Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Assuming Zenimax ever decides to spend the time (maybe two weeks?) it would take to revamp all of the three-sided objective modes, and we're granted these incredible gifts:
Chaosball >> Deathmatch with chaosball.
Crazy King >> Deathmatch with flags.
Domination >> Deathmatch all around, probably the closest we can get to a free for all.
Capture the Relic >> Deathmatch with training wheels.

@Haki_7, two weeks or more?

If they are informed about all the cheesy spots and that coliseum map is removed from the Chaosball rotation, maybe. No idea how long it would take to sort out CTF though.

coliseum map?

The arena variant of Istirus Outpost

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Assuming Zenimax ever decides to spend the time (maybe two weeks?) it would take to revamp all of the three-sided objective modes, and we're granted these incredible gifts:
Chaosball >> Deathmatch with chaosball.
Crazy King >> Deathmatch with flags.
Domination >> Deathmatch all around, probably the closest we can get to a free for all.
Capture the Relic >> Deathmatch with training wheels.

@Haki_7, two weeks or more?

If they are informed about all the cheesy spots and that coliseum map is removed from the Chaosball rotation, maybe. No idea how long it would take to sort out CTF though.

coliseum map?

The arena variant of Istirus Outpost

Why? I rather like the map for Deathmatch.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

From now on I'll be referring to the four reasons two-sided BG are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams as ''four critical flaws''. Shorter this way.

Slightly more fitting than ''abominations''. Speaking of which, Domination weekend has been brutal. Does anyone know when will it end?

Green: 5,6,8
Orange: 1,3,4,5,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.

It's a shame it can't work in 2-sided BGs.

Looking at the stats here it looks like more than just an imbalance of “new” players being places against experienced ones.

Look at the 3rd player on the Orange team, 11 kills & 11 assists & no deaths while dealing 643k damage output.

Now player 8 on the Green team had a little less damage output, 541k but had no kills and only 3 assist.

Green team had one mid healer (in terms of output) versus the Orange team who had one mid healer and one heavy healer.

Thats your difference. If you consider that players 8 & 3 have similar damage output we should see a (somewhat) similar result between the two .. the swing factor here; extra healing. Player 8’s damage output was mitigated by persistent strong healing while Player 3 didn’t have the same level of healing.

Even with 3 sides BG’s, if you don’t have balanced healing you’re going to get steamrolled; it just won’t matter. One team with significantly more healing can bowl over one or two squads with ease.

I’ve been in matches where the opposing team had two Templar healers who would simply alternate being in their Ult so it was literally a persistent, constant, state of massive heals. That Ult is both mobile and un-interruptible. .. Nobody is going to counter that, I don’t care how much experience a player has. That’s because there’s no mechanic to address it. The Ult is cheap enough and players can get access to enough Ult gen that they can pop it too frequently; especially when there’s two of them. And since you can’t interrupt it, well, you’re porked.

The only counter to that is to have a similar level of healing yourself; this way it then comes down to group cooperation and strategy.

It’s been suggested that healing output be a measure factor in MRR balancing and I agree that would help; epically in matches exactly like this one. Where you guys were just out healed.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

I know the feeling.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

From now on I'll be referring to the four reasons two-sided BG are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams as ''four critical flaws''. Shorter this way.

Slightly more fitting than ''abominations''. Speaking of which, Domination weekend has been brutal. Does anyone know when will it end?

Green: 5,6,8
Orange: 1,3,4,5,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.

It's a shame it can't work in 2-sided BGs.

Looking at the stats here it looks like more than just an imbalance of “new” players being places against experienced ones.

Look at the 3rd player on the Orange team, 11 kills & 11 assists & no deaths while dealing 643k damage output.

Now player 8 on the Green team had a little less damage output, 541k but had no kills and only 3 assist.

Green team had one mid healer (in terms of output) versus the Orange team who had one mid healer and one heavy healer.

Thats your difference. If you consider that players 8 & 3 have similar damage output we should see a (somewhat) similar result between the two .. the swing factor here; extra healing. Player 8’s damage output was mitigated by persistent strong healing while Player 3 didn’t have the same level of healing.

