Two-Team battlegrounds were a mistake

ketsparrowhawk · July 3

Two team battlegrounds were a mistake. Please bring back 4v4v4 permanently. Thank you.

Syiccal · July 3

100% nearly game match ends with players refusing to come down and fight..I've done it myself just out of frustration and almost protest that it's ridiculous. As soon as your team is pinned in your dead before even hitting the ground in a lot of occasion's. Further if you have bots on your team heavy attacking or sniping from the top and refuse to come down it's a guaranteed loss as well.

Major_Mangle · July 3

The concept of two teams in ESO is fine, but the problem is that the modern PvP population are made up of mostly "PvP tourists" that isn´t interested in actual PvP. Hell, you even have threads on the forum complaining that they actually have to PvP to get PvP rewards (and want to get the daily exp bonus for just participating). If you had introduced a two team system during patches like Elsweyr/Blackwood etc it would´ve worked fine because the amount of actual PvP players were at a healthy level.

reazea · July 3

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Two team battlegrounds were a mistake. Please bring back 4v4v4 permanently. Thank you.

They sure were. They took away a third team, and made the maps practically microscopic. I stopped playing BG's after just a few 2 team BG's. They 2 team format doesn't work. It's not dynamic enough.

Goldie · July 3

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Two team battlegrounds were a mistake. Please bring back 4v4v4 permanently. Thank you.

I think this ties back into how Zenimax and ESO have reinvented game systems over and over instead of improving on what they had in the first place. This has been repeated with nearly every system in the game. It started with Veteran Levels becoming Champion Points and the same practice has been used in numerous areas from PvP to Overland.

The folks in charge think that they need to re-invent the wheel, instead of just putting new tires on the wheels we already have.

ketsparrowhawk · July 3

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The concept of two teams in ESO is fine, but the problem is that the modern PvP population are made up of mostly "PvP tourists" that isn´t interested in actual PvP. Hell, you even have threads on the forum complaining that they actually have to PvP to get PvP rewards (and want to get the daily exp bonus for just participating). If you had introduced a two team system during patches like Elsweyr/Blackwood etc it would´ve worked fine because the amount of actual PvP players were at a healthy level.

Those PvP tourists have always been here. It was just much easier to deal with when there were 3 teams due to the "enemy of my enemy" dynamic. I can recall many times when I had 3 complete duds on my team but I was still able to have a good time by playing smart. Not really a possibility with 2 teams. If you have bad teammates now you're just SOL.

Tonturri · July 4

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The concept of two teams in ESO is fine, but the problem is that the modern PvP population are made up of mostly "PvP tourists" that isn´t interested in actual PvP. Hell, you even have threads on the forum complaining that they actually have to PvP to get PvP rewards (and want to get the daily exp bonus for just participating). If you had introduced a two team system during patches like Elsweyr/Blackwood etc it would´ve worked fine because the amount of actual PvP players were at a healthy level.

Those PvP tourists have always been here. It was just much easier to deal with when there were 3 teams due to the "enemy of my enemy" dynamic. I can recall many times when I had 3 complete duds on my team but I was still able to have a good time by playing smart. Not really a possibility with 2 teams. If you have bad teammates now you're just SOL.

+1 to this. Losing when there's two teams feels like a pointless struggle against the inevitable. I did 3 BGs today and lost all three (still think the frickn daily random reward should be given just after 2 bgs or something, battlegrounds can be 'failed' while the random dungeon reward is *really* hard to 'fail'). I don't mind losing but it's so much harder to get a good fight - I just got mobbed every time I came out of spawn and there was no way to get around it.

Luneca · July 5

Tonturri wrote: »

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The concept of two teams in ESO is fine, but the problem is that the modern PvP population are made up of mostly "PvP tourists" that isn´t interested in actual PvP. Hell, you even have threads on the forum complaining that they actually have to PvP to get PvP rewards (and want to get the daily exp bonus for just participating). If you had introduced a two team system during patches like Elsweyr/Blackwood etc it would´ve worked fine because the amount of actual PvP players were at a healthy level.

Those PvP tourists have always been here. It was just much easier to deal with when there were 3 teams due to the "enemy of my enemy" dynamic. I can recall many times when I had 3 complete duds on my team but I was still able to have a good time by playing smart. Not really a possibility with 2 teams. If you have bad teammates now you're just SOL.

