I'm iffy on this re-implementation of 3-team BGs

HatchetHaro · August 3

6v6v6 is just not the same as 4v4v4. To be fair, nobody has tried it yet (I doubt there are enough people on the PTS to try it out), but just on first blush, that's a whole ball group, and I'm not sure if that is the same experience from 4v4v4s that people have been pining for.

In addition to that, I think loads of people who have played both 4v4v4 and the 4v4 that replaced it are in agreement that 4v4s are just not fun in general. I feel like the reintroduction of 3-team BGs could be way simpler and better by just replacing 4v4s with 4v4v4 without touching the 8v8s.

madmufffin · August 3

A lot of premade groups for BGs are 4 man, so this change alters that dynamic entirely. 4v4v4 is what was fun, what everyone was hoping to get back, and it just doesn't make sense to not roll with.

ceruulean · August 3

ZoS is doing this because of technical limitations

It's a little tough for me to wrap my head around it too, but I take it that both modes (2-sided and 3-sided) *have* to have the same amount of people per lobby to be a part of the same queue. So the only way we can get 3-sided bgs back into the game is if they change up the lobby sizes so that players can queue for 3-sided and 2-sided matches at the same time as part of the "casual" queue if that makes sense? That's just what I gathered from what Wheeler mentioned.

ZOS is not removing 4v4 lmao, 4v4 is a pretty standard arena-like mode and the game would be worse without it. Nor should they remove GvG, whether it's 8v8 or 9v9 it's basically the same.

Radiate77 · August 3

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

madmufffin · August 3

Radiate77 wrote: »

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

Was it 4v4 or the juiced benefits of veterancy and 8v8 being awful to play?

Radiate77 · August 3

madmufffin wrote: »

Radiate77 wrote: »

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

Was it 4v4 or the juiced benefits of veterancy and 8v8 being awful to play?

Last I checked 4v4 came BEFORE veterancy.
Thank you though.

HatchetHaro · August 3

Radiate77 wrote: »

Yet 4v4 has cultivated a much larger playerbase than 4v4v4, as seen by the shift from 30 minute queues to -5 minute ones.

Battlegrounds were dead before the rework.

Then we had vastly different experiences. I recall the 4v4v4 queues being about the same to what the 4v4 queues are now.

That's also not a fair comparison. The introduction of 2-team BGs also came with many new vendor and leaderboard rewards. The new Veterancy system is also maintaining that interest.

React · August 3

Im interested to see how it plays out. I think a lot of the 3 team maps can support 6v6v6, and it will liven up the solo queue matches on the bigger maps.

The 9v9s and 4v4s are probably going to still suffer the same issue of lopsided matches causing spawn camping. I guess over time we will see what people prefer as the queue times settle.

Radiate77 · August 3

Imagine a Deathmatch Only 4v4, I’d rather that than whatever three team trash keeps getting thrown at us.

People don’t like getting third partied as visible by the lowest numbers in Cyrodiil and Imperial City history, three team is a failed experiment.

brtomkin · August 3

I assume this change was made because the lobby size needs to be equal for the queue to work. But, 18 players in a BG lobby is too many. 4v4v4 was great because it was only 12 total players. The 2-team BGs should be reduced to 6v6 and leave the 3-team BGs at 4v4v4.

HatchetHaro · August 3

ceruulean wrote: »

ZOS is not removing 4v4 lmao, 4v4 is a pretty standard arena-like mode and the game would be worse without it. Nor should they remove GvG, whether it's 8v8 or 9v9 it's basically the same.

"Standard" and "fun" are not the same thing. The introduction of 2-team BGs only highlighted the balance issues inherent to the game that made them much worse than these "standard" modes of PvP in other games.

In any other game, 2-team PvP usually results in close games between sides. Having tug-of-war situations keep players engaged throughout the whole match.

In ESO, due to issues of balance and skill gaps, 95% of 2-team matches end up being a stomp one way or another, which is 1. unfun for the losing side, and 2. unengaging for the winning side. That then, by design, influences player "stalling" behaviour, which, if you play BGs enough, you should already know is a massive issue in 4v4 deathmatches. These player gripes for others to "bro just jump down and die so we can go next" is fully emergent behaviour from improper game design.

In case you haven't actually played the 3-team BG format that they sometimes bring back, neither of those (stomps and stalling) were an issue at all.