Maintenance for the week of December 23:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – December 23, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 14:00 UTC (9:00AM EST)
Add 2 team Battlegrounds
kingsforged
✭✭✭
I get the whole concept, it's the 3 faction war blah de blah... but the 3 team BGs are made unbelievably annoying by the fact that there's always that 1 team who have no idea how to play (solo queue).
When you're trying to play a somewhat competitive match of control, chaos etc and there's 1 team who are so lost in the sauce they just mindlessly attack the 1st thing it front of them, it completely destroys the flow of the game. I've been ulti-dumped by random players in the middle of nowhere when I not only don't have the chaosball, but my team doesn't even have it...
With a 2-team system if you're losing, you're just losing. With a 3 team system if you're losing you're not only fighting an uphill battle against the winning team, but against a full extra team of players who literally don't know how to play. You see these matches ALL the time in solo, with scores like 500-350-90
When you're trying to play a somewhat competitive match of control, chaos etc and there's 1 team who are so lost in the sauce they just mindlessly attack the 1st thing it front of them, it completely destroys the flow of the game. I've been ulti-dumped by random players in the middle of nowhere when I not only don't have the chaosball, but my team doesn't even have it...
With a 2-team system if you're losing, you're just losing. With a 3 team system if you're losing you're not only fighting an uphill battle against the winning team, but against a full extra team of players who literally don't know how to play. You see these matches ALL the time in solo, with scores like 500-350-90
8
-
Baconlad✭✭✭✭✭
✭With three team objective based you can still attempt to win the match by focusing objectives rather than fight. With two team you don't stand a chance if ur team is weaker. Your team is the only target. So you'll always lose against a damage superior group0 -
divnyi✭✭✭✭✭
✭Biggest issue of 2-team is how, given a bit of advantage, it's easy to stall the game.
Say, 2 team deathmatch. Full NB team, first kill and then just cloak and sneak the rest of the game.2 -
Necrotech_Master✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭kingsforged wrote: »I get the whole concept, it's the 3 faction war blah de blah... but the 3 team BGs are made unbelievably annoying by the fact that there's always that 1 team who have no idea how to play (solo queue).
When you're trying to play a somewhat competitive match of control, chaos etc and there's 1 team who are so lost in the sauce they just mindlessly attack the 1st thing it front of them, it completely destroys the flow of the game. I've been ulti-dumped by random players in the middle of nowhere when I not only don't have the chaosball, but my team doesn't even have it...
With a 2-team system if you're losing, you're just losing. With a 3 team system if you're losing you're not only fighting an uphill battle against the winning team, but against a full extra team of players who literally don't know how to play. You see these matches ALL the time in solo, with scores like 500-350-90
if you see people ult dumping you just to get a kill when it has nothing to do with the objective, that would just be a DMer who hates objective modes lol
/splays PC/NA
handle @Necrotech_Master
active player since april 2014
i have my main house (grand topal hideaway) listed in the housing tours, it has multiple target dummies, scribing altar, and grandmaster stations (in progress being filled out), as well as almost every antiquity furnishing on display to preview them
feel free to stop by and use the facilities1 -
Dakkx✭✭✭With three team objective based you can still attempt to win the match by focusing objectives rather than fight. With two team you don't stand a chance if ur team is weaker. Your team is the only target. So you'll always lose against a damage superior group
Imagine having to engage in combat to win4 -
exeeter702✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Biggest issue of 2-team is how, given a bit of advantage, it's easy to stall the game.
Say, 2 team deathmatch. Full NB team, first kill and then just cloak and sneak the rest of the game.
This is a bad faith argument as you are assuming 2 team BGs would inherently be death match format.0 -
exeeter702✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭With three team objective based you can still attempt to win the match by focusing objectives rather than fight. With two team you don't stand a chance if ur team is weaker. Your team is the only target. So you'll always lose against a damage superior group
Imagine having 100 percent responsibility of your own win condition and being forced to actually engage in pvp and not afforded the opportunity to backdoor a second place finish with minimal effort.4 -
divnyi✭✭✭✭✭
✭exeeter702 wrote: »Biggest issue of 2-team is how, given a bit of advantage, it's easy to stall the game.
