What’s wrong with BGs??

Mattymoo92

The old battlegrounds used to actually be fun and engaging, I don’t know how you guys managed this but you’ve made them soooo much worse. Idk who made this silly decision as they are currently completely unbalanced and not well thought out, the maps are tiny and having 2 teams (with a system that doesn’t match make properly) does not work.
I’ve never been more bored WINNING matches, at the moment it’s a PvE farming simulator.

(Edited to sound less mean 😆)

Mattymoo92

@ZOS_Kevin I feel like this issue seriously needs to be flagged before it pushes too many people out of the game

El_Borracho

Because the chances of getting two evenly matched teams is close to zero. To compound that problem, once your team gets behind, there is no real way to get back into into it, so the match devolves into a deathmatch of players quitting. Throw in fun stuff like spawn point camping and the lack of cc immunity, and you have today's BGs.

tsaescishoeshiner

I've enjoyed the new maps a lot more, although I miss some maps like the snowy Wrothgar map and knocking people into lava lol.

Overall, I've found 4v4 to be a lot more rewarding. Some of the 4v4 maps are too small without anti-spawn-camping features, and the deathmatch mode with lives is just sorta silly IMO. Maybe it's competitive, and they do make matches faster, but idk if that's what I want after sitting in queue.

I do miss the wackiness of 4v4v4, and it was nice being able to get second place and still get rewards and a more gradual sense of accomplishment.

I've heard praise for the 8v8 and 4v4 modes, so I wouldn't say it's an issue to be flagged or that it's pushing people out. Seems like some people have liked both modes, but there could be improvement.

Moonspawn

Be sure to ask for the return of 4v4v4 everyday until it happens.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670165/battlegrounds-cycle-of-self-destruction/p1

JustLovely

2 team BG's is just a super horrible design. BG's were infinitely better with 3 teams.

jhall03

I don’t like the new ones. I really miss the old format and maps. They were really good

Pixiepumpkin

Two teams are not the problems, pugs vs premades are.

Most of the teams that are camping you are pvp guilds solo queuing to get into the matches together. This is why if you pay enough attention and play BG's for hours on end for weeks on end you will see the same people in the same groups.

That dude that was on the enemy team with 37 kills, who is now on yours, doing all but nothing, hiding in a corner...ya, he is the one that got put on your side, not his premade side.

I have seen this happen way too many times to be coincidence.

Regardless, 2v2 is not the issue.

Decimus

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

katanagirl1

26 Battleground Tokens in and I still get grouped with what must be mostly PvE players who don’t do the objectives. One BG yesterday the other team had to be a premade group, lots of invisible nightblades and full-court pressure on our relic. I stayed the whole time but others kept leaving and we generally had only four players at any given time. After a while the other team didn’t even take our relic back but just farmed everyone dropping down from spawn. Even without a mic, I could hear them laughing at us. Depressing.

CameraBeardThePirate

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

kurbbie_s

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

The old battlegrounds used to actually be fun and engaging, I don’t know how you guys managed this but you’ve made them soooo much worse. Idk who made this silly decision as they are currently completely unbalanced and not well thought out, the maps are tiny and having 2 teams (with a system that doesn’t match make properly) does not work.
I’ve never been more bored WINNING matches, at the moment it’s a PvE farming simulator.

(Edited to sound less mean 😆)

the maps are way too small for 8v8. Maps are too small in general, you can stand in the middle and reach both sides on almost every map. They need to be scaled larger to force people to spread out.

kurbbie_s

Moonspawn wrote: »

Be sure to ask for the return of 4v4v4 everyday until it happens.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670165/battlegrounds-cycle-of-self-destruction/p1

many of us dont want 4v4v4 again. ID rather have larger maps and a better MMR system that ranks you based on games won/loss

Real simple system is you win, you go up 1 point, you lose, you go down 1 point.
100 points max
each 10 threshold could hold a rank badge.


