Battlegrounds Bugs and Lack of Features - Still no response from ZOS [Updated 6/11]

Olupajmibanan

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

G0ku wrote: »

I´m all for a working enviroment for battlegrounds. But never ever should they change items/sets for the whole game to balance battlegrounds. Never. Don´t fiddle the game for one minor part of the whole.

Use sth. like battle spirit in pvp especially made for battlegrounds, but please don´t tell them to do balance changes based on battleground experience. This won´t lead to anything good, neither for bg players nor the rest of us....

I can definitely understand the PvE players not wanting sets to be changed based on PvP experiences, however unfortunately base changes to the game based on PvE have always affected the PvP players as well. The best solution in my opinion (and in many others') would be to balance the two environments completely separate from one another (as seen in most other MMOs), but that's certainly not the most cost/time-efficient solution, and if ZOS has shown us anything, it's that they like to cut corners, so I presented what I believe to be the most cost/time-efficient solution.

ZOS directly stated that they won't balance the two separately as they consider them one and the same - one world, no diferencies.

Cimadon

I was worried a couple of months ago about BG's being released without an mmr system. I made a thread about it (https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/332477/battlegrounds-matchmaking-concerns#latest). And now we all feel the suckyness of BG's without an mmr system. It sucks!

mihaiisraging

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

mihaiisraging wrote: »

Well, yea. I

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

Sharee wrote: »

I did not read the whole thread so apologies if someone already mentioned this, but...

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

10. Add Battlegrounds Vendors [Medium Priority]
Initially I came up with a token system to exchange for goods at a Battlegrounds Vendor, however I soon realized there was a much simpler solution; use AP. If we were earning more appropriate amounts of AP per match (see #9), we could have a separate Battlegrounds AP vendor (at the numerous Battlegrounds 'camps' in Vvardenfell), which could include poisons, potions, gear boxes, and more.

Well, it appears I am a derp and did not see the second vendor over there. Thank you for this, updating OP.

Still these sets are useless and not very pvp oriented. Also I know a guy wich wasted over 2mil AP just to get a defending shadow walker bow wich he didn't get yet. Also it is not in any store. All in all they should still change the vendor and get some proper pvp sets. Remember back before IC was launched and we could buy DIRECTLY the light band cyrodiil? Or get master weaps if we were in top 2%?

This is fair, it's late, but in the morning I'll do a write up regarding being able to purchase individual items, but maybe make them BoP to keep AP prices relatively low?

They should be definitely BoP so only if you play pvp you can get them. Even 200k ap/piece as the weekly vendor is selling would be way more realistic and better than a 20k box with random drop.

Koensol

I also wish they'd show more information on your performance at the end of the game. Things like damage done, total healing done, objective specific points, amount of caps, amount of intercepts, etc. Right now it is just kills... its just really stupid when you get 0 kills but 12 assists, just because somebody gives the final strike after you did 80% of the dmg. And that other person ends up with more points. Its really frustrating.

mihaiisraging

Koensol wrote: »

I also wish they'd show more information on your performance at the end of the game. Things like damage done, total healing done, objective specific points, amount of caps, amount of intercepts, etc. Right now it is just kills... its just really stupid when you get 0 kills but 12 assists, just because somebody gives the final strike after you did 80% of the dmg. And that other person ends up with more points. Its really frustrating.

If you click on the name it says both dmg and heal. I am not home atm to send a ss but I am sure it shows it.

Jade1986

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

Jade1986

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

Sigtric wrote: »

Personally I'd like to see cp stay out of it all together. Otherwise indifferent however adding more queues dilutes each and probably a detriment to queue times.

That's fair, I'm pretty indifferent on the CP vs Non-CP PvP seeing as I'm only CP400, but I can understand CP630+ players wanting to be able to utilize their hard earned CP.

As for the queues, I think the times would stay relatively the same, as while they would get diluted I believe more players would start playing Battlegrounds if there was some semblance of structure and decent rewards.

LMar wrote: »

AP rewards are low on purpose. Initially they weren't going to give AP I believe. AP is meant to be earned mostly in Cyrodiil and Battlegrounds is just extra top up.

I can understand that, but for a lot of players Cyrodiil isn't fun or competitive, and Battlegrounds was meant to be an alternative way for PvP players to get their fill, but without decent rewards the amount of active players will suffer.

The amount of players will be very low anyway, because only a very VERY tiny fraction of a minority wanted these. Most people would have preferred fixing cyro / revamping pvp / addition of objective based 8v8v8.

mihaiisraging

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

Atleast I am not killed by a 30ppl zerg anymore. Also as a nb I have a chance to choose my fights and maybe escape when it gets cheesy

Jade1986

mihaiisraging wrote: »

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

Atleast I am not killed by a 30ppl zerg anymore. Also as a nb I have a chance to choose my fights and maybe escape when it gets cheesy

All these are going to do is divide the already divided population even further. 4v4s should not even be considered now adays if mmos want to be successful in pvp.

Olupajmibanan

laced wrote: »

mihaiisraging wrote: »

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

Atleast I am not killed by a 30ppl zerg anymore. Also as a nb I have a chance to choose my fights and maybe escape when it gets cheesy

All these are going to do is divide the already divided population even further. 4v4s should not even be considered now adays if mmos want to be successful in pvp.

