Bring back classic Battlegrounds, will the devs listen?

Chrisilis · December 1

While those of us in the PVP community understand the dev teams efforts to drive renewed interest in Battlegrounds we cannot understand why they thought this new format was the way to do it. Sure, there are players who enjoy 5 minute uncoordinated, directionless melee brawls without effort or strategy involved but we, the loyal, dedicated BG PvP community do not. DO NOT. Gone is strategy, gone is the incentive to grind new gear, to try new builds, gone is teamwork, gone is individual contribution, gone is the challenge to regroup and come from behind and pull out the win against all odds. Honestly, what were they thinking, who thought it would be a good idea to rob us of three team bg's? Adding content is fine, even admirable, we get why you did it. The new content may even work insofar as getting new players to dip their toes into PvP but at what cost??? Is it worth it to alienate your existing players who understand how good, how challenging, how fun, bg's can be? We want classic three team battlegrounds back. We want our years of dedication to this game and this community to be respected and our voices heard.
If you want to drive PvP participation improve the incentives. Add more and better leads, try adding in Masks and furnishings so people will farm bg's for them, add collectible fragments for masks, furnishings and crafting stations so bg's become a daily activity for people interested in collecting those things. Make the drop rate fair but rare and you'll see participation skyrocket. Add new bg specific masks, leads, etc. periodically and the PvP community will flourish.
Bring back classic battlegrounds, they should have never been removed in the first place. Will the devs listen?

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_KaiSchober @ZOS_Adrikoth @ZOS_Bill @ZOS_IZos @ZOS_Kevin

fakingfocused · December 1

I definitely miss the strategy and layered depth that original bgs offered. I wonder after the new wears off how they will actually fair. I feel like the current state is prone to having way more lopsided encounters and they are only gaining added attention because of the new leaderboards and awards.

Jierdanit · December 1

Please stop acting like you're speaking for all the BG players.
There are plenty of players who do want the changes to stay.

I know lots of people who used to regularly play the old BGs that like the team vs team better than 4v4v4.

Thumbless_Bot · December 1

Jierdanit wrote: »

Please stop acting like you're speaking for all the BG players.
There are plenty of players who do want the changes to stay.

I know lots of people who used to regularly play the old BGs that like the team vs team better than 4v4v4.

I don't think they are. They are sort of restating what I said below, with some suggestions for improving participation.

Fwiw, I would like to see 3 teams and even 4 teams on the new larger maps. The two new smaller maps have significant mechanical issues and should be significantly altered to address the issues stated on many other threads here. The cauldron is cool.

Let people queue for and play the format they want and improve the incentives.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668202/why-remove-a-functioning-part-of-the-game-bgs#latest

RomanRex · December 1

100% love new BG’s more than old.

Please never go back!

Chrisilis · December 1

Point taken Jierdanit, clearly I don't speak for everyone but I can say confidently, based on conversations w/ many BG acquaintances that the 4v4v4 format was popular and is missed by many. The intention here isn't to revert to a strictly three team format but to reinstate, as an option, three team classic bg's.

ercknn · December 1

Why don’t they just keep the new Bg’s AND bring back the old ones.
More options is better

Why is everyone acting like they can/should only have 1 or the other and not both?

If I had to choose though…
8v8 and 4v4v4 are the most fun options

RomanRex · December 1

4vs4 competitive my favorite

Bammlschwamml · December 1

Instead of manipulating/forcing players to play the same parts of the game by destroying/deleting everything else, they should just add new systems and let the players decide.

Maybe another server hardware upgrade and a real code rewrite would be a good investment. Who do we have to ask/beg/pay to make this possible? I am sure the devs would be grateful too.

fizzylu · December 1

Adding 4v4 as the only ranked option to the point of removing existing content that players did in fact participate in is wild. I'll never understand or agree with that decision and still say adding 8v8 as a casual mode then 4v4 as deathmatch arenas would have made far more sense, especially since players have even been asking for a feature like that.
That being said.... no, I doubt the devs will listen.