Even with 3 sides BG’s, if you don’t have balanced healing you’re going to get steamrolled; it just won’t matter. One team with significantly more healing can bowl over one or two squads with ease.

I’ve been in matches where the opposing team had two Templar healers who would simply alternate being in their Ult so it was literally a persistent, constant, state of massive heals. That Ult is both mobile and un-interruptible. .. Nobody is going to counter that, I don’t care how much experience a player has. That’s because there’s no mechanic to address it. The Ult is cheap enough and players can get access to enough Ult gen that they can pop it too frequently; especially when there’s two of them. And since you can’t interrupt it, well, you’re porked.

The only counter to that is to have a similar level of healing yourself; this way it then comes down to group cooperation and strategy.

It’s been suggested that healing output be a measure factor in MRR balancing and I agree that would help; epically in matches exactly like this one. Where you guys were just out healed.

I disagree with the premise that same damage output should equal similar KDA. For example, I can go 10-0 in the same bg where another player goes 10-0 and I will almost always do far less damage. I normally do a third of the damage of other players because I dont use proc sets and the only aoe I use are lightning form and beetles.

In other words, damage numbers are usually not important.

I agree that healing is busted. However. I think a simple KDA based mmr will solve most problems. Can't solve.low population though.

KDA won’t solve anything because it won’t address the healing imbalances.

As for damage output; I’m not saying both of those players should have exactly the same outcomes, that’s silly, but, if we have two players with damage outputs that are comparable then their results should be “comparable” .. not exact, not the same, but comparable.

And why’s that? Because it takes a degree of experience to land damage output numbers that climb that high. The crit meta builds can chunk health and cop kills without having to consistently reapply damage; that’s when we see high kill counts and lower damage output numbers. That instantly tells you the player was leaning on a build with little to no counters or just spamming an execute from the rafters, not experienced play.

Even some of the most broken, cheesiest gear sets require some degree of skill to apply damage output values that exceed 500k, especially on an imbalanced match because the match doesn’t last that long. Even the infamous RoA & Vicious Death combo requires a setup to apply broad damage against non-zergs. One can absolutely do it but they need the experience to do the setup.

In this context, those two players had way more damage outputs than the majority of players in that whole match yet only one of them had a high kill count. .. when you look at all of the values it tells a story and in this case it’s clear; the one team had far more significant healing than the other which was the largest contributor to the win.

Yes, I agree, there’s players who don’t have experience and lean on cheese gear or broken builds; but we see different numbers in those cases.

Imbalanced healing is probably issue #1 right now in BG’s, because with that in play no amount of extra teams will save the game … the proverbial ship is sinking and the lifeboats are all gone.

After that it’s overall mechanics but that’s an even bigger tackle.

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

I know the feeling.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

From now on I'll be referring to the four reasons two-sided BG are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams as ''four critical flaws''. Shorter this way.

Slightly more fitting than ''abominations''. Speaking of which, Domination weekend has been brutal. Does anyone know when will it end?

Green: 5,6,8
Orange: 1,3,4,5,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.

It's a shame it can't work in 2-sided BGs.

Looking at the stats here it looks like more than just an imbalance of “new” players being places against experienced ones.

Look at the 3rd player on the Orange team, 11 kills & 11 assists & no deaths while dealing 643k damage output.

Now player 8 on the Green team had a little less damage output, 541k but had no kills and only 3 assist.

Green team had one mid healer (in terms of output) versus the Orange team who had one mid healer and one heavy healer.

Thats your difference. If you consider that players 8 & 3 have similar damage output we should see a (somewhat) similar result between the two .. the swing factor here; extra healing. Player 8’s damage output was mitigated by persistent strong healing while Player 3 didn’t have the same level of healing.

Even with 3 sides BG’s, if you don’t have balanced healing you’re going to get steamrolled; it just won’t matter. One team with significantly more healing can bowl over one or two squads with ease.

