Future of Battlegrounds

Haki_7 · October 9

Two standard 8v8 DM matches in a row, where opponents gave up within 30 seconds, as usual. Same mode, same players. I suppose I should be grateful that at least the map changed.

In the second match there was an enemy that didn't even try to engage. He just waited for us to pass, killed the newcomer in the back and then proceeded to spawncamp that one person. Since the format was not 4v4v4, it was both the BEST and EASIEST move this individual could have made. That's the truth of 8v8. Some claim to like it, but the numbers tell a different story:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 103: Waiting 21 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/KVpES09YBmA

Moonspawn · October 10

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Green was getting spawncamped, so one of their teammates ditched them. It would have been counter productive in 4v4v4, where they would have tried to escape the sandwich together. But this is 8v8, and so people play by 8v8 rules: Orange had some newcomers in need of spawncamping.

The numbers speak for themselves:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 102: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)
https://youtu.be/kVQ6IEyew5s

Deathmatch is one of the few BG modes where spawn camping is productive; especially in the current state. That’s because your team can better control the combat.

Look at your own numbers; Green got spawn camped DESPITE having a healer and DESPITE Orange NOT having any outward healer. .. Further, look at the damage output numbers, only two players on Green surpassed 200k worth of outward damage yet 5 of the Orange team were over 300k.

Sometimes it’s not enough for us to say that one team got spawn camped unless we look at the how or why it happened.

In your own match recap here, if we presumably added a 3rd team of 4 players who’s to say that those players wouldn’t be similar to the Green team in terms of build & mechanics? .. If that were the case then having a 3rd team would result in nothing more than extra players for the Orange team to kill, whichever spawn they chose to camp. As players ran into the combat area Orange would just kill them, just like they did the Greens .. and why is that? It’s because Orange was outputting so much more damage that even though Green had a dedicated healer it didn’t matter.

And to be fair, continuing to use this example, I don’t think it’s correct that the main way that we advocate that the Green team have a chance at a win is to throw an extra team into the mix. That doesn’t do anything to address the mechanics that allowed this to occur in the first place.

Fix the mechanics first, then adjust teams and maps and game modes; otherwise they’ll all still be a mess.

Let us imagine then how fixing the crit meta would affect the third critical flaw. Back to the diagram:
''3. Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

Spawncamping in a 3-sided match meant leaving your teammates outnumbered against the third team. Doing the same thing in 2-sided gives your own team the numerical advantage.

If PvPers on both sides perceive the newfound usefulness of spawncamping, there's a decent chance they'll spend the entire match on opposite ends of the map. Not having to fight each other only makes the practice easier.

It's no longer possible to use one team against another to escape the sandwich.

@NxJoeyD Considering this is a simulation where all 12 players are the same person, with same build, under the exact same circumstances, do you notice how the orange team would be left outnumbered against purple if any of its members decide to spawncamp green?

No, I don’t believe in that scenario that the Orange team would be outnumbered.

Is there any scenario in which 4 players outnumber 3?

Well YOUR, particular, scenarios require one to assume that one of the teams players is going to absolutely run off on their own and spawn camp; leaving their team short.

What I’m saying is that the main motivator for such an action is a player running the crit meta. If you reduce the crit meta (by adding resistances, for example) then those actions go away.

Would they? Just because it would be harder?

Haki_7 · October 10

Could this be another sign of the return of 4v4v4?

I hope it comes soon, so the population can finally start growing.

Moonspawn · October 11

@NxJoeyD I may have found a new way to explain this. Is leaving your teammates outnumbered a reason not to ditch them?

Haki_7 · October 11

Relic weekend going as expected. Is there anyone who likes these things?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you have a scoreboard of a match that wasn't seemingly designed to drive people away?

what do you mean?

Thumbless_Bot · October 11

Haki_7 wrote: »

Relic weekend going as expected. Is there anyone who likes these things?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you have a scoreboard of a match that wasn't seemingly designed to drive people away?

what do you mean?

Relic is 15 minute death match for me. It is literally the only redeeming quality of battlegrounds now, though it is still a lopsided debacle most times.

radiostar · October 11

Between smb throwing the game, Z not being able to get players up at 5 secs or less, and players just not knowing how to play each game, there's no way to win. And Z knows it. It's a disaster.

Moonspawn · October 12

Haki_7 wrote: »

what do you mean?

Scoreboards of ''balanced'' BGs.

Haki_7 · October 12

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

what do you mean?

Scoreboards of ''balanced'' BGs.

That's less than one in a thousand. Have you tried wanting something else?

Most of my matches are like this:

tomofhyrule · October 13

I just realized something:

If ZOS is going to permanently delete one of the teams (thereby making some achievements unobtainable), you think they would at least spend the effort to stop using said team in their promos.
...or, y'know, actually bring back the 3-team weekends like they said they would?