Bammlschwamml · December 1

ercknn wrote: »

Why don’t they just keep the new Bg’s AND bring back the old ones.
More options is better

Why is everyone acting like they can/should only have 1 or the other and not both?

If I had to choose though…
8v8 and 4v4v4 are the most fun options

I think i remember them saying that they have to shift around resources in order to add new stuff like the arcanist, scribing, infinite archive, new dungeons/trials etc. to the game. The system just can't handle anymore. If i remember correctly, that's also why they changed how mail works.

Another reason they like to bring up when it comes to BGs is that there are just "not enough players" for reasonable queue times with too many different game modes. But that's missing the point in my opinion.

I find it hard to understand why they don't just upgrade their systems to a point where the game and its devs can unfold their full potential.

tomofhyrule · December 1

ercknn wrote: »

Why don’t they just keep the new Bg’s AND bring back the old ones.
More options is better

Why is everyone acting like they can/should only have 1 or the other and not both?

If I had to choose though…
8v8 and 4v4v4 are the most fun options

The problem is that each of these modes require people to play them, so giving too many options means that each queue will have 3 people and therefore nobody gets a game. I realize that the forums believe that everyone is a top-level PvEr and PvPer, but we are a very small proportion of the playerbase.

We already have people saying that the queues for the BGs aren't filling and the games aren't going through (those seem to be the group queues); imagine if that was all of the BGs...

fizzylu · December 1

tomofhyrule wrote: »

The problem is that each of these modes require people to play them, so giving too many options means that each queue will have 3 people and therefore nobody gets a game.

This leaves out the fact that some people simply aren't going to queue for modes they don't enjoy. Taking away content doesn't mean everyone is just going to fall in-line and play what has been given to them whether or not they like it.

Thumbless_Bot · December 1

tomofhyrule wrote: »

ercknn wrote: »

Why don’t they just keep the new Bg’s AND bring back the old ones.
More options is better

Why is everyone acting like they can/should only have 1 or the other and not both?

If I had to choose though…
8v8 and 4v4v4 are the most fun options

The problem is that each of these modes require people to play them, so giving too many options means that each queue will have 3 people and therefore nobody gets a game. I realize that the forums believe that everyone is a top-level PvEr and PvPer, but we are a very small proportion of the playerbase.

We already have people saying that the queues for the BGs aren't filling and the games aren't going through (those seem to be the group queues); imagine if that was all of the BGs...

No cp cyro and ic are basically dead but they still exist. It's not resources. Servers instances for bgs are likely created virtually on demand...so, if no one queues, the resources can be allocated for other things or not used at all. Saving money.

Also, they designed these new bgs FOR GROUPS, not solo players. They didn't add solo queues back until we asked for them. So, not only did they take away a part of the game that was fun and that solo people consistently queued for, they developed this new content for a player base that didn't and likely never will exist in any sustainable form, group bg players... it's a real head scratcher.

I am not saying they shouldn't create content to try and create a player base of group bgers, but don't take away something else in return. Also, I think bgs are too niche to create a sustained group player base, but you never know.

Decimus · December 1

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the old 3-way battlegrounds were fundamentally flawed, which is why the player base was almost non-existent towards the end (always playing against the same people etc).

Truth of the matter is that most people don't want to run to empty objectives while other two teams fight, just like most people don't like a good fight being ruined by a 3rd party.

Surprise surprise, with the "new" (really just the tried and tested format that has made battlegrounds a popular form of PvP in most other MMOs) format there's a lot more people playing battlegrounds currently in both 4v4 & 8v8 and it's very rare to see the same people over and over again (atleast in solo queue).

This doesn't mean the format is perfect, I think there's a lot of improvements that can be made (more rounds+team shuffling between rounds for solo 4v4 etc)... but grass is not always greener on the other side, especially when you've just spent years on that other side and are aware it resembles a junkyard more so than a garden.

The problem with "giving people options" is that by allowing people to queue for either in a game with ESO's PvP population, you'd have 30min+ DOA queues for the 3-4 people (remember, you need 12 to get a match & already in last patch went against the same people over and over again, most of whom are now enjoying 8v8s or 4v4s) doing 3-way BGs while simultaneously unnecessarily taking people away from the team vs team queue.