Real simple implementation to help curb the crushing of noobs that happens very often

Moonspawn

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

Decimus

Moonspawn wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

Oh really? If it's that easy, you should go offer your services to Riot, Blizzard, Valve etc as well. Who would've thought adding a third team makes things better, you should go pitch this idea immediately with your details. It's crazy that no one in those multibillion dollar companies thought of this!


That, or you might want to consider the possibility that you are simply... wrong.

Moonspawn

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

Oh really? If it's that easy, you should go offer your services to Riot, Blizzard, Valve etc as well. Who would've thought adding a third team makes things better, you should go pitch this idea immediately with your details. It's crazy that no one in those multibillion dollar companies thought of this!


That, or you might want to consider the possibility that you are simply... wrong.

I will admit that the land grab modes would require some testing. But chaosball, deathmatch and capt the relic are all fairly straightforward.

cuddles_with_wroble

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

Oh really? If it's that easy, you should go offer your services to Riot, Blizzard, Valve etc as well. Who would've thought adding a third team makes things better, you should go pitch this idea immediately with your details. It's crazy that no one in those multibillion dollar companies thought of this!


That, or you might want to consider the possibility that you are simply... wrong.

I will admit that the land grab modes would require some testing. But chaosball, deathmatch and capt the relic are all fairly straightforward.

If you honestly think chaos ball and relic are well designed and fun game modes than you don’t anything about pvp game modes

We need game modes the promote team coordination and constant fighting, not these rat pve game modes you can win without ever fighting anyone and just throwing your body at the obj

Moonspawn

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

Oh really? If it's that easy, you should go offer your services to Riot, Blizzard, Valve etc as well. Who would've thought adding a third team makes things better, you should go pitch this idea immediately with your details. It's crazy that no one in those multibillion dollar companies thought of this!


That, or you might want to consider the possibility that you are simply... wrong.

I will admit that the land grab modes would require some testing. But chaosball, deathmatch and capt the relic are all fairly straightforward.

If you honestly think chaos ball and relic are well designed and fun game modes than you don’t anything about pvp game modes

We need game modes the promote team coordination and constant fighting, not these rat pve game modes you can win without ever fighting anyone and just throwing your body at the obj

All of the objective modes had game-breaking problems. My point is that fixing them wasn't impossible.

kurbbie_s

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

Oh really? If it's that easy, you should go offer your services to Riot, Blizzard, Valve etc as well. Who would've thought adding a third team makes things better, you should go pitch this idea immediately with your details. It's crazy that no one in those multibillion dollar companies thought of this!


That, or you might want to consider the possibility that you are simply... wrong.

I will admit that the land grab modes would require some testing. But chaosball, deathmatch and capt the relic are all fairly straightforward.

If you honestly think chaos ball and relic are well designed and fun game modes than you don’t anything about pvp game modes

We need game modes the promote team coordination and constant fighting, not these rat pve game modes you can win without ever fighting anyone and just throwing your body at the obj

lol capture the relic is capture the flag, a staple gametype in many competitive games. I think it might be you who doesnt understand what pvp gameplay is. Its not just deathmatch.
I agree though, Chaos ball is pretty lame. If there was only 1 ball thatd be fine.

Domination is literally domination from COD and crazy king from halo.

We need a king of the hill game type. Not one where theres multiple hills, but 1 hill that moves in a rotation, or a kill the vip.

Desiato

Maybe I'm wrong because I don't play as many games as I used to, but 3 teams seems oddball to me and has never produced a satisfying result.

There are a few fundamental issues in bgs -- in addition to many other minor issues
- the players: too many pve players who do not have a legitimate interest in pvp. they are there for the rewards and will turtle or leave if things don't go their way
- the hideous balance and long interval between updates; this issue never gets solved because combat changes are made with pve casuals in mind, first and foremost
- the poor implementation of game modes, especially ctf
- eso may be one of the most casual pve mmos in gaming which generally isn't appealing to fans of pvp games; they aren't going to spend hundreds of hours prepping an account for a bad, poorly supported pvp experience.