Say, 2 team deathmatch. Full NB team, first kill and then just cloak and sneak the rest of the game.
This is a bad faith argument as you are assuming 2 team BGs would inherently be death match format.
So it won't be the only meaningful format? I'm out.0 -
exeeter702✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭exeeter702 wrote: »Biggest issue of 2-team is how, given a bit of advantage, it's easy to stall the game.
Say, 2 team deathmatch. Full NB team, first kill and then just cloak and sneak the rest of the game.
This is a bad faith argument as you are assuming 2 team BGs would inherently be death match format.
So it won't be the only meaningful format? I'm out.
This topic requires you at least have experience with mmo rpgs that have successfully implemented battlegrounds. 2 team BGs would most assuredly NOT be 4v4.
You are conflating small scale arena type instanced pvp with two team BGs. These are fundamentally different talking points, the later of which, when actually done right, properly balances objective play and actual player vs player incentive so you cant have one without the other. ESO bgs should have NEVER been 3 team affairs with maps shoehorned into a one size fits all game mode method. You implement properly designed maps that are geographically set up to adhere to a specific game mode and then you create the appropriate balance between burden of performance/contribution via objective play and having to actually pvp to achieve a win condition. Obviously the actual post match reward structure would have to incentivize this far better than the systems that are currently in place now.
4v4 arenas on the other hand would obviously be DM, and your problematic example of full stealth teams stalling a match out has been long since solved in more than a number of ways across many mmorpgs with arenas.Edited by exeeter702 on 8 June 2022 01:460 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Trying to remember a time stealthers ruined a 2 team non-dm objective match like warsong gulch
Oh wait
Lol that wouldn't happen
2 team bgs would be great. 6 per team.PC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden0 -
kingsforged✭✭✭Necrotech_Master wrote: »kingsforged wrote: »I get the whole concept, it's the 3 faction war blah de blah... but the 3 team BGs are made unbelievably annoying by the fact that there's always that 1 team who have no idea how to play (solo queue).
When you're trying to play a somewhat competitive match of control, chaos etc and there's 1 team who are so lost in the sauce they just mindlessly attack the 1st thing it front of them, it completely destroys the flow of the game. I've been ulti-dumped by random players in the middle of nowhere when I not only don't have the chaosball, but my team doesn't even have it...
With a 2-team system if you're losing, you're just losing. With a 3 team system if you're losing you're not only fighting an uphill battle against the winning team, but against a full extra team of players who literally don't know how to play. You see these matches ALL the time in solo, with scores like 500-350-90
if you see people ult dumping you just to get a kill when it has nothing to do with the objective, that would just be a DMer who hates objective modes lol
/s
I'm sure some of them are, but I've run into a lot of people who clearly just have no idea what's going on
team scattered to the winds, solo rushing in over and over, no proper heals etc...
Just highlights the issue with 3 team BGs though, when 2 teams are playing to win but the 3rd is just a handicap to whoever they run into
0 -
kingsforged✭✭✭With three team objective based you can still attempt to win the match by focusing objectives rather than fight. With two team you don't stand a chance if ur team is weaker. Your team is the only target. So you'll always lose against a damage superior group
Actually I find this is made worse by having 3 teams. This only works out if that 3rd team is attacking the winning team, otherwise you're just struggling even more as the 3rd team takes away your objectives when you're already fighting an uphill battle.
Done correctly a 2 team battleground should have enough space to force different objective plays by splitting, kiting etc.2 -
xFocused✭✭✭✭Been saying this for years. The whole "3 team system" is so broken that it's hilarious. I played a match last night where my team was last and we were openly & blatantly teamed up on by the other two teams, it was just ridiculous. I know it happens quite often but make it 2 player teams of 6 or 4 and call it good.VENDETTA || https://www.youtube.com/@x_-Focused0 -
Baconlad✭✭✭✭✭
✭Two teams of 6-8 would be sweet. But I still enjoy the three team BGs. It would spice things up for sure.
When there's a team that just synergies really well, you can go and hit the weaker team for points.0