There's no winners on either side of the "debate" in this scenario, only losers.

Moonspawn · December 1

I don't know how it is on EU, but on NA 8v8 group queue is completely dead. The very few people that do group up go straight to the 4v4, which is almost dead. Perhaps the best move would be to remove the dead 8v8 group queue and bring back solo 4v4v4 as an option in its place. @Decimus , @RomanRex Do you think the 2 teams format would have enough people to fill at least one 16 players match if that happened?

Thumbless_Bot · December 1

Decimus wrote: »

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the old 3-way battlegrounds were fundamentally flawed, which is why the player base was almost non-existent towards the end (always playing against the same people etc).

Truth of the matter is that most people don't want to run to empty objectives while other two teams fight, just like most people don't like a good fight being ruined by a 3rd party.

Surprise surprise, with the "new" (really just the tried and tested format that has made battlegrounds a popular form of PvP in most other MMOs) format there's a lot more people playing battlegrounds currently in both 4v4 & 8v8 and it's very rare to see the same people over and over again (atleast in solo queue).

This doesn't mean the format is perfect, I think there's a lot of improvements that can be made (more rounds+team shuffling between rounds for solo 4v4 etc)... but grass is not always greener on the other side, especially when you've just spent years on that other side and are aware it resembles a junkyard more so than a garden.

The problem with "giving people options" is that by allowing people to queue for either in a game with ESO's PvP population, you'd have 30min+ DOA queues for the 3-4 people (remember, you need 12 to get a match & already in last patch went against the same people over and over again, most of whom are now enjoying 8v8s or 4v4s) doing 3-way BGs while simultaneously unnecessarily taking people away from the team vs team queue.

There's no winners on either side of the "debate" in this scenario, only losers.

This is just not true. I am and have been in two guilds, one on pc na and one on ps5 na that are geared exclusively towards battlegrounds and the guilds are both always full and active. Almost all of us want our old bgs back, flaws and all.

To add, the old format was great because it was different. As the original post said, they were multi-layered and dynamic and fun, not predictable, boring and one sided.

Decimus · December 1

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the old 3-way battlegrounds were fundamentally flawed, which is why the player base was almost non-existent towards the end (always playing against the same people etc).

Truth of the matter is that most people don't want to run to empty objectives while other two teams fight, just like most people don't like a good fight being ruined by a 3rd party.

Surprise surprise, with the "new" (really just the tried and tested format that has made battlegrounds a popular form of PvP in most other MMOs) format there's a lot more people playing battlegrounds currently in both 4v4 & 8v8 and it's very rare to see the same people over and over again (atleast in solo queue).

This doesn't mean the format is perfect, I think there's a lot of improvements that can be made (more rounds+team shuffling between rounds for solo 4v4 etc)... but grass is not always greener on the other side, especially when you've just spent years on that other side and are aware it resembles a junkyard more so than a garden.

The problem with "giving people options" is that by allowing people to queue for either in a game with ESO's PvP population, you'd have 30min+ DOA queues for the 3-4 people (remember, you need 12 to get a match & already in last patch went against the same people over and over again, most of whom are now enjoying 8v8s or 4v4s) doing 3-way BGs while simultaneously unnecessarily taking people away from the team vs team queue.

There's no winners on either side of the "debate" in this scenario, only losers.

This is just not true. I am and have been in two guilds, one on pc na and one on ps5 na that are geared exclusively towards battlegrounds and the guilds are both always full and active. Almost all of us want our old bgs back, flaws and all.

To add, the old format was great because it was different. As the original post said, they were multi-layered and dynamic and fun, not predictable, boring and one sided.

There's full and then there's "active" - I can't speak for your experiences on PS5/PC NA, but having played/streamed battlegrounds for 4-10 hours a day as my main content in this game for over 7 years on PC EU I can tell you how things are over here, and things are much better ever since the patch - something that gets overlooked very easily as the people upset are posting here on the forums and the people enjoying the BGs are actually playing them in game.