I’ve been in matches where the opposing team had two Templar healers who would simply alternate being in their Ult so it was literally a persistent, constant, state of massive heals. That Ult is both mobile and un-interruptible. .. Nobody is going to counter that, I don’t care how much experience a player has. That’s because there’s no mechanic to address it. The Ult is cheap enough and players can get access to enough Ult gen that they can pop it too frequently; especially when there’s two of them. And since you can’t interrupt it, well, you’re porked.

The only counter to that is to have a similar level of healing yourself; this way it then comes down to group cooperation and strategy.

It’s been suggested that healing output be a measure factor in MRR balancing and I agree that would help; epically in matches exactly like this one. Where you guys were just out healed.

I disagree with the premise that same damage output should equal similar KDA. For example, I can go 10-0 in the same bg where another player goes 10-0 and I will almost always do far less damage. I normally do a third of the damage of other players because I dont use proc sets and the only aoe I use are lightning form and beetles.

In other words, damage numbers are usually not important.

I agree that healing is busted. However. I think a simple KDA based mmr will solve most problems. Can't solve.low population though.

KDA won’t solve anything because it won’t address the healing imbalances.

As for damage output; I’m not saying both of those players should have exactly the same outcomes, that’s silly, but, if we have two players with damage outputs that are comparable then their results should be “comparable” .. not exact, not the same, but comparable. .

In this context, those two players had way more damage outputs than the majority of players in that whole match yet only one of them had a high kill count. .. when you look at all of the values it tells a story and in this case it’s clear; the one team had far more significant healing than the other which was the largest contributor to the win.

Yes, I agree, there’s players who don’t have experience and lean on cheese gear or broken builds; but we see different numbers in those cases.

Imbalanced healing is probably issue #1 right now in BG’s, because with that in play no amount of extra teams will save the game … the proverbial ship is sinking and the lifeboats are all gone.

KDA will solve a lot. So will fixing healing and the associated scoring of healing.

I didn't say only inexperienced players run cheese. This isn't about cheese. Just commenting that damage output does not equate to kills. I was in a bg yesterday and got 14 kills and 0 deaths on about 600k damage. My teammate got 10 kills with 1.4 million damage and also died 4 times. Kda matters, not damage.

KDA will solve nothing unless healing is also a factor.

You’re not thinking about the mechanics of HOW people score kills. In the state of BG’s post subclassing this is a big deal.

In your example ask yourself WHY you got so many more kills than your teammate despite them dealing far more damage output than you. This goes to mechanics.

A player who’s DoT heavy will likely see a lot of damage output but few kills, this is because a DoT tick rarely scores the kill shots. Are we saying that player doesn’t contribute or should be ranked low because they’re not hitting kill shots? They’re dealing plenty of damage?

A player who’s damage bypasses more of their opponents mitigation can wear down the opponents health without having to re-apply damage; a player with a toolkit of multiple crowd control varieties can also wear down an opponent without having to reapply as much damage due to interrupting their target.

Conversely, a player sitting back spamming Impale or Mages Wrath can score a high kill count with overall low damage output by sniping kill shots with executes and doing little else.

Just because someone has kills, low deaths, and assists doesn’t mean their contribution was as significant, same goes in the opposite; simply having high damage doesn’t always reflect contribution. In Deathmatch, maybe, but not the rest of the game modes.

We have players going into BG’s and treating them like their own personal dueling arenas rather than actually helping their team or playing objectives. We don’t want to matchmake those players simply because they go for kills.

KDA isn’t all encompassing. When we talk about the state of BG’s and how to address problems we can’t do that with blinders on with mechanics.

Context is key, damage output alone, no, doesn’t tell you squat .. damage output PLUS the context of KDA PLUS the context of group outgoing healing tells more about the mechanics in play that cause the imbalances and things like spawn camping.

