Skoomah wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

It’s very simple ZOS. Give us 3 options.

Solo Random
Group Random
Group Deathmatch

This way, Deathmatch players have a place to go and objective players are completely unaffected. Let the market dictate what does and doesn’t get enough play.

Perfect with one slight edit:

Solo Random (daily bonus eligible)
Group Random
Group Deathmatch

Drive casual people just dropping in toward the solo random mode to help populate it, and give them a lower likelihood of getting shredded by dedicated Deathmatch players.

Unless the DM queue was completely separated from the random queue then the suggestion would skew matches to DM as the other queues would essentially fill the DM matches for when players request it.

Dude, what is your problem... seriously? Then just remove DM as an option for the first two options then.

Deathmatch players want nothing to do with Objective players.

You can't just cater to DM only players by having a super special queue just for them. You have to have a random queue that includes death match because, and this may be shocking, players actually like most of not all the modes.

I support rolling back pre update 25. If anything you can see from this thread that there's no pleasing everybody.

Every game I’m in... it’s 10 people trying to DM while 2 people are ignoring fights and doing objectives. So how is this fair? 10 people catering to 2 people.

And every time we try to put forth a sensible solution, all we get from the vocal minority is a big fat NO.

No wonder the DM community has built up so much resentment for the OBJ players.

That's always happened. There's always players that the moment it looks like they're not gonna win they just start DMing.

The random queue has to have all game modes.

If you can't make everyone 100% happy, and this is one of those times, everyone has to settle for being 50% happy.

Skoomah wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

It’s very simple ZOS. Give us 3 options.

Solo Random
Group Random
Group Deathmatch

This way, Deathmatch players have a place to go and objective players are completely unaffected. Let the market dictate what does and doesn’t get enough play.

Perfect with one slight edit:

Solo Random (daily bonus eligible)
Group Random
Group Deathmatch

Drive casual people just dropping in toward the solo random mode to help populate it, and give them a lower likelihood of getting shredded by dedicated Deathmatch players.

Unless the DM queue was completely separated from the random queue then the suggestion would skew matches to DM as the other queues would essentially fill the DM matches for when players request it.

Dude, what is your problem... seriously? Then just remove DM as an option for the first two options then.

Deathmatch players want nothing to do with Objective players.

The Group-Random and Group-DM would still use the same queue per the design of the activity finder unless Zenimax do something with the BG queue they have never done before as there has never been a DM-specific queue. As such DM players have pretty much always played with players that queued for a random. Also, the issue is has nothing to do with casual or serious as there are casual and serious in both camps.

Magio_ wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

But I am not speculating. I am stating the fact of how the activity finder works, or in this case how it worked when we could select specific BG matches.

How do I know, because it is how the activity finder works and is most clear when looking at the dungeon finder portion, which is all part of the same activity finder. This is not speculation.

That's speculation in your part, whether you like it or not. I even brought it up in my previous post before you did. You have no idea if the BG Finder works exactly the same as the Dungeon Finder. Show me evidence or accept you're speculating.

Amottica wrote: »

Also, it does matter how it worked when it is stated that DM was the most popular and that there is no argument on that.

It doesn't matter because any argument you can come up with against Deathmatch being the most popular would also apply to Objective Modes, yet Objective Modes still lost in every metric in the Leaderboards.

You say it only takes 1 person queueing for DM for Random Queue to fill it, even if that were true, the same would apply to any of the other 2 Objective Mode queues, and they were still played less overall. Conclusion, Deathmatch was more popular than Land Grab and Flag Games.

Amottica wrote: »

I have made my point very clear without speculation. Heck, even another player in this thread noted how those queueing for randoms fill up groups of those who queued for specific matches.

I know Random Queues fill any incomplete matches for people queued for specific modes. That's not what you were arguing in the beginning though. You were saying Deathmatch is not really the most popular mode since it only needed one person queued for it and the other 11 might've been Random Queuers. You're just moving the goalposts now. Anyway, again... you actually have no idea if it works exactly the same as the Dungeon Finder. Speculation on your part 100%. Show proof otherwise and I'll happily eat my words.

I'm looking forward to joining your Objective Mode Guild btw. Plz don't forget my invitation next time you post.

Amottica wrote: »

Good luck and I do hope you get your DM-only queue as long as it is only for those who specifically queue for DM.

Thanks. I wouldn't mind if Random Queue doesn't fill Deathmatch. I'm sure it would be fine without it.

Pretty sure that's the last person against DM queue in this thread. Radio silence from ZOS though.

If you're going by leaderboards, on XB right now it's flag games with 78134, land grab with 66650, and in the rear DM with 66498.

It isn't a good metric for popularity. Drastically different scoring systems.

As for the activity finder I'm not sure what the argument is here. A team can easily be 3 random queuers and one person who chose DM. It can also be 3 people who chose DM and the queue filled the fourth with a rando. Or it could be a mix. Or everyone random queued.

There's no reason to think it doesn't work like dungeon finder because that behaves the same way.

notyuu wrote: »

There is literally not enough BG population to survive being split further via seprate game mode queues

Prime proof of this, over the past two months the adverage queue time has been 30mins-1 hour with the game usually starting with it eaither being 2v3v4 or 2v4v4 and with the match making/mmr being outta wack to the point where it's a slaughter for one team and the others have to compete for second place (with the second place team on adverage getting less than 200)

it's to the point where I there have been literally zero enjoyable matches these past two months..what we need is more people in BGs to resolve this problem THEN you can see about makign DM queues and the like

Sorry but this is just wrong. If your queue is longer than 7 min, drop and re-queue. It will pop in the next 3 min.
Source: I play high mmr bgs on pc na during primetime, on 6 different characters.