And while I haven't played enough on PC NA (just a couple of BGs), I can tell from watching other streamers that pretty much everyone prefers the new format over the old one (especially 8v8s) over there as well. Not going to comment on the PS5 thing, I don't know many people playing there.

You do bring up one big issue however: BGs being one sided. This was the case in 4v4v4 format as well, though your chances of not having fun would be usually 33% rather than 50% - but it would be much harder to survive and enjoy the battleground if you happened to get in that weakest team that'd be the target of "farming competition" for the other two teams.

There are solutions to BGs being one sided, particularly 4v4s: cut amount of deaths to 1 (then spectate), increase amount of rounds to 7 and shuffle teams between rounds. Problem solved, your experience is now in your hands rather than matchmaking's.

Shuffles/rounds can be introduced to flag game lobbies as well, if necessary.

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't know how it is on EU, but on NA 8v8 group queue is completely dead. The very few people that do group up go straight to the 4v4, which is almost dead. Perhaps the best move would be to remove the dead 8v8 group queue and bring back solo 4v4v4 as an option in its place. @Decimus , @RomanRex Do you think the 2 teams format would have enough people to fill at least one 16 players match if that happened?

Group queue is something that has always been significantly less populated than solo queue... I think most PvPers just don't find the coordinated buff sets & 3 2 1 ulti dump meta fun.

Replacing one dead queue with another isn't going to change things, you won't find enough active players who'd rather queue for 4v4v4 than 4v4 or 8v8 (solo or group). If there was enough players we'd have had more than one 4v4v4 lobby at a time in previous patches.

Moonspawn · December 1

Decimus wrote: »

Replacing one dead queue with another isn't going to change things, you won't find enough active players who'd rather queue for 4v4v4 than 4v4 or 8v8 (solo or group). If there was enough players we'd have had more than one 4v4v4 lobby at a time in previous patches.

Again, don't know how it is on EU, but I guarantee most players on NA wouldn't touch the new bgs if the old ones were still available. It might be the best course of action, given that no one will miss the dead 8v8 queue, and we'd be able to move forward with the knowledge that most people simply prefer the 3 teams format.

Decimus · December 1

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Replacing one dead queue with another isn't going to change things, you won't find enough active players who'd rather queue for 4v4v4 than 4v4 or 8v8 (solo or group). If there was enough players we'd have had more than one 4v4v4 lobby at a time in previous patches.

Again, don't know how it is on EU, but I guarantee most players on NA wouldn't touch the new bgs if the old ones were still available. It might be the best course of action, given that no one will miss the dead 8v8 queue, and we'd be able to move forward with the knowledge that most people simply prefer the 3 teams format.

I don't know what you base this claim on, considering battlegrounds under the 3 teams format failed to form more than one lobby in previous patches and every PvP streamer I watch on PC NA (or EU) enjoys the team vs team format more, especially solo 8v8.

Numbers don't lie - you have more battleground lobbies popping up right now than you did in the previous patches. I'm sure it sucks to be in the minority in this regard, but atleast you still have Cyrodiil/IC for the 3-way format... and PvE for run from Point A to Point B if fighting against players isn't your thing.

Would be cool if they introduced some other ways of competing against players than PvP though, there's races & mob farming competitions etc in other MMOs that provide that sort of activity.

Thumbless_Bot · December 1

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Replacing one dead queue with another isn't going to change things, you won't find enough active players who'd rather queue for 4v4v4 than 4v4 or 8v8 (solo or group). If there was enough players we'd have had more than one 4v4v4 lobby at a time in previous patches.

Again, don't know how it is on EU, but I guarantee most players on NA wouldn't touch the new bgs if the old ones were still available. It might be the best course of action, given that no one will miss the dead 8v8 queue, and we'd be able to move forward with the knowledge that most people simply prefer the 3 teams format.

Hard second here...

This is the point. Give us our bgs and you can have yours. Everyone is happy. It sure beats the alternative where some percentage is upset with one format over the kther because they want bgs but have to play a format they don't want. This is the same as cyro or ic. Some like cp and some don't. It's bor anyone's fault that no cp is dead.