KDA simply isn’t enough to match make anymore. Damage isn’t the major issue in BG imbalances it’s the healing factor. Yeah, we have cracked crit metas but healing is now determining more of the outcomes than anything else; whether it’s group heals or excessively strong self heals, or any combination thereof. Healing resources need a method to be more evenly spread between teams via MRR to address that.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

I know the feeling.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

From now on I'll be referring to the four reasons two-sided BG are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams as ''four critical flaws''. Shorter this way.

Slightly more fitting than ''abominations''. Speaking of which, Domination weekend has been brutal. Does anyone know when will it end?

Green: 5,6,8
Orange: 1,3,4,5,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.

It's a shame it can't work in 2-sided BGs.

Looking at the stats here it looks like more than just an imbalance of “new” players being places against experienced ones.

Look at the 3rd player on the Orange team, 11 kills & 11 assists & no deaths while dealing 643k damage output.

Now player 8 on the Green team had a little less damage output, 541k but had no kills and only 3 assist.

Green team had one mid healer (in terms of output) versus the Orange team who had one mid healer and one heavy healer.

Thats your difference. If you consider that players 8 & 3 have similar damage output we should see a (somewhat) similar result between the two .. the swing factor here; extra healing. Player 8’s damage output was mitigated by persistent strong healing while Player 3 didn’t have the same level of healing.

Even with 3 sides BG’s, if you don’t have balanced healing you’re going to get steamrolled; it just won’t matter. One team with significantly more healing can bowl over one or two squads with ease.

I’ve been in matches where the opposing team had two Templar healers who would simply alternate being in their Ult so it was literally a persistent, constant, state of massive heals. That Ult is both mobile and un-interruptible. .. Nobody is going to counter that, I don’t care how much experience a player has. That’s because there’s no mechanic to address it. The Ult is cheap enough and players can get access to enough Ult gen that they can pop it too frequently; especially when there’s two of them. And since you can’t interrupt it, well, you’re porked.

The only counter to that is to have a similar level of healing yourself; this way it then comes down to group cooperation and strategy.

It’s been suggested that healing output be a measure factor in MRR balancing and I agree that would help; epically in matches exactly like this one. Where you guys were just out healed.

I disagree with the premise that same damage output should equal similar KDA. For example, I can go 10-0 in the same bg where another player goes 10-0 and I will almost always do far less damage. I normally do a third of the damage of other players because I dont use proc sets and the only aoe I use are lightning form and beetles.

In other words, damage numbers are usually not important.

I agree that healing is busted. However. I think a simple KDA based mmr will solve most problems. Can't solve.low population though.

KDA won’t solve anything because it won’t address the healing imbalances.

As for damage output; I’m not saying both of those players should have exactly the same outcomes, that’s silly, but, if we have two players with damage outputs that are comparable then their results should be “comparable” .. not exact, not the same, but comparable. .

In this context, those two players had way more damage outputs than the majority of players in that whole match yet only one of them had a high kill count. .. when you look at all of the values it tells a story and in this case it’s clear; the one team had far more significant healing than the other which was the largest contributor to the win.

Yes, I agree, there’s players who don’t have experience and lean on cheese gear or broken builds; but we see different numbers in those cases.

Imbalanced healing is probably issue #1 right now in BG’s, because with that in play no amount of extra teams will save the game … the proverbial ship is sinking and the lifeboats are all gone.

KDA will solve a lot. So will fixing healing and the associated scoring of healing.

I didn't say only inexperienced players run cheese. This isn't about cheese. Just commenting that damage output does not equate to kills. I was in a bg yesterday and got 14 kills and 0 deaths on about 600k damage. My teammate got 10 kills with 1.4 million damage and also died 4 times. Kda matters, not damage.

KDA will solve nothing unless healing is also a factor.

A player who’s DoT heavy will likely see a lot of damage output but few kills, this is because a DoT tick rarely scores the kill shots. Are we saying that player doesn’t contribute or should be ranked low because they’re not hitting kill shots? They’re dealing plenty of damage?

The big thing missing here is the A in KDA. If all you do is dot up a ton of enemies you are going to rack up twice as many assists. So matchmaking wise you could come up even based on weight. What gives an assist can also play into this where you could calculate oh hey, this person did 80% of the target's healthbar. Or hey this person did 5% of the player's healthbar he doesnt get an assist.

