How to make battlegrounds succeed

Thogard · November 2017

ecru wrote: »

Thogard wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

something else i forgot to mention about "matchmaking" with three teams is that assuming perfect matchmaking (which is impossible with three teams, but let's just pretend it is), you would still lose two thirds of your games.

lose-lose-win.

lose-lose-lose-win-lose-lose-win-lose-win. sound fun?

even the best players would be lucky to see a 40-45% win rate and a consistent win rate that high with three teams would give you a very very high ELO, meaning that if you were somehow good enough to come close to winning almost half of your games, every game would be stacked against you. your teammates would be awful, and your opponents would be very good. on to of that, some players would dip down to sub 30, possibly sub 25%. nobody likes to lose that much.

I’m at a 60% win rate so I don’t know about your numbers there.. but I aggressively play objectives and queue with partial or full premades at least 50% of the time

right, you're at 60% because there's no matchmaking. my post was suggesting what would happen if there was working matchmaking.

Ah ok I see what you’re saying now.

But how would you deal with the teams that are really strong but don’t play objectives? Right now then strongest 4man on PC NA intentionally ignores objectives and treats every match as a DM - how would they get ranked?

DosPanchos · November 2017

Right on. ZOS, make it happen.

Cinbri · November 2017

Agree on all points.
Make it part of base game. I personally paid for Vvardenfell zone, bgs were just a cherry on this pie.
And return it to no-cp ofc. I probably met 10 new people who started to play it coz cp-enabled, rest an majority still don't play it coz there is no rating system that reward something usefull.

leeux · November 2017

ecru wrote: »

<snip>

leeux wrote: »

What would make *me* want to do Battlegrounds:

* Change the matches to be just 4v4 (the three way fights are stupid in any "competitive" system, to say the least.)

i'm guessing you've never pvp'd in another mmorpg? the smaller matches are, the more easily they are imbalanced by a strong team, or a strong healer on one team.

4v4 would only ever be suited for a premade-only, ranked mode. 8v8 is the absolute minimum zos should be looking at for normal bg's.

True, good point... granted. ((And yes, you're right... I never even played another MMO period... this game is my first one.))

In that case, I'd leave the 4v4 mode only as either an introductory/casual mode for those that want to do some quick fighting or test something quickly, not ranked in that case, OR a leaderboard only mode but ONLY for premade groups. Maybe even both and be selectable at the start... with the leaderboard option only enabled when you're in a group.

In any case, I get you and understand what you're saying, even then I still think the 4v4 mode (and even 4v4v4 should still be possible to select after the changes... is not hard to make everything adapt, as long as the ranked system's rules are clear enough and leaderboard is separated for each different mode where it makes sense) should be there for people that like it... but that's just my opinion, of course.