I would rather have one good bg every hour than 5 like we have now.

fizzylu · December 1

Decimus wrote: »

I don't know what you base this claim on, considering battlegrounds under the 3 teams format failed to form more than one lobby in previous patches and every PvP streamer I watch on PC NA (or EU) enjoys the team vs team format more, especially solo 8v8.

Maybe it's just me, but using a handful of streamers to decide which is "better" or more popular seems flawed. Especially considering ESO isn't really known for it's streaming community and audience, but okay.

Let's also note that the new BGs are still just that, new. Them having more lobbies -- and I have no idea where you're even getting the only one lobby forming thing to begin with as that sounds completely inaccurate or cherry-picked unless we're just talking group queue, and using group queue as the average/standard also seems flawed.... but anyway, there being more should be expected just because of that fact alone. Now, let's revisit this in some months to a year and see if that's still the case.

I think people are also forgetting when Zenimax made the decision to completely remove the ability to queue for BGs as a group and lost a ton of active players. Pretending like this didn't have a long-term impact on the size and popularity of BGs is just ignoring the obvious, and yes.... has nothing to do with the 4v4v4 being "fundamentally flawed", which to be clear, is your opinion and nothing more.

Decimus wrote: »

Replacing one dead queue with another isn't going to change things, you won't find enough active players who'd rather queue for 4v4v4 than 4v4 or 8v8 (solo or group).

And I'm not sure where you are basing this claim off of because on these forums alone, it's been pretty apparent that a sizeable amount of players would prefer 4v4v4.
And since we're talking "numbers".... the BG guild I was in was one of the most active guilds I was ever apart of in recent years on this game (even compared to trading guilds). Last time I checked, it was significantly less lively when it came to chat and I saw far less online people in BGs when before almost everyone on would have been in one.

Decimus · December 1

fizzylu wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

I don't know what you base this claim on, considering battlegrounds under the 3 teams format failed to form more than one lobby in previous patches and every PvP streamer I watch on PC NA (or EU) enjoys the team vs team format more, especially solo 8v8.

Maybe it's just me, but using a handful of streamers to decide which is "better" or more popular seems flawed. Especially considering ESO isn't really known for it's streaming community and audience, but okay.

Let's also note that the new BGs are still just that, new. Them having more lobbies -- and I have no idea where you're even getting the only one lobby forming thing to begin with as that sounds completely inaccurate or cherry-picked unless we're just talking group queue, and using group queue as the average/standard also seems flawed.... but anyway, there being more should be expected just because of that fact alone. Now, let's revisit this in some months to a year and see if that's still the case.

I think people are also forgetting when Zenimax made the decision to completely remove the ability to queue for BGs as a group and lost a ton of active players. Pretending like this didn't have a long-term impact on the size and popularity of BGs is just ignoring the obvious, and yes.... has nothing to do with the 4v4v4 being "fundamentally flawed", which to be clear, is your opinion and nothing more.

An average one, maybe two during prime time lobbies at a time was what we've had for years on PC EU. It is not cherry-picked or inaccurate, as anyone watching me stream them daily for multiple hours could verify that with their own eyes over the past few years.

And this is solo queue for the vast majority - in group queues it would take 15-30+ minutes to even get a match.

You can still queue as a group to BGs, I don't know what you're referring to. The ability to specifically choose which game mode you would queue for was removed at one point (2018?), because everyone would pick Deathmatch and objective queues weren't popping.

4v4v4 is fundamentally flawed because it promotes running to empty objectives while other two teams engage in PvP.

The fundamentals being that battlegrounds are supposed to be about player vs player fights, not about running to empty objectives, not fighting back when attacked just to run faster to the next empty objective and winning.

They are also fundamentally flawed from balance point of view, as you cannot control the actions of the 3rd party and thus cannot guarantee fair and equal number fights.

You could argue that random matchmaking makes the fights unfair anyway, but there are solutions to that as I've pointed out previously.

fizzylu wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Replacing one dead queue with another isn't going to change things, you won't find enough active players who'd rather queue for 4v4v4 than 4v4 or 8v8 (solo or group).