At the end of the day kills are what matters and will inherently be the main metric. Building in eso is far to complicated and unregulated for the vast majority of the playerbase and probably zos to understand. This is why you need a simple "what is actually the output" design philosophy.

MincMincMinc wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

I know the feeling.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

From now on I'll be referring to the four reasons two-sided BG are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams as ''four critical flaws''. Shorter this way.

Slightly more fitting than ''abominations''. Speaking of which, Domination weekend has been brutal. Does anyone know when will it end?

Green: 5,6,8
Orange: 1,3,4,5,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.

It's a shame it can't work in 2-sided BGs.

Looking at the stats here it looks like more than just an imbalance of “new” players being places against experienced ones.

Look at the 3rd player on the Orange team, 11 kills & 11 assists & no deaths while dealing 643k damage output.

Now player 8 on the Green team had a little less damage output, 541k but had no kills and only 3 assist.

Green team had one mid healer (in terms of output) versus the Orange team who had one mid healer and one heavy healer.

Thats your difference. If you consider that players 8 & 3 have similar damage output we should see a (somewhat) similar result between the two .. the swing factor here; extra healing. Player 8’s damage output was mitigated by persistent strong healing while Player 3 didn’t have the same level of healing.

Even with 3 sides BG’s, if you don’t have balanced healing you’re going to get steamrolled; it just won’t matter. One team with significantly more healing can bowl over one or two squads with ease.

I’ve been in matches where the opposing team had two Templar healers who would simply alternate being in their Ult so it was literally a persistent, constant, state of massive heals. That Ult is both mobile and un-interruptible. .. Nobody is going to counter that, I don’t care how much experience a player has. That’s because there’s no mechanic to address it. The Ult is cheap enough and players can get access to enough Ult gen that they can pop it too frequently; especially when there’s two of them. And since you can’t interrupt it, well, you’re porked.

The only counter to that is to have a similar level of healing yourself; this way it then comes down to group cooperation and strategy.

It’s been suggested that healing output be a measure factor in MRR balancing and I agree that would help; epically in matches exactly like this one. Where you guys were just out healed.

I disagree with the premise that same damage output should equal similar KDA. For example, I can go 10-0 in the same bg where another player goes 10-0 and I will almost always do far less damage. I normally do a third of the damage of other players because I dont use proc sets and the only aoe I use are lightning form and beetles.

In other words, damage numbers are usually not important.

I agree that healing is busted. However. I think a simple KDA based mmr will solve most problems. Can't solve.low population though.

KDA won’t solve anything because it won’t address the healing imbalances.

As for damage output; I’m not saying both of those players should have exactly the same outcomes, that’s silly, but, if we have two players with damage outputs that are comparable then their results should be “comparable” .. not exact, not the same, but comparable. .

In this context, those two players had way more damage outputs than the majority of players in that whole match yet only one of them had a high kill count. .. when you look at all of the values it tells a story and in this case it’s clear; the one team had far more significant healing than the other which was the largest contributor to the win.

Yes, I agree, there’s players who don’t have experience and lean on cheese gear or broken builds; but we see different numbers in those cases.

Imbalanced healing is probably issue #1 right now in BG’s, because with that in play no amount of extra teams will save the game … the proverbial ship is sinking and the lifeboats are all gone.

KDA will solve a lot. So will fixing healing and the associated scoring of healing.

I didn't say only inexperienced players run cheese. This isn't about cheese. Just commenting that damage output does not equate to kills. I was in a bg yesterday and got 14 kills and 0 deaths on about 600k damage. My teammate got 10 kills with 1.4 million damage and also died 4 times. Kda matters, not damage.

KDA will solve nothing unless healing is also a factor.

A player who’s DoT heavy will likely see a lot of damage output but few kills, this is because a DoT tick rarely scores the kill shots. Are we saying that player doesn’t contribute or should be ranked low because they’re not hitting kill shots? They’re dealing plenty of damage?