So for eso pvp to be successful:
- there needs to be a division between pve and pvp both in terms of gameplay and rewards
- eso pvp needs to be more accessible to pvp enthusiasts outside of eso
- eso pvp needs dedicated devs that can recognize and correct important issues quickly; it's so frustrating when an OP build emerges in eso pvp because experienced players recognize it may take zos years to correct it

Of course these things will never happen. So BGs will continue to be a niche mode primarily for pve players looking for cosmetics or to complete collections.

Orbital78

There isn't a functional MMR system anymore, making it not fun for casuals. Casuals stop queueing, queues fail to fill, rinse repeat. I haven't touched a BG in months, even with the bonuses. It just isn't balanced or fun at all for me, not to mention the toxicity. Two teams was an improvement but they need to fix the MMR, I shouldn't be put up against top end PVP players when I barely PVP.

CameraBeardThePirate

Moonspawn wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

What's wrong with BGs? A lot of things:

1. Lack of a proper matchmaking system, visual MMR ladder with ranks etc. No, the entirely medal score based 4v4 leaderboards isn't what we're looking for.
2. Faulty map design: spawns are way too close to objectives, so getting kills doesn't feel rewarding enough and very often you just have entire enemy teams spawn on top of you if you're fighting for an objective close to enemy base.
3. Lack of map variety - we're down to four 8v8 maps compared to the 8 (10 if you count the cut off deathmatch/chaosball versions of Istirus Outpost and Eld Angavar) 3-way maps we used to have. 4v4s have only three maps available for them.
4. Faulty formats on some game modes - I believe that even with proper MMR, 4v4 deathmatch would simply not be fun when games are decided by which team gets the better team composition (i.e. more crossheals/buff sets). WoW solved this by shuffling teams between rounds in their 3v3 Arenas.

As you can see, many issues exist... the team vs team format however isn't one of them and breathed a lot of life into battlegrounds.


I believe some people have a very selective memory when it comes to this topic and quickly forget that all of the issues with unbalanced teams etc also existed in 3-way BGs as well, but there were a dozen other unfixable issues introduced by the mere existence of a 3rd team - there is a very good reason why every successful, competitive game out there has a team vs team format for their PvP: from other MMOs like WoW to shooters like Counter-Strike, Valorant to MOBAs like DOTA or League... 3 teams simply doesn't work for competitive PvP.

Agreed with everything said here.

The biggest issue with two teams is the imbalance factor. That could be chalked up to poor population size, bad matchmaking (your rank is literally determined by # of games played, not skill), and bad map design that exacerbates issues of spawn camping.

That does NOT mean that 4v4v4 didn't have issues. The biggest issue with 4v4v4 was much more systemic; i.e., 3 teams actively discouraged combat in every gamemode other than Deathmatch and Chaosball, since if you took any time at all to engage with one team, the third team would take the time to cap all the other resources. It was a hot mess.

8v8, on average, is much more fun in terms of objective based PvP than 4v4v4 ever was, but the two team system and rushed implementation of entirely new maps and MMR introduced its own litany of issues.

It wasn't impossible to fix the objective modes of 4v4v4. If it's ever returned to us I'll make a thread with details. I suspect there is a simple way to save even the land grab modes.

"Fix" might be a strong word, but you're right in that ZOS could've relatively easily changed the modes to make them more conducive to a 3 team format. I wouldn't say "fix", but certainly better than they were.

The crux of the problem was that there were too many places to go - in the flag modes, there was always going to be an unguarded objective. With CTR, you were always either in a constant stalemate or the match was over in 5 seconds because it was almost necessary to have your full team attacking to break through a tank, which meant that there would always be an unguarded relic for some max speed troll to run in and grab as soon as people looked the other way.

Make the flag modes have only 1 or 2 flags, and suddenly people are forced to fight to win because there will rarely be an unguarded objective. CTR needed a complete overhaul because 3 relics just doesn't work.

