2 teams has its strengths; when the teams are balanced, it's a great way to have a competitive/sweaty GvG. The objectives themselves are also better balanced in 2 team since they promote engagement a bit more (but only slightly, and with the exception of Chaosball that is 100% better in 3 team).

However, those two things don't really matter when 9/10 matches in 2 team BGs are a straight steam roll with one team sitting in spawn and the other team waiting for them to drop out of spawn. It's agonizing how rare it is to have a decent match in 2 team BGs because there's no X factor, no comeback mechanic, and little to no possibility of the weaker team overpowering the stronger team unless they get a fill player that ends up turning the tide.

3 team BGs are much more consistently enjoyable just for the sheer fact that you are constantly fighting in them. There are very few instances of one team being pushed all the way to their spawn for the entire match, and while it does still happen occasionally (especially in Deathmatch games), the third team means that there's still always an opportunity to push out of spawn and that the leading team is never totally safe.

The skill/power/gear/healer gap, whatever you want to call it, has to be much higher in 3 team BGs in order for the map to be a boring spawn camp fest. It happens almost every match in 2 teams.

i would be fine with more options!
But i like 2 teams more than 3 teams

ive played with both the 3 team and the 2 team, for 2 team i prefer the 8v8 format

i think for a 4 person team, the 3 team format might make more sense, i dont personally like how the competitive BGs work especially in regards to deathmatch with the limited lives

the problem as other noted is that population and matchmaking are also big issues that are gonna affect any mode that is put out

i dont think any mode should have more than 16 players (8v8), a 12 player (4v4v4) is pretty close to that, so you would likely end up seeing a lot of the same people in the current environment

Played a bunch of 3 team matches today, and I did not realize how much I missed it. I along with the others I have been playing with agree that it is much better. The maps are also really good. I wouldn't mind having both options available, but definitely want 3 team to be permanent.

I didn’t realize 4v4v4 was back until this post and man… I did not do well because my build is outdated but I was happy and nostalgic. Definitely my favorite of the three bg types.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

2 teams has its strengths; when the teams are balanced, it's a great way to have a competitive/sweaty GvG. The objectives themselves are also better balanced in 2 team since they promote engagement a bit more (but only slightly, and with the exception of Chaosball that is 100% better in 3 team).

However, those two things don't really matter when 9/10 matches in 2 team BGs are a straight steam roll with one team sitting in spawn and the other team waiting for them to drop out of spawn. It's agonizing how rare it is to have a decent match in 2 team BGs because there's no X factor, no comeback mechanic, and little to no possibility of the weaker team overpowering the stronger team unless they get a fill player that ends up turning the tide.

3 team BGs are much more consistently enjoyable just for the sheer fact that you are constantly fighting in them. There are very few instances of one team being pushed all the way to their spawn for the entire match, and while it does still happen occasionally (especially in Deathmatch games), the third team means that there's still always an opportunity to push out of spawn and that the leading team is never totally safe.

The skill/power/gear/healer gap, whatever you want to call it, has to be much higher in 3 team BGs in order for the map to be a boring spawn camp fest. It happens almost every match in 2 teams.

I agree with this, especially the part about 4v4v4 being more consistently enjoyable, which is the most important thing for me. PvP is never going to be my favourite thing to do (especially running around a little pen with a few other people, I prefer Cyrodiil style with the potential for bigger groups and more variety) but I had far more 3-sided matches that drew me in and had cool moments, whereas in most 2-sided matches by about 1/2 way I feel like I'm just waiting for the timer to tick down so it's over, whether I'm on the winning side or not.

The best solution would probably be to keep both so the organised, committed groups can play 4v4 against each other, at which point it might be interesting for them, but 4v4v4 for the variety and the fact that it's far less liklely one group can just dominate the match.

4v4v4 deathmatch
8v8 objective based
4v4 ranked leaderboards

All separate lobbies

they should do up to 8v8v8.