The big thing missing here is the A in KDA. If all you do is dot up a ton of enemies you are going to rack up twice as many assists. So matchmaking wise you could come up even based on weight. What gives an assist can also play into this where you could calculate oh hey, this person did 80% of the target's healthbar. Or hey this person did 5% of the player's healthbar he doesnt get an assist.

At the end of the day kills are what matters and will inherently be the main metric. Building in eso is far to complicated and unregulated for the vast majority of the playerbase and probably zos to understand. This is why you need a simple "what is actually the output" design philosophy.

This is kind of why I suggested a “Competitive Index” for PvP which would calc based on individual builds.

Like you said before, if outgoing healing isn’t taken into account you’ll never match make because any players KDA is going to be affected by way more than simply their own skill set.

There’s going to be major flaws in any KDA based metric. For example, a veteran player who plays objective based BG matches rather than running after kills will inevitably be MRR’d against lower skill players. Only the players who treat BG’s as dueling matches would get ranked out and separated (mostly).

This still leaves the imbalanced healing factor and experience disparity in matches which will absolutely lead to things like spawn camping.

I’m not saying one can’t look at KDA but if that’s all we look at we’re not going to have much improvement.

MincMincMinc wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Unholy_Holywarrior wrote: »

i hope they seriously remove 'capture the relic' from pvp queue rotation... i utterly detest that mode, it should be removed like they did that one mode where you can only respawn twice and have to spectate the rest of the match...

the issue ive seen with relic games, if your team doesnt score first, the next 20 mins is a complete waste of time, 90% of the time. every relic match i play comes down to who can spawn lock the other team first. its not fun, there is very little chance to turn the tides of a match with current meta of invincible, invisible lightning guys teleport stunning everywhere

also another thing what i think needs to be retooled is waiting 20 minutes in queue, to join a horrible losing match already in progress, with no hope of winning beyond the point of turning it around. seriously, joining those kinds of matches several times in a row, makes me quit the pvp battlegrounds grind for the day...

I am pretty sure the respawn twice thing still exists. It is 4v4 death match. Don't do 4s much any more so not certain.

Some people really enjoy relic. I am against removing content people enjoy.

I think the answer is to allow people the ability to queue for the mode(s) they want. You know, play the way you want and all that jazz. You might have to wait longer to get a game, maybe not, but at least you'll get a game you actually want to play. Could be like dungeon queues. If you want to run x dungeon you might have to wait, especially if you're not a tank, but you get the content you want. You could also queue into any bg, just like any dungeon, for the daily bonus and xp.

and i simply drop the match anytime i load in to a relic match. i simply do not enjoy it. mmr, if it means anything, be damned.

I know the feeling.

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

From now on I'll be referring to the four reasons two-sided BG are so much harder to balance when compared to three-teams as ''four critical flaws''. Shorter this way.

Slightly more fitting than ''abominations''. Speaking of which, Domination weekend has been brutal. Does anyone know when will it end?

Green: 5,6,8
Orange: 1,3,4,5,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.

It's a shame it can't work in 2-sided BGs.

Looking at the stats here it looks like more than just an imbalance of “new” players being places against experienced ones.

Look at the 3rd player on the Orange team, 11 kills & 11 assists & no deaths while dealing 643k damage output.

Now player 8 on the Green team had a little less damage output, 541k but had no kills and only 3 assist.

Green team had one mid healer (in terms of output) versus the Orange team who had one mid healer and one heavy healer.

Thats your difference. If you consider that players 8 & 3 have similar damage output we should see a (somewhat) similar result between the two .. the swing factor here; extra healing. Player 8’s damage output was mitigated by persistent strong healing while Player 3 didn’t have the same level of healing.

Even with 3 sides BG’s, if you don’t have balanced healing you’re going to get steamrolled; it just won’t matter. One team with significantly more healing can bowl over one or two squads with ease.

