BG downgrade

johnJrant

I’d like to discuss the BG update and the balance in both PvP and PvE.

Let’s take a look. I own almost all chapters (except Necrom, though I have it on an account I don’t play), most of the DLC, some crowns, mounts, any alliance packs, and other items from your store. I only play PvE to get sets and cosmetics for PvP. In essence, I pay for chapters, DLCs, mounts, ESO+, and everything else solely to play PvP.

Now, let’s compare the scale of PvE content, like new zones, dungeons, and trials, to the updates for Battlegrounds (BG). The difference is massive—in content and in quality. And let's be honest: the new BG maps are poorly designed. Some genius thought it was a good idea to place random rocks everywhere that serve no purpose except to trip players. I’d really like to know—what was the budget difference between PvP and PvE development?

You don’t give us the option to choose what we’re paying for—chapter content or PvP updates. I’m forced to buy a chapter when all I want is the PvP update. And what did PvP players actually receive for their money? Three maps? That’s all? After two years of supposed development, that’s laughable.

8x8 BGs
Why did you introduce 8x8 Battlegrounds? You already have large group fights in Imperial City and Cyrodiil. What’s the logic here? This kind of decision-making is beyond frustrating.
4x4 BG queues now take 5–7 minutes. Is this what you meant by making BGs more popular? I don’t understand why you added 8x8 when similar gameplay already exists in Cyrodiil.
If 8x8 is "just for fun," then remove all rewards—no drops, no transmutation geodes, and no AP. If it’s only for easy entry into BGs, let it be purely for fun with no incentives.

Capture the Flag
Ten years. It’s been ten years, and instead of improving, you’ve downgraded Capture the Flag to a mindless loop. Don’t try to convince anyone that you worked on this for two years; it’s embarrassing.
Create maps with four flags on hills, connected by different approaches, with open fields in the middle? Is that concept somehow more difficult or expensive to develop than a new dungeon?

Group Duels & PvP Zones in Player Homes
Where is this content? just give it to us. give it to us right now.

Lore
You’ve had lore from the first scripts of The Elder Scrolls: Arena. Where is it? It’s been 30 years wating and you loose time. [snip] It’s shocking. Two years of development, and you didn’t integrate it? [snip]

[edited for bashing]

Necrotech_Master

if they removed all of the rewards for the 8v8 queue, they might as well just entirely remove that queue because nobody in their right mind would bother doing it if there was nothing to gain from doing it

personally i like the 8v8 a lot more over 4v4 after having played about a dozen matches in it

Thumbless_Bot

Hard disagree on the 8v8 item about rewards. I do normal daily dungeons because they are casual. Last thing I would want is for zos to remove rewards for that or anything else.

There are things locked behind trials that I can't get because I will never set foot in a trial because the toxicity there is worse than pvp to me. Instead of continuing this trend, zos should provide pve and pvp alternatives for stuff as much as possible.

johnJrant

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Hard disagree on the 8v8 item about rewards. I do normal daily dungeons because they are casual. Last thing I would want is for zos to remove rewards for that or anything else.

There are things locked behind trials that I can't get because I will never set foot in a trial because the toxicity there is worse than pvp to me. Instead of continuing this trend, zos should provide pve and pvp alternatives for stuff as much as possible.

I absolutely disagree. you have received another casual feature where you can enter 8x8 without a rating for the sake of quick rewards. It killed the ranking fights. We are waiting for 5-7 minutes this week to search for a fight. Then from 1 to 4 minutes to select all the players, and the last player may not appear at all. thats from 6 to 11 min only wait. For what purpose? so that the casuals can quickly and painlessly pick up the rewards? You may suffer a little for our entertainment, but you will still receive rewards. after such an advertised failure, radical action is needed. Forcibly driving the casuals to 4x4 is a great way out. I would not only remove the rewards from 8x8, but also increase them in 4x4 to 50 transmut in day and smal chans on drop trial part from Rivze 3 win daily. Zose say 8x8 just for fun, so its can be muth more for fun if cut rewards.

Necrotech_Master

johnJrant wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Hard disagree on the 8v8 item about rewards. I do normal daily dungeons because they are casual. Last thing I would want is for zos to remove rewards for that or anything else.

There are things locked behind trials that I can't get because I will never set foot in a trial because the toxicity there is worse than pvp to me. Instead of continuing this trend, zos should provide pve and pvp alternatives for stuff as much as possible.