And I'm not sure where you are basing this claim off of because on these forums alone, it's been pretty apparent that a sizeable amount of players would prefer 4v4v4.
And since we're talking "numbers".... the BG guild I was in was one of the most active guilds I was ever apart of in recent years on this game (even compared to trading guilds). Last time I checked, it was significantly less lively when it came to chat and I saw far less online people in BGs when before almost everyone on would have been in one.

Yes, I've noticed the same 2-3 names making post after post after post about wanting things to go back to how they were.

I've noticed some people coming in to point out that hey, this is actually not how "we" all feel, and that people are actually having fun in the new BGs.

I've also noticed the huge amount of players (including Cyrodiil mains who wouldn't previously touch BGs) enjoying the BGs (particularly solo 8v8).

While it is true that the game in general (IC, Cyrodiil, PvE etc) has been losing player base, most people are playing the game and having fun (as is evident by the huge increase in popularity of battlegrounds), not posting here on the forums.

fizzylu · December 1

Decimus wrote: »

An average one, maybe two during prime time lobbies at a time was what we've had for years on PC EU.

And multiple people have already stated that the experience for PC NA was not like that.

Decimus wrote: »

Yes, I've noticed the same 2-3 names making post after post after post about wanting things to go back to how they were.

There's been two polls where the results showed that the majority out of those who answered would prefer 4v4v4 entirely or want the option to do it.

Moonspawn · December 1

It's pointless to argue about this because there seems to be a disconnect between the NA and the EU servers. @Decimus , considering your own point of view, there would be no harm in trading one dead queue for another, so we lose nothing if I'm wrong and people really do prefer the new lopsided format.

As for the fundamental flaws with the 4v4v4 bgs, I believe I got it covered, but would still appreciate any insight: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668974/battlegrounds-how-to-make-objective-modes-more-fun-than-deathmatch-ever-was

Decimus · December 1

Moonspawn wrote: »

It's pointless to argue about this because there seems to be a disconnect between the NA and the EU servers. @Decimus , considering your own point of view, there would be no harm in trading one dead queue for another, so we lose nothing if I'm wrong and people really do prefer the new lopsided format.

As for the fundamental flaws with the 4v4v4 bgs, I believe I got it covered, but would still appreciate any insight: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668974/battlegrounds-how-to-make-objective-modes-more-fun-than-deathmatch-ever-was

Considering that the EU megaserver has a significantly bigger population & the little interest shown to BGs in previous patches, I think it's safe to say it was probably the same for NA as well - especially considering that I don't think any NA streamer even played BGs as their main content in previous patches.

In this patch I see NA streamers (and other EU streamers) also playing a lot of BGs, not just Cyrodiil/IC.

So I highly doubt that there is a "disconnect" there - maybe the disconnect is between the more casual & more serious gameplay.

If you play one BG a day or a few BGs in a row once or twice a week, you're much more likely to run into different people than if you're someone doing dozens of them per day... at which point you start noticing a pattern when lobby after lobby you've got the same players.

Just a theory.

I believe @SkaraMinoc (whom I know by reputation plays a lot of BGs on NA) pointed out the issues in your thread - you can't fix fundamental issues such as 3-way format, that's why they're called fundamental.

fizzylu · December 1

Decimus wrote: »

Considering that the EU megaserver has a significantly bigger population & the little interest shown to BGs in previous patches, I think it's safe to say it was probably the same for NA as well - especially considering that I don't think any NA streamer even played BGs as their main content in previous patches.

"I'm going to dismiss everything you guys said because I simply don't agree with what you're saying as it counters my points". Also, seriously.... who cares about what the streamers of a game with a dead streaming community are doing or thinking? They are far from the majority.

Decimus wrote: »

In this patch I see NA streamers (and other EU streamers) also playing a lot of BGs, not just Cyrodiil/IC.

And maybe because they're.... new???? Again, let's see if they are still streaming it some time from now.