Bgs are more engaging when there are more players but the 2 sides makes it worse. 8v8v8 would be a nice balance BUT make matches start at 4v4v4 and fill teams evenly. When a match starts it only back fills up to the max number of players on a particular side. so if it starts as 7v6v5 the team with 6 gets 1 backfill and the team with 5 gets 2 backfills.

How I would achieve this if I was designing the system:
When someone queues into a BG and enough players are in the queue everyone gets ported to the BG arena.
Once a minimum number of people have loaded to the arena they are assigned a 'side' and the match starts.

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

Yes but if you do please have a deathmatch only queue that is completely disconnected from the other modes

4v4v4 deathmatch = best bg mode in eso
4v4v4 chaosball = an ok mode, needs a snare to ball holder
4v4v4 relic = possibly redeemable mode, needs relics moved to central location and cap point near your base
4v4v4 flags = awful mode, please delete

4v4, 8v8 deathmatch = good in theory but usually very lopsided
4v4, 8v8 objectives = ok in theory but facing same issues

4v4v4 flags would be fine if there were just fewer flags. It's why Crazy King actually works early on in the match. The only real problem is that since there's always an unguarded flag in Domination/late-game Crazy King, it means the best strategy is always to run from every fight.

Fair

I think they should rotate between 2 and 3 team BGs every week, or have them both up at the same time.

Well. I didnt understand why there was a need for change to begin with. With 4v4v4 you could find a match in 3-4 mins, it was the most fun way to level new characters to 50 in U50 BGs. And the regular one was fine as well. You could carry your team alone to 2nd place. All game modes and maps were fun and made sense. Now you have 4v4, 30 min queues to get streamrolled or streamroll instantly. Who asked for this change? Why did they ask for it? Why was it implemented?

Estin wrote: »

4v4v4s are definitely more balanced, there's no doubt about it. There's next to no spawn camping, and the team RNG is better because good and bad players are split between 3 teams rather than 2. 8v8s encourage too much spawn camping and zerging resulting in very unbalanced games the majority of the time, though they can be fun when you get the rare balanced match. Really the only thing the 2 sided BGs have going for it are the maps. They're designed well and don't have any environmental hazards outside of the 4v4 maps. I will say the 3 sided BGs have too many maps with fall damage hazards or falling off the side of the map from cheap javelin spammers. I would like to see new 4v4v4 maps be made that are similar to the 8v8 maps.

Wow, more balanced you say?



Sure, unless you're in that 33% (the worst team). I wonder if they had fun?

And no, not just an outlier... already got 10+ similar screenshots - this is majority of the 3-way battlegrounds.


Once the novelty wears off, maybe people can start remembering why almost everyone had stopped queueing for 3-way BGs by the end of 2024.

Once a matchmaking issue, always a matchmaking issue.

yes but we need a better mmr/ranking system than we have now. Somthing that takes into account everything instead of, seemingly, just time spent. And it would be nice to have that displayed instead of the leaderboards we have now. Its so boring.

But even if they refuse to change it and give us an actual ranking system, whatever they had before they changed bgs was better than what we have now. And IMO there is no reason why we cant have multiple BG modes. 2v2, 4v4, 8v8, 4v4v4. The more the better. So ya it should stay.

CatalinaWineMixer2 wrote: »

I can see the appeal of both. If it's possible, I think having both is best. If it isn't, then probably 3 vs 3 team is better. I was never against the objectives or the fact there are different types of battlegrounds. Ive mentioned this before, but I'd like to see some additional objectives added, or other types of matches but definitely not at the expense of taking any away. Like an ice arena where we slide, strangler plants, birds of prey randomly strike everyone, ect. Funny chance type of stuff, but not everyone likes that either so there is definitely a place for deathmatch and serious ones as well

These are great ideas. I have advocated for an ice themed bg for my nord warden to feel more at home in.

Maybe have an ice dragon randomly fly by with that one shot ice sheet like Elsweyr.