I absolutely disagree. you have received another casual feature where you can enter 8x8 without a rating for the sake of quick rewards. It killed the ranking fights. We are waiting for 5-7 minutes this week to search for a fight. Then from 1 to 4 minutes to select all the players, and the last player may not appear at all. thats from 6 to 11 min only wait. For what purpose? so that the casuals can quickly and painlessly pick up the rewards? You may suffer a little for our entertainment, but you will still receive rewards. after such an advertised failure, radical action is needed. Forcibly driving the casuals to 4x4 is a great way out. I would not only remove the rewards from 8x8, but also increase them in 4x4 to 50 transmut in day and smal chans on drop trial part from Rivze 3 win daily. Zose say 8x8 just for fun, so its can be muth more for fun if cut rewards.

well would you rather have the casuals bombarding 4v4 with just wanting to get the daily reward, or have actual competitive fights?

the problem is not casuals and rewards, the problem is the BG community as a whole is barely large enough to sustain the queues

not to mention other problems with pvp like healers/tanks being OP and making teams unkillable, especially in a small team environment where 2 optimal teams will basically never die

johnJrant

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

well would you rather have the casuals bombarding 4v4 with just wanting to get the daily reward, or have actual competitive fights?

the problem is not casuals and rewards, the problem is the BG community as a whole is barely large enough to sustain the queues

not to mention other problems with pvp like healers/tanks being OP and making teams unkillable, especially in a small team environment where 2 optimal teams will basically never die

Corse i whant actual competitive fights. But just don't have to wait 11 minutes for the start of the fight yet. BG this is not torture. And enough people who will be dragged there with awards will understand the taste and stay. Of course, if other problems that everyone is talking about are eliminated. but this small step out of the comfort zone will have a great effect. And the quality of the fights will rise over time.
Other problem you talk about is not big problem to fix. Zose have problem. they need 6 yers, 10 team to analysis, and then 2 yers to criete 3 stuped map.
Hill problem fix by cut aoe hill. tank problem not a problem. more problem is pets and many damage from map. and many light. i dont see any on molag ball map.

johnJrant

BG this is not a Cyro war. It's more about sports discipline. There should be more rules. And the prohibition of some types of skills and the prohibition of some sets, why not.

Chrisilis

Hard agree, this new format is a massive, unacceptable, downgrade. 4v4 competitive is so unbalanced as to be a joke, 8v8 is a little better but not much. Theres no wild card factor anymore, theres no strategy and no incentive to actually improve. I could join an 8v8 in level 50 PVE gear and NOBODY WOULD NOTICE. Wheres the fun in that? Ive worked on my build for over a year, golding out new sets, trying out different enchants, different mundus, different skills all so I could be an asset to my team and for what? All that effort down the drain. Re: 8v8, keep it, including all the rewards. Let new players get a taste of PVP and bring back 4v4v4 for when they're ready to compete in a format that actually requires skill.

~~~Being new to the forum I have a question for those of you who post regularly... Do the Devs ever reply to any of these threads? Will they tell us if they're considering bringing back 4v4v4 or if we're stuck with this new format forever? Does our feedback even matter? Are we shouting into the void? I want to know if what we're saying here makes any difference or if I should just give up, thanks

johnJrant

Chrisilis wrote: »

Hard agree, this new format is a massive, unacceptable, downgrade. 4v4 competitive is so unbalanced as to be a joke, 8v8 is a little better but not much. Theres no wild card factor anymore, theres no strategy and no incentive to actually improve. I could join an 8v8 in level 50 PVE gear and NOBODY WOULD NOTICE. Wheres the fun in that? Ive worked on my build for over a year, golding out new sets, trying out different enchants, different mundus, different skills all so I could be an asset to my team and for what? All that effort down the drain. Re: 8v8, keep it, including all the rewards. Let new players get a taste of PVP and bring back 4v4v4 for when they're ready to compete in a format that actually requires skill.