Decimus wrote: »

If you play one BG a day or a few BGs in a row once or twice a week, you're much more likely to run into different people than if you're someone doing dozens of them per day... at which point you start noticing a pattern when lobby after lobby you've got the same players.

I used to play BGs for hours straight, and before the initial removal of group queue, all day every day even. While it is true that you could see a lot of the same names (and let's be real, ESO servers don't have huge playerbases to begin with no matter what content you're going off of), I could also visibly see that many people not in my BG were in a BG of their own (guild list, friend list). If anything, seeing a lot of the same names to me just meant that it was one of the features that actually brought people back to them continuously and regularly, that they actually had replayability for many people. And I'm sure it's exactly the same for Cyrodiil, where a bunch of the regular players recognize the names of the other regulars that frequent it.

And if what SkaraMinoc said in that other thread is why 4v4v4 is "fundamentally flawed".... then yeah, that's just nonsense. Over the years I've had plenty of BGs, the majority even, where players on all teams were going for objectives -- and it was far more dynamic, fun, and complemented the games combat system way better than the 2 team format ever will. Which is my opinion.... but it is definitely one that is shared by more than 2-3 names.

Decimus · December 1

fizzylu wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Considering that the EU megaserver has a significantly bigger population & the little interest shown to BGs in previous patches, I think it's safe to say it was probably the same for NA as well - especially considering that I don't think any NA streamer even played BGs as their main content in previous patches.

"I'm going to dismiss everything you guys said because I simply don't agree with what you're saying as it counters my points". Also, seriously.... who cares about what the streamers of a game with a dead streaming community are doing or thinking? Seriously.

Whether you like it or not, streamers are a reflection of the overall community's sentiment. And if we shouldn't care about what streamers (people who can be confirmed to be actually playing the game and knowledgeable about it) think, why should anyone care about what you think? Rhetorical question, please don't reply to this.

fizzylu wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

In this patch I see NA streamers (and other EU streamers) also playing a lot of BGs, not just Cyrodiil/IC.

And maybe because they're.... new???? Again, let's see if they are still streaming it some time from now.

They are not new, it's been over a month... and people are playing the BGs over IC/Cyrodiil because they're fun (and the latter two dead).

fizzylu wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

If you play one BG a day or a few BGs in a row once or twice a week, you're much more likely to run into different people than if you're someone doing dozens of them per day... at which point you start noticing a pattern when lobby after lobby you've got the same players.

I used to play BGs for hours straight, and before the initial removal of group queue, all day every day even. While it is true that you could see a lot of the same names (and let's be real, ESO servers don't have huge playerbases to begin with no matter what content you're going off of), I could also visibly see that many people not in my BG were in a BG of their own (guild list, friend list). If anything, seeing a lot of the same names to me just meant that it was one of the features that actually brought people back to them continuously and regularly, that they actually had replayability for many people. And I'm sure it's exactly the same for Cyrodiil, where a bunch of the regular players recognize the names of the other regulars that frequent it.

And if what SkaraMinoc said in that other thread is why 4v4v4 is "fundamentally flawed".... then yeah, that's just nonsense. Over the years I've had plenty of BGs, the majority even, where players on all teams were going for objectives -- and it was far more dynamic, fun, and complemented the games combat system way better than the 2 team format ever will. Which is my opinion.... but is is definitely one that is shared by more than 2-3 names, and one would know that if they're actually reading the threads about the new BGs and not just the parts they want to actually acknowledge.

Highlighted the important bit. This is why feedback via forums is always tricky... you can't tell if the people providing feedback are even active players with insight into how the game is right now.

If you actively played BGs when "group queue was removed" (this never happened btw, you're probably confusing this with the time when group queue and solo queue were combined in the early days of BGs & you'd be forced to fight groups as a solo player), that'd mean you last actively played them over 4 years ago.

Also seeing the same names over and over again isn't a good sign, it's a sign that there's only one lobby going on and that not many players are participating in that content... which is not good for a company that wants to provide a game for as many players as possible, rather than hosting some private social flag hugging club in battlegrounds.