+1 to this. Losing when there's two teams feels like a pointless struggle against the inevitable. I did 3 BGs today and lost all three (still think the frickn daily random reward should be given just after 2 bgs or something, battlegrounds can be 'failed' while the random dungeon reward is *really* hard to 'fail'). I don't mind losing but it's so much harder to get a good fight - I just got mobbed every time I came out of spawn and there was no way to get around it.

With how difficult it is to even get into a BG, the amount of cheese there is at lower level BGs, etc. they should remove the victory requirement because it actually does more harm than good.

Add into that how unbalanced the relative power between builds are, and even classes themselves, and you have an experience that is possible to be one-sided the entire time you are participating.

And just like what was said about Vengeance, players play games to have an effect on the world and the overall outcome of the system they are participating in. When you enter a BG and nothing you do matters, and you see that repeatedly, why would you keep participating?

The reward of maybe getting a rare style isn't really enough. The exp stopped mattering a long time ago. And AP can be found elsewhere. What's the point?

I also fail to understand how guaranteeing at least the EXP portion after completing a BG would be detrimental. We're playing a game, not competing in real life. Yet the consequences follow, in that if you lose, you gain nothing and lose the opportunity with time to have gained more.

The system does not have to be setup like this. ZOS controls it, and someone continues to think it is a good idea to push engagement. But it's ultimately deterimental to the game and we see it with engagement waning at every space in PvE and PvP where it's possible to lose (and lose time). We even saw it with the Night Market.

One would think with the "new direction" some are glazing about things would be better and ZOS would address and improve QoL and player experience, since we aren't getting much content. And it seems that isn't the case and they continue to ignore a significant amount of issues that are piling up like snow on a leaning tree.

And of course there will be someone to argue otherwise because it's a forum. And many of the people on the forums like to argue and push bait. But even if they do, they know everything posted is true.

ketsparrowhawk · July 5

Luneca wrote: »

Tonturri wrote: »

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

The concept of two teams in ESO is fine, but the problem is that the modern PvP population are made up of mostly "PvP tourists" that isn´t interested in actual PvP. Hell, you even have threads on the forum complaining that they actually have to PvP to get PvP rewards (and want to get the daily exp bonus for just participating). If you had introduced a two team system during patches like Elsweyr/Blackwood etc it would´ve worked fine because the amount of actual PvP players were at a healthy level.

Those PvP tourists have always been here. It was just much easier to deal with when there were 3 teams due to the "enemy of my enemy" dynamic. I can recall many times when I had 3 complete duds on my team but I was still able to have a good time by playing smart. Not really a possibility with 2 teams. If you have bad teammates now you're just SOL.

+1 to this. Losing when there's two teams feels like a pointless struggle against the inevitable. I did 3 BGs today and lost all three (still think the frickn daily random reward should be given just after 2 bgs or something, battlegrounds can be 'failed' while the random dungeon reward is *really* hard to 'fail'). I don't mind losing but it's so much harder to get a good fight - I just got mobbed every time I came out of spawn and there was no way to get around it.

With how difficult it is to even get into a BG, the amount of cheese there is at lower level BGs, etc. they should remove the victory requirement because it actually does more harm than good.

Add into that how unbalanced the relative power between builds are, and even classes themselves, and you have an experience that is possible to be one-sided the entire time you are participating.

And just like what was said about Vengeance, players play games to have an effect on the world and the overall outcome of the system they are participating in. When you enter a BG and nothing you do matters, and you see that repeatedly, why would you keep participating?

The reward of maybe getting a rare style isn't really enough. The exp stopped mattering a long time ago. And AP can be found elsewhere. What's the point?

I also fail to understand how guaranteeing at least the EXP portion after completing a BG would be detrimental. We're playing a game, not competing in real life. Yet the consequences follow, in that if you lose, you gain nothing and lose the opportunity with time to have gained more.

The system does not have to be setup like this. ZOS controls it, and someone continues to think it is a good idea to push engagement. But it's ultimately deterimental to the game and we see it with engagement waning at every space in PvE and PvP where it's possible to lose (and lose time). We even saw it with the Night Market.

One would think with the "new direction" some are glazing about things would be better and ZOS would address and improve QoL and player experience, since we aren't getting much content. And it seems that isn't the case and they continue to ignore a significant amount of issues that are piling up like snow on a leaning tree.

And of course there will be someone to argue otherwise because it's a forum. And many of the people on the forums like to argue and push bait. But even if they do, they know everything posted is true.