~~~Being new to the forum I have a question for those of you who post regularly... Do the Devs ever reply to any of these threads? Will they tell us if they're considering bringing back 4v4v4 or if we're stuck with this new format forever? Does our feedback even matter? Are we shouting into the void? I want to know if what we're saying here makes any difference or if I should just give up, thanks

I like the new 4x4 deathmatch better. I like three lives, I like fewer players. but new flag is realy boring now, and the third team is very much needed there.
I can't say that the 4x4 mode is completely bad. [snip] but as a competitive mode with small groups, it turned out to be good. need flag mode upgrede, map fix, new map, score fix, top sistem fix, other fix. but i realy like it. and thats last smal group pvp. wheare you dont need run by cyro or ic to cath fight.
And BG need lore. I really expected that they would somehow insert lore from the first script of the first part. it would be perfect here. and as soon as lore appears, BG will have more fans. These are scrolls [snip]. ok first script of first tes is very expensive but how about tes 4. mora have mode on arena all that have some lore so They don't even have to come up with anything.

What do you mean about the balance? Hill? that rules problem i think, only need to cut aoe hill. Mabe need more manual how get normal bild? i see dudes with 17-22k hp every day)

[edited for bashing & profanity bypass]

Thumbless_Bot

johnJrant wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Hard disagree on the 8v8 item about rewards. I do normal daily dungeons because they are casual. Last thing I would want is for zos to remove rewards for that or anything else.

There are things locked behind trials that I can't get because I will never set foot in a trial because the toxicity there is worse than pvp to me. Instead of continuing this trend, zos should provide pve and pvp alternatives for stuff as much as possible.

I absolutely disagree. you have received another casual feature where you can enter 8x8 without a rating for the sake of quick rewards. It killed the ranking fights. We are waiting for 5-7 minutes this week to search for a fight. Then from 1 to 4 minutes to select all the players, and the last player may not appear at all. thats from 6 to 11 min only wait. For what purpose? so that the casuals can quickly and painlessly pick up the rewards? You may suffer a little for our entertainment, but you will still receive rewards. after such an advertised failure, radical action is needed. Forcibly driving the casuals to 4x4 is a great way out. I would not only remove the rewards from 8x8, but also increase them in 4x4 to 50 transmut in day and smal chans on drop trial part from Rivze 3 win daily. Zose say 8x8 just for fun, so its can be muth more for fun if cut rewards.

I am not aying the new format is great, or even good, and I commiserate with just about everything you and others are saying here. I just don't think removing rewards is the way to go. If you increase rewards for one mode and remove them from the other, 4v4 will be more unbearable than they already are because no one, sweats or casuals or new players, will do 8v8, they will all do 4v4 because they can hope for a good team to win.

The way to fix this and medal score and mmr is simple. Make it all about KD or KDA. This is the only true metric in every bg that shows contribution and skill imho. Then stop messing with mmr. This should help even out the matches to some degree. This will have the added benefit of discouraging troll tanks and troll healers from ruining bgs because they'll a be lumped together.

And then make rewards available in some pve content so people who don't want to get their faces melted off 30 times in five minutes can still get whatever the rewards is.

Thumbless_Bot

Chrisilis wrote: »