I know that some people really like their objective modes and really try to conjure up anything to make an argument. But those are a very small but vocal minority.

You do realize that if the queue works like that, it would mean that even less people queued for objectives.

DM leaderboards were far above and beyond objective modes, that is hard proof that far more people who activly queue for more than the daily prefered DM.
If there are, say, 5 people queueing for DM, 2 for landgrab and 1 for capture the flag, then far more people who queued for random will get filled into objective modes.
And in my anecdotal memory the chance to get a DM while queueing random was still easily around 75%.
Or in short the old system funneled far more players into objective modes than DM.

No offense, but the reason why objectives are so hated is because they are designed as anti pvp modes. If you want to win landgrab or capture the relic, it is best to avoid fighting at all costs. Chaosball is better, but in there either running or bunkering are also superior strategems to actually fighting.
And the worst part about them is the fact that otherwise useless tanks sit on flags and relics, but you cannot ignore them.
Again no offense, but in my experience the people who actually like objectives more are almost all particularly bad at pvp and have little to contribute to actual fights.

The best solution for everyone is to have the queues split into random, solo random, objective and DM.
That way everyone can play what they like, and games filled up before when we had 4 queues too, so games should fill up just fine.

The reason why BG population is down are these godforsaken random only queues in the first place. Among everyone i ask why they play less bg the answer is usually because of random modes. Hell, i myself play less because of that.

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

If you're going by leaderboards, on XB right now it's flag games with 78134, land grab with 66650, and in the rear DM with 66498.

It isn't a good metric for popularity. Drastically different scoring systems.

As for the activity finder I'm not sure what the argument is here. A team can easily be 3 random queuers and one person who chose DM. It can also be 3 people who chose DM and the queue filled the fourth with a rando. Or it could be a mix. Or everyone random queued.

We're talking about Leaderboards when you could pick specific modes. Keep up buddy. Leaderboards now mean nothing because it's all random, so I have no clue why you even bring them up lol.

As about the random queue, that was a bad faith argument against DM Leaderboards being head and shoulders above Objective mode Leaderboards. Everything you said about specific queuers and random queuers is true, but it's also true for Land Grab and Flag Games. So it doesn't really matter, because you can't use it as an argument against DM Leaderboards showing it's more popular, because that argument would also apply to Land Grab and Flag Games, and they were still far behind.

It's not the best, but those Leaderboards FROM WHEN WE COULD QUEUE FOR SPECIFIC MODES is the best we players have to go by. It is a fact DM was ahead in every metric as stated before. Medals earned by #1. Medals needed to show up (last place). Average medals from #1 to last place. Median score. DM Leaderboard beat the other modes. Even the fact that the chance that a Random Queue match would be a Deathmatch was very high.

So please stop trying to say DM was not the most popular mode against all evidence we have available, or ask for evidence we as players can't provide.

TheEndBringer wrote: »

.There's no reason to think it doesn't work like dungeon finder because that behaves the same way.

That is still an assumption, which could be called speculation. You're most likely correct. I am not saying otherwise. The problem is, the person I was arguing with was trying to use that as an argument against people saying DM was the most popular game mode back when we had choice. The thing is, any argument here also applies to the Land Grab and Flag Game modes and those modes lost. I am repeating myself because I feel I have to. People seem to skip parts of posts, so hopefully at least one instance is read.

You're right. No more assumptions.

I'm sure you have historical data on leaderboards that you claim prove your claims. 🤔

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

You're right. No more assumptions.

I'm sure you have historical data on leaderboards that you claim prove your claims. 🤔

You are correct @TheEndBringer, here you go buddy:

DM:


Land Grab:


Flag Games:


GG

Looks like you may have brought an end to some of the claims being made here.

Magio_ wrote: »

TheEndBringer wrote: »

.There's no reason to think it doesn't work like dungeon finder because that behaves the same way.

That is still an assumption, which could be called speculation. You're most likely correct. I am not saying otherwise. The problem is, the person I was arguing with was trying to use that as an argument against people saying DM was the most popular game mode back when we had choice. The thing is, any argument here also applies to the Land Grab and Flag Game modes and those modes lost. I am repeating myself because I feel I have to. People seem to skip parts of posts, so hopefully at least one instance is read.

Actually, one would have to separate out the players that specifically queued for other matches and those that queued for random matches to find out how many players queued specifically for the DM matches. That is the only way one could tell if a majority of players had truly queued for DM.

We are reading a lot into the picture painted back when we could select specific matches yet there is not enough information available to us to see what percentage of players actually queued for DMs. Heck, even if we look at the total volume of people who have expressed any opinion in this thread it is not enough to suggest anything other than a small group of players have expressed an opinion.

Magio_ wrote: »

Viewsfrom6ix wrote: »

3. Objective modes scoring system is completely different to DM. This leads to lower medal scores. Top objectivers only get like 2k in flag games.

It's not just about comparing Rank 1-10 total Medals dude. If you see, 2600 Medals in Flag Games puts you at rank 39. That's top 40, for the medals you can get in a single match.

Anyone that remembers Leaderboards from back then knows it was the same ratio when they closed. Everyone who played back then remembers queueing for your Random Daily BG had a high chance of being DM, even some of the Obj Gamers in this very thread have admitted as much.

Amottica wrote: »

Actually, one would have to separate out the players that specifically queued for other matches and those that queued for random matches to find out how many players queued specifically for the DM matches. That is the only way one could tell if a majority of players had truly queued for DM.

DM was more popular, that's the claim. Now you're arguing semantics....

I was commenting on the specifics.

Kind of funny that despite this evidence people continue to oppose dm only queues that would only improve everyone's bg experience.

@ZOS_Kevin please read this thread. The bg community needs some love. Thank you!