Please make a new thread for whatever this is. We are discussing the validity of 2-team vs 3-team battlegrounds in this thread.

ketsparrowhawk · July 24

Loving the three-team Crazy King event. I sure have missed my favorite game mode: 3-team Battlegrounds. Almost hard to enjoy it knowing that 2-team will be back next week (a far, far inferior version of Battlegrounds). My once-active BG-focused guild is active once more, for a week at least, until 3-team BG's are taken away again. Then they'll go back to Palworld or w/e.

Best thing about 3-teams imo is that you are not punished nearly as harshly for having a weak team. Most matches you can have a good time and be successful by playing smart, regardless of your team comp. Several times during this event I've had 3 bad teammates (10+ deaths each) but I still managed to have a blast because there are TWO other teams which means I'm not getting focused the whole time. In 2-team BG's, getting a weak team means it's time to go AFK because there is simply nothing you can do.

Please consider bringing back 3-team Battlegrounds permanently. If you don't want to waste the effort put into the 2-team format, make THOSE the temporary events alongside permanent 3-team Battlegrounds. Have a nice day.

Eteson24 · July 25

3 team is wayyyy better.

This is my first time being able to try 3 team (started playing ESO last year) and the difference is night and day.

Matchmaking seems to be quicker, the fights are more spread out, and it's not just one team spawn camping the other.

I'd be very surprised if ESO went back to 2 team BGs.

LPapirius · July 26

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Two team battlegrounds were a mistake. Please bring back 4v4v4 permanently. Thank you.

But ZOS doesn't make mistakes. *cough* jabs animation

I've played two team BG's 5 times and will never again, just like with vengeance. Never again.

If ZOS can't listen to feedback any better than they do then they deserve to lose the customers.

ketsparrowhawk · July 27

Spent a solid 10 hours playiing 3-team Battlegrounds yesterday with my friends. Last night we had a conversation about how we used to have long BG sessions like that all the time. But since 2-teams were implemented the frustration ends up outweighing the fun after just a few games, then we go do something else. I wonder if there is any data gathering going on and if that is the story ZOS sees on their end? @ZOS_Kevin

ZOS_Kevin · July 27

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Spent a solid 10 hours playiing 3-team Battlegrounds yesterday with my friends. Last night we had a conversation about how we used to have long BG sessions like that all the time. But since 2-teams were implemented the frustration ends up outweighing the fun after just a few games, then we go do something else. I wonder if there is any data gathering going on and if that is the story ZOS sees on their end? @ZOS_Kevin

We will ask the team for the data they are seeing. There are plans to bring 3-team battlegrounds back beyond a weekend capacity. But we'll share that once we have all of the info. Plans are in the works. (Tune into next week's PTS patch notes

)

i11ionward · July 27

I totally get you, lately I only log into ESO for the 3-team Battlegrounds event.

By the way, does anyone know when the next 3-team event is? I remember seeing something about a 3-team Deathmatch in August, but I can't find the exact dates now.

Syiccal · July 27

Having had the chance to play all maps and modes over the years 2 team was definitely a mistake..and having 3 team back solidified that for me..no more do I see players sitting in spawn afk because the teams are so lop sided that the match is boring and I feel like I can actually que back to back to back without getting bored like I do in 2 team.

ketsparrowhawk · July 27

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Spent a solid 10 hours playiing 3-team Battlegrounds yesterday with my friends. Last night we had a conversation about how we used to have long BG sessions like that all the time. But since 2-teams were implemented the frustration ends up outweighing the fun after just a few games, then we go do something else. I wonder if there is any data gathering going on and if that is the story ZOS sees on their end? @ZOS_Kevin

We will ask the team for the data they are seeing. There are plans to bring 3-team battlegrounds back beyond a weekend capacity. But we'll share that once we have all of the info. Plans are in the works. (Tune into next week's PTS patch notes )

This is amazing news. My discord is flipping out right now lol. Thanks for the response!!