Hard agree, this new format is a massive, unacceptable, downgrade. 4v4 competitive is so unbalanced as to be a joke, 8v8 is a little better but not much. Theres no wild card factor anymore, theres no strategy and no incentive to actually improve. I could join an 8v8 in level 50 PVE gear and NOBODY WOULD NOTICE. Wheres the fun in that? Ive worked on my build for over a year, golding out new sets, trying out different enchants, different mundus, different skills all so I could be an asset to my team and for what? All that effort down the drain. Re: 8v8, keep it, including all the rewards. Let new players get a taste of PVP and bring back 4v4v4 for when they're ready to compete in a format that actually requires skill.

~~~Being new to the forum I have a question for those of you who post regularly... Do the Devs ever reply to any of these threads? Will they tell us if they're considering bringing back 4v4v4 or if we're stuck with this new format forever? Does our feedback even matter? Are we shouting into the void? I want to know if what we're saying here makes any difference or if I should just give up, thanks

100% agree. 130% agree if it was possible. Devs do reply. Whether or not it makes a difference is not something I will comment on. What i will say, and have reiterated on at least ten other threads here is that a two year dev effort with no known community engagement and/or feedback on proposed changes BEFORE they invest time and money into something is horrible development methodology. They are still (apparently) doing this though because they mentioned working on other pvp updates but that it's "too early" to tell us. This is not a good sign.

johnJrant

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

And then make rewards available in some pve content so people who don't want to get their faces melted off 30 times in five minutes can still get whatever the rewards is.

I don't understand how you can suggest giving pvp rewards in pve content. PVE players already get more budget, more rewards, more content, more of everything. [snip] How can you ask for even more protection for your players and make them more comfortable? they are more than comfortable enough as it is.
That's how much of the money I paid for this year went into pvp? Considering that some of them are spent on maintaining a safe environment, which I don't need at all. [snip]

[edited for baiting]

johnJrant

Here is a great suggestion for training pvp players. To form all those who came with less than 23k hp and 20k resist in one team. Even my necromancer will take all 4 in one combo even if they don't get off the spawn. Very soon they will learn how to dress for BG and not stay on the spawn even if it hurts downstairs. and we'll have a lot of fun for a while.

This is not the case when you can achieve anything good by increasing comfort for the weak. PVP rewards are not needed by PVE players anyway. The new sets are just nothing. pve players may well remain completely without them if they do not want to enter pvp normally. And comfort is enough for them as it is.
And what kind of question is this? I want a reward, but I don't want my face to melt. Well, get a normal build. I play by necr and I even made him competitive. And these guys cant try to play normally for NB, Sorka or DK but whant rewards? This is nonsense. they somehow manage get bild to pass through the dungeon on HM so there will be no problems getting dressed for BG if there is a desire.

MasterLanz

I'm guessing the amount of players who play ESO 'for' the PVP is an extremely small demographic. Some players may do it regularly for fun, but most, I expect, only do it when there's some special incentive above and beyond the norm.

Not focusing on PVP is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because obviously if the PVP isn't that good, it won't attract players who really want to focus on PVP, but even if they did give it a good effort, it probably wouldn't be worth building a considerable amount of content around.

So, yeah, I expect their pvp budget is a miniscule fraction of the pve budget. Which does make sense, it's Elder Scrolls, a game known for its setting, storytelling, RPG, and single-player experience. It's not really a wargame, even though wars do happen.

johnJrant

MasterLanz wrote: »

I'm guessing the amount of players who play ESO 'for' the PVP is an extremely small demographic. Some players may do it regularly for fun, but most, I expect, only do it when there's some special incentive above and beyond the norm.

Not focusing on PVP is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because obviously if the PVP isn't that good, it won't attract players who really want to focus on PVP, but even if they did give it a good effort, it probably wouldn't be worth building a considerable amount of content around.

So, yeah, I expect their pvp budget is a miniscule fraction of the pve budget. Which does make sense, it's Elder Scrolls, a game known for its setting, storytelling, RPG, and single-player experience. It's not really a wargame, even though wars do happen.

I doubt that you can have accurate data. [snip] PVP players left, returned, left again. The problem is not the desire of people to play PvP, even now in the evening, to find a 4x4 fight in 2-3 minutes, but 8x8 for about a minute. People play, just the content and implementation is ***, so not as much as you want and many do it very badly, so badly that it would be better not to do it at all.

And what you wrote about the TES series. hehehe) storytelling always been at the level of tabloid fantasy and cheap. single-player experience? Hello, Actually they also wanted to do the second part of the MMO, there was no technology and then Tod hapend. RPG? Skyrim say good bay to RPG, look on kenshi. Mora still cut and not playble game with out mode. What storytelling, RPG, and single-player experience you talk about?)