I’ve been in matches where the opposing team had two Templar healers who would simply alternate being in their Ult so it was literally a persistent, constant, state of massive heals. That Ult is both mobile and un-interruptible. .. Nobody is going to counter that, I don’t care how much experience a player has. That’s because there’s no mechanic to address it. The Ult is cheap enough and players can get access to enough Ult gen that they can pop it too frequently; especially when there’s two of them. And since you can’t interrupt it, well, you’re porked.

The only counter to that is to have a similar level of healing yourself; this way it then comes down to group cooperation and strategy.

It’s been suggested that healing output be a measure factor in MRR balancing and I agree that would help; epically in matches exactly like this one. Where you guys were just out healed.

I disagree with the premise that same damage output should equal similar KDA. For example, I can go 10-0 in the same bg where another player goes 10-0 and I will almost always do far less damage. I normally do a third of the damage of other players because I dont use proc sets and the only aoe I use are lightning form and beetles.

In other words, damage numbers are usually not important.

I agree that healing is busted. However. I think a simple KDA based mmr will solve most problems. Can't solve.low population though.

KDA won’t solve anything because it won’t address the healing imbalances.

As for damage output; I’m not saying both of those players should have exactly the same outcomes, that’s silly, but, if we have two players with damage outputs that are comparable then their results should be “comparable” .. not exact, not the same, but comparable. .

In this context, those two players had way more damage outputs than the majority of players in that whole match yet only one of them had a high kill count. .. when you look at all of the values it tells a story and in this case it’s clear; the one team had far more significant healing than the other which was the largest contributor to the win.

Yes, I agree, there’s players who don’t have experience and lean on cheese gear or broken builds; but we see different numbers in those cases.

Imbalanced healing is probably issue #1 right now in BG’s, because with that in play no amount of extra teams will save the game … the proverbial ship is sinking and the lifeboats are all gone.

KDA will solve a lot. So will fixing healing and the associated scoring of healing.

I didn't say only inexperienced players run cheese. This isn't about cheese. Just commenting that damage output does not equate to kills. I was in a bg yesterday and got 14 kills and 0 deaths on about 600k damage. My teammate got 10 kills with 1.4 million damage and also died 4 times. Kda matters, not damage.

KDA will solve nothing unless healing is also a factor.

A player who’s DoT heavy will likely see a lot of damage output but few kills, this is because a DoT tick rarely scores the kill shots. Are we saying that player doesn’t contribute or should be ranked low because they’re not hitting kill shots? They’re dealing plenty of damage?

The big thing missing here is the A in KDA. If all you do is dot up a ton of enemies you are going to rack up twice as many assists. So matchmaking wise you could come up even based on weight. What gives an assist can also play into this where you could calculate oh hey, this person did 80% of the target's healthbar. Or hey this person did 5% of the player's healthbar he doesnt get an assist.

At the end of the day kills are what matters and will inherently be the main metric. Building in eso is far to complicated and unregulated for the vast majority of the playerbase and probably zos to understand. This is why you need a simple "what is actually the output" design philosophy.

This is kind of why I suggested a “Competitive Index” for PvP which would calc based on individual builds.

Problem is this is kind of impossible for pvp. The best build metric is the UESP effective power which can bake all of your stats into a single output value against an enemy's stats. The problem with this UESP metric is that unlike PvE where all that matters is a parse dps over time, PvP is not a parse environment where you are not tearing through enemies with millions of HP. Also effective power fails to account for proc sets or status effect procs and things like charged trait or master 2h.

- - - Side rant - - -
This difference in environment is why proc sets are more troublesome in pvp but are fun flavor enhancers in pve. Lets say you trade off a 5 piece bonus affecting your 3 skill burst combo. Maybe they all lowered by 10% because of this. Well a proc set is effectively another skill going off so you would have lost 10% on your combo, but now have a 4 skill combo instead of 3.........Look back at PvE and again it doesn't care because this all averages out over 20 min long parses and the pve boss doesn't feel a prolific spike from their enemy's damage.

Not really impossible. Similar logic has been implemented in other game genres and titles for years.

In a nutshell the only “difficult” part is making the decisions on the back end over priorities.