CameraBeardThePirate · July 27

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Spent a solid 10 hours playiing 3-team Battlegrounds yesterday with my friends. Last night we had a conversation about how we used to have long BG sessions like that all the time. But since 2-teams were implemented the frustration ends up outweighing the fun after just a few games, then we go do something else. I wonder if there is any data gathering going on and if that is the story ZOS sees on their end? @ZOS_Kevin

We will ask the team for the data they are seeing. There are plans to bring 3-team battlegrounds back beyond a weekend capacity. But we'll share that once we have all of the info. Plans are in the works. (Tune into next week's PTS patch notes )

PRAISE MANNIMARCO

alakeyfox · July 27

The only upside to the 4v4v4 is that 2 teams win, that's it. Other than that it's not fun whatsoever in the current state of the game, because all you get is triple the amount of WWs, DKs and sorcs. Nearly every game I played was 2 teams fighting amongst each other while the 3rd was struggling to get anything done at all. All because the real issue is not the mode, the issue is that there's no semblance of balance in PvP at all.

danwtayl · July 27

Two-Team battlegrounds are fine. It's the implementation that is problematic. I believe the 8v8 on maps with small spawn areas leads to times one team runs over the other (more often than not). Spawns need to be more random to prevent this. Personally, I do not care for teams larger than 4. I have a lot more fun with 4v4s. I'd love to see 2v2 and 3v3 matches. Don't get me wrong, 4v4v4 are a lot of fun too.

Also get pull sets and VD out of there. These were created for zerg busting. Zergs don't exist in BGs.

ketsparrowhawk · July 27

alakeyfox wrote: »

The only upside to the 4v4v4 is that 2 teams win, that's it. Other than that it's not fun whatsoever in the current state of the game, because all you get is triple the amount of WWs, DKs and sorcs. Nearly every game I played was 2 teams fighting amongst each other while the 3rd was struggling to get anything done at all. All because the real issue is not the mode, the issue is that there's no semblance of balance in PvP at all.

There are a lot more upsides to 3-teams than that. Read through this thread for examples.

ruskiii · July 27

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Spent a solid 10 hours playiing 3-team Battlegrounds yesterday with my friends. Last night we had a conversation about how we used to have long BG sessions like that all the time. But since 2-teams were implemented the frustration ends up outweighing the fun after just a few games, then we go do something else. I wonder if there is any data gathering going on and if that is the story ZOS sees on their end? @ZOS_Kevin

We will ask the team for the data they are seeing. There are plans to bring 3-team battlegrounds back beyond a weekend capacity. But we'll share that once we have all of the info. Plans are in the works. (Tune into next week's PTS patch notes )

Oh damn, definitely thought we'd be waiting till after the mini cyro map before we got news on this! Huge!

Ratzkifal · July 27

@ZOS_Kevin I wouldn't say that 3-team BGs are better than 2-team BGs all the time in all cases. It's more so that 2-team Battlegrounds need lots of improvements still, but I think they have the greater potential.

8v8 suffers from matches often being far too one-sided. Comeback potential is small and that is in large part due to how the gamemodes are implemented. Chaosball for example pretty much always results in one team grabbing the chaosballs and then standing under their own spawn with them. That way the team with the chaosballs also has the advantage of shorter distances to where the action is. Often enough this results in an early lead which can be difficult to overcome even if the other teams has the better fighters.
Ideally Chaosball should function like a deathmatch, where kills only count if the ball carrier was involved in the kill - that way the gamemode would promote actual PvP instead of boring turtle tactics. It's a similar story with capture points - turtle tactics and almost no potential for comebacks.
In Capture the Relic the relic spawn and respawn points are also too close together, which makes it incredibly easy to respawn, run in, bash the person trying to capture the relic, get blown up, repeat. Kills near the enemy relic spawn feel mostly pointless unless you manage to wipe their team because everyone back almost immediately.
Spawn camping in 8v8 is also a big issue, which could be alleviated if there were multiple spawn exits that are difficult for the enemy team to cover all at once, but easy for the respawning team to switch between. A star-shaped spawn for example.
And then there are the powerups too. Why not add powerups closer to respawn? Maybe even inside the spawn and give the losing team more powerups?

In summary, while comebacks are happening about as rarely in 4v4v4 as in 8v8, the existence of the third team makes them feel more possible in 3-team BGs. But I think if we improved on 8v8 more, they would be more fun than the 4v4v4s.