I think you just got to know the world of TES to late. I started playing with the second part and for me, TES is a dark fantasy where there is a lot of sex, you can go wherever you want and do whatever you want, seasoned with a not very annoying plot, where you can become a hero, or you can go to the arena. Although there were no arenas in the second part, but that's not the point now.

and ZOSE does not have accurate statistics on how many people want to play pvp if it is well done, Where did you get such data?

[edited for bashing]

MasterLanz

johnJrant wrote: »

MasterLanz wrote: »

I'm guessing the amount of players who play ESO 'for' the PVP is an extremely small demographic. Some players may do it regularly for fun, but most, I expect, only do it when there's some special incentive above and beyond the norm.

Not focusing on PVP is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, because obviously if the PVP isn't that good, it won't attract players who really want to focus on PVP, but even if they did give it a good effort, it probably wouldn't be worth building a considerable amount of content around.

So, yeah, I expect their pvp budget is a miniscule fraction of the pve budget. Which does make sense, it's Elder Scrolls, a game known for its setting, storytelling, RPG, and single-player experience. It's not really a wargame, even though wars do happen.

I doubt that you can have accurate data. [snip] PVP players left, returned, left again. The problem is not the desire of people to play PvP, even now in the evening, to find a 4x4 fight in 2-3 minutes, but 8x8 for about a minute. People play, just the content and implementation is ***, so not as much as you want and many do it very badly, so badly that it would be better not to do it at all.

And what you wrote about the TES series. hehehe) storytelling always been at the level of tabloid fantasy and cheap. single-player experience? Hello, Actually they also wanted to do the second part of the MMO, there was no technology and then Tod hapend. RPG? Skyrim say good bay to RPG, look on kenshi. Mora still cut and not playble game with out mode. What storytelling, RPG, and single-player experience you talk about?)
I think you just got to know the world of TES to late. I started playing with the second part and for me, TES is a dark fantasy where there is a lot of sex, you can go wherever you want and do whatever you want, seasoned with a not very annoying plot, where you can become a hero, or you can go to the arena. Although there were no arenas in the second part, but that's not the point now.

and ZOSE does not have accurate statistics on how many people want to play pvp if it is well done, Where did you get such data?

I said it was a guess. We can see how many bars of activity there is in cyrodill, how long queues take, and the fact of the matter is that most MMOs are way more PVE focused than PVP focused. Lots of information points in one direction.

As for the series, I don't really have to defend its RPG elements, story, or single-player experience. You can rant about the things you don't like about it, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's been massively successful, and even skyrim is still being played by tens of thousands of people even though it's over a decade old.

[edited to remove quote]

johnJrant

MasterLanz wrote: »

I said it was a guess. We can see how many bars of activity there is in cyrodill, how long queues take, and the fact of the matter is that most MMOs are way more PVE focused than PVP focused. Lots of information points in one direction.

As for the series, I don't really have to defend its RPG elements, story, or single-player experience. You can rant about the things you don't like about it, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's been massively successful, and even skyrim is still being played by tens of thousands of people even though it's over a decade old.

if there is a queue at Cyrodiil, it only means that there are a lot of people playing there. And this means that a lot of people are playing pvp. But we're talking about BG here, not Cyrodiil. And your statement that pvp players should not receive normal budgets is just insulting. I actually pay for the game and all updates as much as the pve players pay, for what reason do you think that pvp players do not deserve a budget allocation? In this case, you need to sell everything completely separately. Scribing separately, pvp updates separately, chapters separately, dungeons separately. Then let's see how the PVE content will really be sold, especially if nothing interesting drop there.
you get data from nothing that there are a lot more players and therefore they need more budget? I can get data from nothing that the new chapter was bought because of scribing and updating BG, and the pve was just an addition.

MasterLanz

johnJrant wrote: »

MasterLanz wrote: »

I said it was a guess. We can see how many bars of activity there is in cyrodill, how long queues take, and the fact of the matter is that most MMOs are way more PVE focused than PVP focused. Lots of information points in one direction.

As for the series, I don't really have to defend its RPG elements, story, or single-player experience. You can rant about the things you don't like about it, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's been massively successful, and even skyrim is still being played by tens of thousands of people even though it's over a decade old.

if there is a queue at Cyrodiil, it only means that there are a lot of people playing there. And this means that a lot of people are playing pvp. But we're talking about BG here, not Cyrodiil. And your statement that pvp players should not receive normal budgets is just insulting. I actually pay for the game and all updates as much as the pve players pay, for what reason do you think that pvp players do not deserve a budget allocation? In this case, you need to sell everything completely separately. Scribing separately, pvp updates separately, chapters separately, dungeons separately. Then let's see how the PVE content will really be sold, especially if nothing interesting drop there.