It's things like this that just make the playerbase roll their eyes. Minor, yes, but it completely shows the lack of care and foresight that this game has had in the past year.

Moonspawn · October 13

Haki_7 wrote: »

That's less than one in a thousand. Have you tried wanting something else?

Every moment of every day.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Could this be another sign of the return of 4v4v4?

Another sign?

Haki_7 · October 13

It quickly became clear they wouldn't win, so tank and company sat on the relic getting healed and made us stay there parsing for the full 15 minutes. The very definition of fun itself.

Moonspawn · October 14

Haki_7 wrote: »

It quickly become clear they wouldn't win, so tank and company sat on the relic getting healed and made us stay there parsing for the full 15 minutes. The very definition of fun itself.

At least they didn't give up?

Haki_7 · October 14

Instead of playing by the rules of 8v8 and following the target order all the way to our base, Green 1 stayed with his team and handled it like soldier. Respect.

Haki_7 · October 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

It quickly become clear they wouldn't win, so tank and company sat on the relic getting healed and made us stay there parsing for the full 15 minutes. The very definition of fun itself.

At least they didn't give up?

It might've been better if they had? Unfortunately, these are the kind of insane situations that happen in 8v8.

Moonspawn · October 15

Haki_7 wrote: »

It might've been better if they had? Unfortunately, these are the kind of insane situations that happen in 8v8.

I don't remember ever thinking that it would've been better for my team, or any of the others, to give up in 4v4v4.

Haki_7 · October 17

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't remember ever thinking that it would've been better for my team, or any of the others, to give up in 4v4v4.

Me neither. Not once.
Another example of how the target order never leaves the squishiest players:

Isn't this the complete opposite of what ZOS said they wanted to accomplish with these experimental BGs?

Moonspawn · October 18

Haki_7 wrote: »

Another example of how the target order never leaves the squishiest players:

Green-4 and Green-8, right? They might have been mispositioning too.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Isn't this the complete opposite of what ZOS said they wanted to accomplish with these experimental BGs?

When?

Haki_7 · October 18

Teammates seemed to be doing everything in their power to ensure the lopsided snoozefest would last for as long as humanly possible. I know it wasn't intentional. It's just how the format is designed. Would have been impossible to pull this off in 4v4v4:

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 104: Waiting 20 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/yn87x8CO_ts

Moonspawn · October 19

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't remember ever thinking that it would've been better for my team, or any of the others, to give up in 4v4v4.

Me neither. Not once.

As bad as this phenomenon is 8v8, in 4v4 it's even worse.

Haki_7 · October 20

Healing slows things down enough for everyone to have at least an inkling of the target order. At this point it doesn't matter if the match is balanced or not, it will be terrible either way. Look what happened to Orange 1 and 8. That's the true horror of the first flaw.

And this is the result:
Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 105: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/J36MEP6VChU

Moonspawn · October 20

Haki_7 wrote: »

Healing slows things down enough for everyone to have at least an inkling of the target order. At this point it doesn't matter if the match is balanced or not, it will be terrible either way. Look what happened to Orange 1 and 8. That's the real horror of the first flaw.

Balancing a match like this (with healing and all) would mean the target order for both teams would never move beyond the first two or three players. You've played matches like that, haven't you?

Haki_7 · October 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Healing slows things down enough for everyone to have at least an inkling of the target order. At this point it doesn't matter if the match is balanced or not, it will be terrible either way. Look what happened to Orange 1 and 8. That's the real horror of the first flaw.

Balancing a match like this (with healing and all) would mean the target order for both teams would never move beyond the first two or three players. You've played matches like that, haven't you?

I've played matches where the target order for both teams wouldn't couldn't move beyond a single player. I believe that's when I acquired the insight mentioned in the original post.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 106: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/CFYj4tpBm2A

Haki_7 · October 21

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

what do you mean?

Scoreboards of ''balanced'' BGs.

Untrained eyes might mistakenly interpret the following match as ''balanced'':

Moonspawn · 9:05AM

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

what do you mean?

Scoreboards of ''balanced'' BGs.

Untrained eyes might mistakenly interpret the following match as ''balanced'':

And your interpretation?

Haki_7 · 11:57AM

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

what do you mean?

Scoreboards of ''balanced'' BGs.

Untrained eyes might mistakenly interpret the following match as ''balanced'':

And your interpretation?

Green-8 went to spawncamp the newcomer on my team (Orange-7). If I had chosen to intervene, I would have succeeded in stopping evil, but it would've cost us the match. I was forced into an impossible choice. One that didn't exist in 4v4v4.