Chaosball worked fine for the most part (although I still think there should be a heavy snare on the ball), and Crazy King was okay at the beginning of the match when there were only 1 or 2 flags (and even better on the smaller maps that funneled everyone into one area).

Urzigurumash

When the stars aligned and you got 12 players who wanted to win an old 3 team 1 ball Chaosball without cheesing, it was the best PvP in this game.

Billions of 1 ball sports fans would probably agree.

But for todays 4v4s, we really need a strict MMR. It's hard to assess them when most of the matches are potato farming.

edited to add bolded segment

gc0018

Old BG mostly turn into a 2-sides BG after 1-3 mins, the weakest team will either massively quit or hunt by two stronger teams. It changes nothing.

The problem is game matching, most the BGs turn into massacre rather than fighting. It is common for 1 fight all the teammates has 18,000-25,000 health and another fight every teammate has >30000 health. Without enough players, that's what you get.

Urzigurumash

gc0018 wrote: »

Old BG mostly turn into a 2-sides BG after 1-3 mins, the weakest team will either massively quit or hunt by two stronger teams. It changes nothing.

The problem is game matching, most the BGs turn into massacre rather than fighting. It is common for 1 fight all the teammates has 18,000-25,000 health and another fight every teammate has >30000 health. Without enough players, that's what you get.

What about making the 4v4 MMR very strict - which means long wait times - but letting us queue up and enter them WHILE we are doing 8v8s.

8v8 can be the No MMR, Quick Queue mode, but you can play them while you wait for your 4v4.

Remember in the first years of BGs the MMR was very strict and the queue took ages sometimes. And also we had to hit accept 100 times, which was why they started messing with the queue in the first place iirc.

fizzylu

Mattymoo92 wrote: »

I’ve never been more bored WINNING matches,

That's exactly how I felt when I last tried to give the new BGs a chance. I don't even attempt to bother with them anymore, and I barely play the game now despite not actively playing another MMO currently (and usually I'm always playing at least one MMO regularly).

xylena_lazarow

What's wrong?

1) MMR resets

2) 4v4 is broken and too volatile to begin with

3) 8v8 is actually decent and should be listed first

fizzylu

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

3) 8v8 is actually decent and should be listed first

4v4 or 8v8, they're both terribly boring but I do agree that it'd make more sense for them to be listed first as the "casual" option.

And a small update for my first reply here: I played a BG for the first time in months because of the golden pursuit.... and yeah, it's so dull. At some point I even noticed that I had slumped down in my PC chair. That never happened with 4v4v4, I was always focused and in "the zone". Crazy to say, but I think even ToT is more entertaining at this point—and if you would have asked me before, I would have basically had nothing good to say about ToT.

ChaoticWings3

I tried out the bgs every now and then and it tends to boil down to you being on the winning team and steam rolling the other team or your on the losing team and you lose pretty badly. Balance of skill defiantly feels a bit lopsided because of the lack a third team to balance out objectives. I'm also not a fan of the lives system for deathmatch in 4v4 bgs. Essentially if your team can get 2 players eliminated from the round you will usually win the round. I think it was designed so an inexperienced player wouldn't feed the opposite team and cause friction that way but it kind of feels like whichever team can find the weakest link of the team first and focus on them whenever they see them. I don't know, just doesn't excite me anymore. I preferred it when I had unlimited lives so I could at least figure out what I was doing wrong over time. Half the time I have to be the healer of the team.

The 8v8 is a bit too chaotic at times with a ton of cross healing going on so some opponents feel invincible at times. It kind of feels like a keep raid where both sides are evenly match with all the positives and negatives that come with that. Its better then the 4v4 but I would rather just group up with others in Cyrodill for faster AP if I wanted to have that experience.

Mattymoo92

And once again no one at Zos acknowledges the problem 🥹

barney2525

never did a battleground until this set of endeavors ( too early to think of the correct word). The ones I was on the winning side were fun. The ones I was on the losing side were fun. But after the first one, so I could get the mansion, I found them to definitely be a fun change of pace just to relax. And I actually prefer the 8 v 8.

But that's just me