Why does a competetive BG start with a 3v4 setup?

Usureki · June 2

Please help me to understand why on earth does a competetive battleground game launch with one side having 2-3 players and the other side having full house? I know its not really ranked as we're still having a "more-you-play-the-more-you-gain" nonsense titled as PvP ranking, but still..
I see that there is a dedicated timer sometimes saying "waiting for players" even to a maximum of 5 minutes, but every now and then the game just starts without waiting for both parties to be filled and the thing this game would expect me to do is to cope with an almost guaranteed loss and watch it for 15 minutes. Why shouldn't I just Alt+F4 ASAP to not waste my time?
What is the reason behind this terrible functionality? Incompetence, lack of care, lack of ticket on DEV side? Or am I the only one thinking that this is lame??

Oblivion_Protocol · June 3

Games used to just not start at all and shut down when the sides were still imbalanced after the timer ran down. And people complained about it, saying to just let them play it out. So, that’s what ZOS did. In other words, this is a “can’t make everyone happy” type of situation.

Nordstern · June 3

I would rather play 2v4 than wait for 5 minutes just for the lobby to be disbanded.

Usureki · June 3

And pray tell why would it be so difficult to implement the functionality of putting players looking for a match.. in a match where they are needed XD I mean c'mon it's not rocket science.....

Oblivion_Protocol · June 3

Usureki wrote: »

And pray tell why would it be so difficult to implement the functionality of putting players looking for a match.. in a match where they are needed XD I mean c'mon it's not rocket science.....

There would need to be enough available players queued for BGs at that time to make two teams. So while it’s not rocket science, it’s still complicated during off-hours.

LennaTheRussian · June 5

Yeah they need to revert this change for 4v4s. 8v8s make sense, but when you go 3v4 odds are highly not in your favor. There's also no temp buff it seems like for 4v4 like there is 8v8. I would rather just have the match be canceled then be forced to play out an entire match that doesn't fill in the 4th teammate.

Calastir · August 16

It amazes me that a 21st century billion dollar company gets away with bugs like this. Have they no pride?

Dalsinthus · August 16

I think how you feel about this depends heavily on your goal when queuing for a match. Are you after leader board rank and rewards? Then the more matches you play the better even if you lose, as long as you get some medals. Are you after AP, same answer as it is better to get something from the match then waiting for queue and in spawn, only for the match to cancel out unplayed. On the other hand, if you’re really after that daily win for the reward coffer and xp, an uneven team is super frustrating.

I personally prefer that they just let us play even in a 3v4. I’ve only seen 2v4 when someone quits after the match starts. I’ve won many 3v4s on the underdog team, either through better builds and gameplay or having a forth player join in time to come back and win.

Calastir · August 16

As a kid from the 80's decades ago in computer class, we used to write simple programs in Basic for Commodore 64.
Something like this comes to mind;

10 IF #PLAYERS=4x4 THEN START BG

Does that help?