The same problem is also a problem in Cyrodiil... because the player count there is extremely low compared to how it used to be - this is why the average Cyrodiil experience nowadays is just fighting the same ball group or two over and over and over again... as opposed to having a ton of fights all around the map like in the old days.

Moonspawn · December 1

@Decimus
The initial suggestions are about how we could make the objective modes encourage fighting. @SkaraMinoc came up with ways people would still ignore the objective even if there was no reason for it. I don't think people are insane, but in case they are, they could become affected with a new Debuff (explained in the thread), which would force players to fight on the objective whether they like it or not. Would that solve the flaws with the old bgs?

fizzylu · December 1

Decimus wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, streamers are a reflection of the overall community's sentiment. And if we shouldn't care about what streamers (people who can be confirmed to be actually playing the game and knowledgeable about it) think, why should anyone care about what you think? Rhetorical question, please don't reply to this.

I will reply to whatever I want, and no.... no they are not. I even hopped over to Twitch just now, and not so shockingly, not one streamer is doing BGs. And all have either a little over 100 viewers or less (Xynode being the exception, but even he hasn't broke 200 viewers and is doing group PvE). I am not saying their opinions don't matter, I'm just trying to stress that they are not a reflection of the majority like you are trying to claim. Maybe you feel that way because you yourself are apparently a streamer.... but I'm sorry, no.

Decimus wrote: »

They are not new, it's been over a month... and people are playing the BGs over IC/Cyrodiil because they're fun (and the latter two dead).

....compared to years old BGs, that is still new.

Decimus wrote: »

Also seeing the same names over and over again isn't a good sign, it's a sign that there's only one lobby going on and that not many players are participating in that content.

I've also given multiple examples of ways to disprove the whole "one lobby" thing, and never even said that I always see the same names every match.... just that I would recognize some names in some matches because they also played BGs a lot.

Decimus wrote: »

Highlighted the important bit. This is why feedback via forums is always tricky... you can't tell if the people providing feedback are even active players with insight into how the game is right now.

If you actively played BGs when "group queue was removed" (this never happened btw, you're probably confusing this with the time when group queue and solo queue were combined in the early days of BGs & you'd be forced to fight groups as a solo player), that'd mean you last actively played them over 4 years ago.

You really like to interpret things in the way that best fits your narrative. I said "used to" as in before the BG update and that I played them even more before the ability to queue as a group was removed some years ago to add to my argument that the BG population took a big hit when Zenimax made BGs solo queue only. Which did in fact happen and it was like that for quite some time before Zenimax realized they needed to add the ability to queue as a group back (which is when we got the separate solo and group queue options, but by then it was too late and they permanently lost a lot of BG players who had moved on to other games).... and the fact that you seemingly don't know this, tells me that you don't know what you're talking about -- so I will not be acknowledging anything you say from here. Thank you.

tomofhyrule · December 1

Also remember that the old 4v4v4 BGs are not gone forever. They've said that they'll pop back up from time to time in various BG weekends (like we have had before), so they'll still be back. That means they're not removed from the game files and can come back whenever they want them to.

Chrisilis wrote: »

If you want to drive PvP participation improve the incentives. Add more and better leads, try adding in Masks and furnishings so people will farm bg's for them, add collectible fragments for masks, furnishings and crafting stations so bg's become a daily activity for people interested in collecting those things. Make the drop rate fair but rare and you'll see participation skyrocket. Add new bg specific masks, leads, etc. periodically and the PvP community will flourish.

You realize that they did exactly this, right? There are three new outfit styles, a new weapon style, a new major adornment, and a new mount that all require BGs, and another new outfit style that specifically requires being on the leaderboard. There's a lot more for people to collect now, and it's also easier than ever to collect these things since the first win of the day per character gives a guaranteed style page, and also the first purple box of the day gives a guaranteed page as well, and then also the "win 3" quest will guarantee a page in the highest level reward. BGs have never been as rewarding as they are now, particularly for the people who don't PvP much.

So if you think the BG community as it is over the last month has not been healthy... well, they did do exactly what you said they should to to make it flourish, so why isn't it?