you get data from nothing that there are a lot more players and therefore they need more budget? I can get data from nothing that the new chapter was bought because of scribing and updating BG, and the pve was just an addition.

I didn't say anything about what PVP players 'should' receive, but it seems pretty obvious to me that PVP doesn't get the same attention PVE does in this game, same as almost every other MMO. You're welcome to disagree with that, but it won't change your situation.

johnJrant

MasterLanz wrote: »

I didn't say anything about what PVP players 'should' receive, but it seems pretty obvious to me that PVP doesn't get the same attention PVE does in this game, same as almost every other MMO. You're welcome to disagree with that, but it won't change your situation.

I didn't see an empty Cyrodiil. I have not seen an empty imperial city. BG, with all the terrible problems, not interesting rewards, still has players. For example, it is obvious to me that you are talking nonsense that is not relevant to reality. pvp has players even though the developers have abandoned this segment. And in this line, we do not doubt whether there are players in pvp, we are trying to find out why so little money was spent on pvp, when more will be spent and we are discussing how to get it out of so deplorable a state. I don't see that your statements are in any way consistent with reality.

Chrisilis

In response to JohnJRant, (forum noob, no quotes for me) re: liking 4v4 death match better, my observation is this. The three lives per round function isn't just a death cap, its a KILL cap. Say you are a total bada*s and you get every kill possible in the match your max kills possible is 24 thus winning two rounds out of three. You will never do better than 24 thus, there is no room for improvement. Admittedly, for any format old or new 24 kills is great but even in 8v8 with no cap the matches are so short now the best I've seen anyone do is 20-22 kills. I've been in matches where ppl have gotten 40-50 and once saw someone hit 70.. Did I enjoy dying ten times? No. But that guy got to play the game of his life. The best I ever did was 26-6 and I hit that right before the update. Before that I'd had a few games where I hit 19 but in general was about in the 5-15 kill per match range. Point is, I was getting better and now what do you think the odds are of ever bettering that score? The new formats limit our ability to improve, to out do ourselves and I think that's one of the things about this that bothers me the most. Downgrade is an understatement. Just an observation.

johnJrant

Chrisilis wrote: »

In response to JohnJRant, (forum noob, no quotes for me) re: liking 4v4 death match better, my observation is this. The three lives per round function isn't just a death cap, its a KILL cap. Say you are a total bada*s and you get every kill possible in the match your max kills possible is 36. You will never do better than 36 thus there is no room for improvement. Admittedly, for any format old or new 36 kills is outstanding but even in 8v8 with no cap the matches are so short now the best I've seen anyone do is 20ish kills. I've been in matches where ppl have gotten 40-50 and once saw someone hit 70.. Did I enjoy dying ten times? No. But that guy got to play the game of his life. The best I ever did was 26-6 and I hit that right before the update. Before that I'd had a few games where I hit 19 but in general was about in the 5-15 kill per match range. Point is, I was getting better and now what do you think the odds are of ever bettering that score? The new formats limit our ability to improve, to out do ourselves and I think that's one of the things about this that bothers me the most. Downgrade is an understatement. Just an observation.

I don't think it's worth focusing on the number of kills, especially personal ones, it depends on the style of play, class and team. For example, I play as a necromancer and at the whim of one of the developers, this class simply cannot inflict more damage under its debuffs than sorka, dk or nb. Considering the same clothes, for example. This does not mean that I have never had a huge number of murders or that I was not in the first place in murders, it means that players who are equal to me for the dc nb grade will be able to inflict more damage, which means they will have a better chance of killing. Can I transfer to sorka? I can. But I am satisfied with the necromancer and I play it and understand that with equal players I will be in third place. At the same time, Sorka and nb next to me will deal 45% more damage when fully charged than they will do without me, not to mention other build tricks that can ensure victory even for three. Therefore, a large number of personal murders does not yet indicate extreme usefulness.
the only thing that really became inconvenient in 4x4 is getting an Paragon achievement, but you can get it in 8x8 on esy.

Sylosi

johnJrant wrote: »

MasterLanz wrote: »

I said it was a guess. We can see how many bars of activity there is in cyrodill, how long queues take, and the fact of the matter is that most MMOs are way more PVE focused than PVP focused. Lots of information points in one direction.

As for the series, I don't really have to defend its RPG elements, story, or single-player experience. You can rant about the things you don't like about it, but it wouldn't change the fact that it's been massively successful, and even skyrim is still being played by tens of thousands of people even though it's over a decade old.