IviRo · July 27

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

ketsparrowhawk wrote: »

Spent a solid 10 hours playiing 3-team Battlegrounds yesterday with my friends. Last night we had a conversation about how we used to have long BG sessions like that all the time. But since 2-teams were implemented the frustration ends up outweighing the fun after just a few games, then we go do something else. I wonder if there is any data gathering going on and if that is the story ZOS sees on their end? @ZOS_Kevin

We will ask the team for the data they are seeing. There are plans to bring 3-team battlegrounds back beyond a weekend capacity. But we'll share that once we have all of the info. Plans are in the works. (Tune into next week's PTS patch notes )

Hi there. Kevin, is there any information on when we might get the new roadmap or if there will be a presentation? (It would be great if you could hold a big presentation at QuakeCon, like you did in 2014.)

LunaFlora · July 27

i like 2 team Battlegrounds more.
- easier to focus on one enemy team compared to two.
- everyone gets rewards, winner simply gets more.
- the new maps are pretty, i do wish we also had the old maps.
- 8 versus 8 is fun to me, especially in the bigger maps

thesarahandcompany · July 27

Syiccal wrote: »

100% nearly game match ends with players refusing to come down and fight..I've done it myself just out of frustration and almost protest that it's ridiculous. As soon as your team is pinned in your dead before even hitting the ground in a lot of occasion's. Further if you have bots on your team heavy attacking or sniping from the top and refuse to come down it's a guaranteed loss as well.

That's not a flaw of two team BGs, that's a flaw of map design.

Techwolf_Lupindo · July 27

Not only that of what was said above, but ZOS just refuse to address the elephant in the room. Deathmaters in non-deathmatch rounds. Give deathmatchers there own que and let all of us that like to have fun non-deathmatch random match type que.

NovelliESO · July 27

Bring back 4v4v4 but please actually keep a 4v4 system around, just force people to respawn and out of spawn faster, and make a real ladder system so people feel accomplished, and only display the top 25-50 people so lower level players don't feel discourage if they are publicly posted at number 4,685 or whatever.

ketsparrowhawk · July 27

danwtayl wrote: »

Two-Team battlegrounds are fine. It's the implementation that is problematic. I believe the 8v8 on maps with small spawn areas leads to times one team runs over the other (more often than not). Spawns need to be more random to prevent this. Personally, I do not care for teams larger than 4. I have a lot more fun with 4v4s. I'd love to see 2v2 and 3v3 matches. Don't get me wrong, 4v4v4 are a lot of fun too.

Also get pull sets and VD out of there. These were created for zerg busting. Zergs don't exist in BGs.

Without a more robust matchmaking system 2-teams will almost always be a one sided steamroll. The outcome of the match is determined within 30 seconds and the losing team just stops jumping out of spawn.

Techwolf_Lupindo wrote: »

Not only that of what was said above, but ZOS just refuse to address the elephant in the room. Deathmaters in non-deathmatch rounds. Give deathmatchers there own que and let all of us that like to have fun non-deathmatch random match type que.

Absolutely agree. There is a divide amongst the BG community that did not exist before the random-only queue. Both camps of players continuously frustrated with each other

CameraBeardThePirate · July 27

@ZOS_Kevin

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Syiccal wrote: »

100% nearly game match ends with players refusing to come down and fight..I've done it myself just out of frustration and almost protest that it's ridiculous. As soon as your team is pinned in your dead before even hitting the ground in a lot of occasion's. Further if you have bots on your team heavy attacking or sniping from the top and refuse to come down it's a guaranteed loss as well.

That's not a flaw of two team BGs, that's a flaw of map design.

Big true.

The reality is both modes have flaws that, while it would take quite a bit of effort to fully fix them, could be substantially mitigated with a few simple changes.

3 team BGs discourage PvP in the objective modes. Too many objectives on the map means you should always avoid fighting and aim for the unguarded objective if you want to win.

2 team BGs encourage spawn camping with poor map design. Spawns lead directly into a killbox on just about every map. Spawns should function as an island, not a corridor, with multiple exits and/or teleport pads so that your team can push out elsewhere (think the Ayleid map in the 3 team BGs).

Both issues could be mitigated with relatively small changes (reducing the amount or location of objectives, slight changes to map spawns to discourage funneling into a killbox).

Kiash · July 29

I jumped into Battlegrounds again for the first time since I've been back this past weekend. Had a blast playing 4v4v4 Crazy King. Started making entire builds around having fun in it for some of my characters. Right as I start getting the hang of it and really enjoying it...Poof. Not only that, the rewards suck compared to the 3 team version. What's the point?

How absolutely sad. Back to PvE dailies till it rotates back in I guess. I'm also glad they are considering bringing it back full time too, don't misunderstand this as a complaint.