the ones listened to for that portion and yall should have to adapt to it, and just get better. But we don't buy stacks worth of crowns from them for housing nonsense so we don't get listened to. lol. pvp is dead because of it, just waiting for a game with similar pvp autonomy to come out one day. praying to the pvp godsss

For me, it's not a "git gud" situation. I don't prefer 4v4v4 because I want to spend every round being carried or soloing objectives... I've already been doing that in 8v8. It's not fun. I prefer 4v4v4 because I actually like playing 4v4v4 more. 8v8 is too many people for me, while I haven't had great experiences in 4v4 either (very unbalanced groups, maybe with better MMR it'll go better).

IndigoDreams

Yes/No but 4v4v4 should be revamped then brought back permanently

I played new BG for the golden pursuit and it only contained the worst elements of past battlegrounds.

If that player base gets the 3rd team removed in Cyrodill and/or Imperial City, i won't be playing them either.

Navaac223

Yes, have 3 or 2 versions of BGs

Most people who are trying to defend 4v4 say that we aren't enough players to have 3 queues (yes, because 2 queues are fine but 3 ?! That's preposterous). Here's an idea : let's try having 3 queues for 1 month (4v4 , 4v4v4 , 8v8). If the queues are bearable, we keep it that way. If you were right, we keep the most played modes, wich will be 4v4v4 and 8v8 and everyone will be happy.

plasmab3ard

I don't know a single person who wants 4v4v4 back. Reading the forum, it seems to me that there are ~4 posters here who make thread after thread after thread complaining about the new and improved 2 team format while everyone else is in-game enjoying them.