if there is a queue at Cyrodiil, it only means that there are a lot of people playing there. And this means that a lot of people are playing pvp.

No it doesn't.

When this game launched a campaign held about 1800 players and iirc there were 8 or 9 campaigns. Last time I played this game (sometime last year) people were estimating that population cap had been reduced to 180-300 (ish) depending on who you believed. And that is of course also down to only three campaigns, one of which was dead all the time and even Grayhost was only full / near full for 2-3 hours in the evening (on EU PC).

And talking of the last time I played it showed just how few played Cyrodiil. I happened to install on day 30 of the campaign, so I went in to get to tier 1 for the transmute crystals. I played maybe 90 minutes and ended with about 38K AP. I then happened to look at the leaderboard and the somewhat shocking thing was, that I was on it in 235th place. That on day 30 of the most played campaign (Grayhost) there were only 234 people (Or is it even more laughable and it is characters?) on the faction that had played enough to get more than my 38K is absolutely laughable.

The amount of people left playing PvP in this game is minuscule (and has been for some time), which may help clear up for those on the forum who don't seem to grasp that reality, as to why Zenimax have spent so few resources on it over the last few years.

johnJrant

another example. On BG, in a team with me, varden on the hill, and for example, a good dk can be a pve guy with 17k hp and very high damage. In this case, he may become the first in murders. But will he be of any use if the team doesn't give him the perfect chance? No, he will evaporate faster than he can do some damage.

Chrisilis wrote: »

In response to JohnJRant, (forum noob, no quotes for me) re: liking 4v4 death match better, my observation is this. The three lives per round function isn't just a death cap, its a KILL cap. Say you are a total bada*s and you get every kill possible in the match your max kills possible is 24 thus winning two rounds out of three. You will never do better than 24 thus, there is no room for improvement. Admittedly, for any format old or new 24 kills is great but even in 8v8 with no cap the matches are so short now the best I've seen anyone do is 20-22 kills. I've been in matches where ppl have gotten 40-50 and once saw someone hit 70.. Did I enjoy dying ten times? No. But that guy got to play the game of his life. The best I ever did was 26-6 and I hit that right before the update. Before that I'd had a few games where I hit 19 but in general was about in the 5-15 kill per match range. Point is, I was getting better and now what do you think the odds are of ever bettering that score? The new formats limit our ability to improve, to out do ourselves and I think that's one of the things about this that bothers me the most. Downgrade is an understatement. Just an observation.

another example. On BG, in a team with me, warden on the hill, and for example, a good dk can be a pve guy with 17k hp and high damage. In this case, he may become the first in murders. But will he be of any use if the team doesn't give him the perfect chance? No, he will evaporate faster than he can do some damage.

Chrisilis

John, I agree, ones usefulness to ones team isn't measured by kills alone. I always play to win, if that means getting no kills but capturing every flag or using up every drop of magic to heal the chaosball bearer (pet sorc/matriarch heal) I do that because we are a team and all the kills in the world don't matter if you lose. That being said, kill count is a metric a lot of players can get behind and understand when it comes to measuring ones accomplishment in a BG. Insofar as ones contribution to the team in 4v4v4 if your down a teammate it matters, that fourth person was important.. In 8v8 it doesn't really matter if your down a guy, the games outcome will be the same because in that format individual contribution is basically negated.

johnJrant

Chrisilis wrote: »

John, I agree, ones usefulness to ones team isn't measured by kills alone. I always play to win, if that means getting no kills but capturing every flag or using up every drop of magic to heal the chaosball bearer (pet sorc/matriarch heal) I do that because we are a team and all the kills in the world don't matter if you lose. That being said, kill count is a metric a lot of players can get behind and understand when it comes to measuring ones accomplishment in a BG. Insofar as ones contribution to the team in 4v4v4 if your down a teammate it matters, that fourth person was important.. In 8v8 it doesn't really matter if your down a guy, the games outcome will be the same because in that format individual contribution is basically negated.

yes, that's why I don't like 8x8. The strong and evil ones are just trolling there, the strong and brave sooner or later find themselves alone in enemy territory. Weak players cannot get satisfaction from contributing to the victory and do not gain the necessary experience. This mode is really for running, having fun, standing in forms. I don't see the point in such efforts to attract players there to the detriment of rated and more demanding fights.

Thumbless_Bot

Chrisilis wrote: »

John, I agree, ones usefulness to ones team isn't measured by kills alone. I always play to win, if that means getting no kills but capturing every flag or using up every drop of magic to heal the chaosball bearer (pet sorc/matriarch heal) I do that because we are a team and all the kills in the world don't matter if you lose. That being said, kill count is a metric a lot of players can get behind and understand when it comes to measuring ones accomplishment in a BG. Insofar as ones contribution to the team in 4v4v4 if your down a teammate it matters, that fourth person was important.. In 8v8 it doesn't really matter if your down a guy, the games outcome will be the same because in that format individual contribution is basically negated.