It wouldn’t be about parses or anything that granular. Everyone would start with a base CI value and as they make changes to their build the CI score changes.

For example, slotting Sorcs Twilight Matriarch is a stronger (self) heal than Warden’s Soothing Spores; plus the Twilight also deals damage and acts as a body block, so slotting Twilight would hitch up a players CI a good bit more than Spores. Now we’re capturing things like healing and mechanics and set procs that go into builds. They could matchmake off of CI score ranges.

Different things would affect the CI score based on the back end priorities. You could take it further but on the surface that would pair like capable build players against like capable build players. At that point it would come down to teamwork, player skill, and strategy that determines outcomes; which is the whole point.

I agree. Sets are awesome for PvE but very problematic for PvP. And it’s funny because we have sets which have a PvP adjustment factor to them. You’d think the Devs would consider that when releasing any set but seemingly not.

Subclassing disproportionately impacted a lot of set flexibility because it opened the door for some builds to achieve the same proc or passive they had needed a 5 piece set for, but now can just get it in one ability slot; enabling the player to now equip a set in the more “ridiculous set proc” category, which they couldn’t before. This is why I’ve said Subclassing compounded existing problems.

I've been playing Domination weekend for two months. Did ZOS ever say why they keep doing this?

Pit Daemons: 1,2,3,4,6,8
Fire Drakes: 1,3,7,8
Assigning each of these players to a team of newcomers in 3-sided BGs: Unpredictable and fun for everyone.
Unfortunately, doing the exact same thing in 2-sided BGs is bound to be disastrous, because of the four critical flaws.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

I've been playing Domination weekend for two months.

lol

Haki_7 wrote: »

Did ZOS ever say why they keep doing this?

I don't think so. I'm still partial to the theory they want to force people to play the objective modes. It's better than just doing whatever for no reason.

By the way, finally had time to write an intro to the thread.

Zos is doing everything they can to make sure pvp is anything but pvp. If it's not forcing objectives its introducing ridiculous proc sets that do the work for you. They want pvp to be a safe and happy place where intense competition is not allowed and dying is fun for everyone. Its a safe and happy place. They are the Planet Fitness of mmos.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

I've been playing Domination weekend for two months.

lol

Haki_7 wrote: »

Did ZOS ever say why they keep doing this?

I don't think so. I'm still partial to the theory they want to force people to play the objective modes. It's better than just doing whatever for no reason.

By the way, finally had time to write an intro to the thread.

Zos is doing everything they can to make sure pvp is anything but pvp. If it's not forcing objectives its introducing ridiculous proc sets that do the work for you. They want pvp to be a safe and happy place where intense competition is not allowed and dying is fun for everyone. Its a safe and happy place. They are the Planet Fitness of mmos.

Thumbless what do you think about the proposed changes to the 3-sided land grab modes?

• Reduce the amount of points each flag gives per tick. Domination from 8 to 4, Crazy King from 8 to 6.
• Modify flags to require a minimum of two players to be fully captured. Solo players would still be able to hinder the opponents' progress by turning them white, but running around without even drawing weapons would no longer be the ultimate winning strategy.

Even in the worst case scenario (two teams fight while the third flips all remaining flags uncontested), it would be impossible to end any of these matches in less than 10 minutes.

The difference between them would be that people would stay a little more together in Crazy King, and in Domination there would be more reason to spread out. Still, most matches would last the full 15 minutes.

The two person idea sounds interesting for crazy king and maybe domination where there are only three flags. Five flags is too many for this.

My concern is when one person kills two on a flag they would not be able to capture alone. Which they should in that or other cases. Maybe a good middle ground is that you can remove the opposing color with one person but not advance it towards your color as a solo.

This idea also aligns with what I believe is a zos paradigm of tje zerg that every aspect of pvp should be a group activity. They might actually listen to this one.

There should also always be an odd number of flags. This would prevent the inevitable steeplechase that happens in fours where people dont even have weapons drawn. It would also prevent other shenanigans of camping on one flag with two aoe heal-tank bots.