KDA for mmr and deciding tied matches, not the only ingredient to medal score. Medal score should include more than it does, but medal score should go back to being meaningless in terms of winning and losing. If you have a high kda you are contributing to the success of your team immeasurably more than by standing on a flag and healing and or holding l2 because, if you've killed the other team, the other team isn't there to stand on the flag. They are dead. This means you get the flag to turn your color and the other team doesn't get the other flag to turn their colors. This logic applies to relic and chaos ball and obviously dm. Anyone and everyone can stand on a flag and heal. If everyone did that the games would all be draws where current broken medal count score would dictate who won and that's terrible or devolve into who could navigate the obstacle course faster..even more terrible. This is not a bg. It's an obstacle course simulator.

KDA equates to success or failure better than any other metric or combination of metrics.

Thumbless_Bot

I just want to add that while I agree there are those out there who get something out of playing broken builds and/or going into an 8v8 and getting 60 kills against people just there for the daily, I don't think most of the sweaties want to do that. I've gone 40-0 mulultiple times in this new format and gotten all 12 kills in dm for my team in both rounds. This would be an epic humblebrag if mmr worked. But, it's meaningless in this new format with mmr not apparently working right. Also, and nore imoortant, this isn't fun, It's boring spawn camping.

Most sweaties want to have fights against very good players and teams to challenge themselves and have a good time. The greatest thing about solo queues is that they dynamic is different every time, and thus the challenge is different every time. This is what makes them so addictive. At least it did before the new format with this new mmr.

johnJrant

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

KDA for mmr and deciding tied matches, not the only ingredient to medal score. Medal score should include more than it does, but medal score should go back to being meaningless in terms of winning and losing. If you have a high kda you are contributing to the success of your team immeasurably more than by standing on a flag and healing and or holding l2 because, if you've killed the other team, the other team isn't there to stand on the flag. They are dead. This means you get the flag to turn your color and the other team doesn't get the other flag to turn their colors. This logic applies to relic and chaos ball and obviously dm. Anyone and everyone can stand on a flag and heal. If everyone did that the games would all be draws where current broken medal count score would dictate who won and that's terrible or devolve into who could navigate the obstacle course faster..even more terrible. This is not a bg. It's an obstacle course simulator.

KDA equates to success or failure better than any other metric or combination of metrics.

Yes, I agree. I did not focus on this. But yes, even at the capture of the flag, it is better to kill another team along the way or on the flag than to stand and be treated. But this is a matter of tactics, it come over time.

Medals just need to be recycled in a new way. They do not take into account the buffs/debuff to all that has already been voiced.

mmr how i understand now calculete with KDA/winlose/playse on top. But somewhere in their formula there is a problem, perhaps it comes from medals that are transferred to the top rating.

johnJrant

Besides, it seems to me that they have conditions. For example, I recently put together a pretty ultimatum build with which it is not difficult for a good team to win. But still, after 5-7 wins, I get thrown 2-3 times into a team that is completely bad. Or everyone has 17-20hp, or they cant hold together or els. It seems to me that there is a condition for distribution to a weaker team with several wins in a row.

Thumbless_Bot

johnJrant wrote: »

Besides, it seems to me that they have conditions. For example, I recently put together a pretty ultimatum build with which it is not difficult for a good team to win. But still, after 5-7 wins, I get thrown 2-3 times into a team that is completely bad. Or everyone has 17-20hp, or they cant hold together or els. It seems to me that there is a condition for distribution to a weaker team with several wins in a row.

I don't know if mmr was reset recently but I think it was. Hopefully zos can minimize the number of times they have to do this reset if this is the case and hopefully they can sort out any issues with mmr and take some of the feedback from the community into that. From what I can gather, it appears that they are actively listening to the forums related to bgs, so there is hope.

johnJrant

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

I don't know if mmr was reset recently but I think it was. Hopefully zos can minimize the number of times they have to do this reset if this is the case and hopefully they can sort out any issues with mmr and take some of the feedback from the community into that. From what I can gather, it appears that they are actively listening to the forums related to bgs, so there is hope.

i see they cut TIMEOUT if you have 3 deaths. but this is so much an elementary thing that it is somehow not clever to say thanks for it. I deposited the money in advance and returned to the game in anticipation of a grand pvp update and nothing good came of it. I think should be more careful with praises in advance.
They still haven't done anything with the ability to stand on spawn for 2 minutes. Who needs to stand there for two minutes and why is completely unclear.