I don't understand why? 4-man is a standard small ESO group. 8v8v8 would be too big to call it small scale, and secondly for maintaining consistency,it would have to be 12v12v12s which is standard ESO large group.

I would like to see some 2v2s or 3v3s but that's the matter of personal preference. But I don't see what's wrong with 4v4v4s? Just 3 standard groups fighting each other.

Uncle_Sweetshare

I don't think the portion of the community that prefers small scale PvP is nearly as small as you're making it to be, laced. In every MMO I've played with competitive PvP arenas, the most competitive players flocked to small scale, including but not limited to WoW, GW1, GW2, TERA, and ArcheAge. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is extremely biased.

Uncle_Sweetshare

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

laced wrote: »

mihaiisraging wrote: »

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

Atleast I am not killed by a 30ppl zerg anymore. Also as a nb I have a chance to choose my fights and maybe escape when it gets cheesy

All these are going to do is divide the already divided population even further. 4v4s should not even be considered now adays if mmos want to be successful in pvp.

I don't understand why? 4-man is a standard small ESO group. 8v8v8 would be too big to call it small scale, and secondly for maintaining consistency,it would have to be 12v12v12s which is standard ESO large group.

I would like to see some 2v2s or 3v3s but that's the matter of personal preference.

I'd love to see 1v1s, 2v2s, 3v3s, and even 4v4s.

Jade1986

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

I don't think the portion of the community that prefers small scale PvP is nearly as small as you're making it to be, laced. In every MMO I've played with competitive PvP arenas, the most competitive players flocked to small scale, including but not limited to WoW, GW1, GW2, TERA, and ArcheAge. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is extremely biased.

It isn't, do a search for games that had 4v4s , WoW and SWTOR for example, and the devs both admitted it was a mistake because it caused a balancing nightmare and caused EXTREME toxic environments to be formed. 4v4 is very very niche. Itll be the thing to do for a few weeks or months and then itll be just like swtor with their arenas, a ghost town. 4v4 is an outdated game mode.

Jade1986

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

laced wrote: »

mihaiisraging wrote: »

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

Atleast I am not killed by a 30ppl zerg anymore. Also as a nb I have a chance to choose my fights and maybe escape when it gets cheesy

All these are going to do is divide the already divided population even further. 4v4s should not even be considered now adays if mmos want to be successful in pvp.

I don't understand why? 4-man is a standard small ESO group. 8v8v8 would be too big to call it small scale, and secondly for maintaining consistency,it would have to be 12v12v12s which is standard ESO large group.

I would like to see some 2v2s or 3v3s but that's the matter of personal preference. But I don't see what's wrong with 4v4v4s? Just 3 standard groups fighting each other.

8v8v8 is still way smaller than 30 v 30 v 30. If by some miracle the environment doesnt become toxic AF and a ghost town, then I will digress, but as the pattern shows throughout mmo history, 4v4s may be the choice for super competitive people, but those super competitive people are also a super minority.

Tyrion87

I totally agree with what you have posted. BGs have so many issues right now that playing them is not enjoyable most of the time.

Personally, for me the biggest issue with BGs is the team imbalance. In 80% of cases there is no 4v4v4! This should not be happening at all. How is this even possible? A couple of times, it was only me against 4v4. I tried to survive but it just wasnt possible. So after 3-4 minutes I just left the BGs and guess what... I got a 20min punishment! This issue is the highest priority for me (maybe along with the ongoing queue problems). The match should not start until there is 4 players at each side. Players already leave the match right after it starts when they see that their group is smaller than others.


@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_BrianWheeler

Jade1986

Tyrion87 wrote: »

I totally agree with what you have posted. BGs have so many issues right now that playing them is not enjoyable most of the time.

Personally, for me the biggest issue with BGs is the team imbalance. In 80% of cases there is no 4v4v4! This should not be happening at all. How is this even possible? A couple of times, it was only me against 4v4. I tried to survive but it just wasnt possible. So after 3-4 minutes I just left the BGs and guess what... I got a 20min punishment! This issue is the highest priority for me (maybe along with the ongoing queue problems). The match should not start until there is 4 players at each side. Players already leave the match right after it starts when they see that their group is smaller than others.


@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_BrianWheeler

This is another problem that PLAGUES 4v4s, or 4v4v4s in this case, team composition. It happens far too often in all MMOs with thtese where the teams are always lop sided, or you get 3 healers and 1 dps v 4 tanks. If a strict trinity comp is not enforced in them and a replacement system is not place, they are just destined to be frustrating AF.

RouDeR

I played 10 games on ps4 today 9/10 were not 4v4v4 , 4v2v2 was the most common one .

Sotihe

for a part of the game that was a big selling point for ESO they sure *** up on it. Battlegrounds will never get fix. Hell they cant even fix the game before battlegrounds what makes anyone think they can fix it now.[snip] Any other job out there they would not allow this

[edited for flaming]

Feanor

Everything is better than the 50+ zergs we see on Sotha Sil EU on a daily basis. I enjoy 4v4v4. The problem is we seldom get those at the moment and can't join as premade group at all.

Sylosi

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

There is nothing inherently bad about 4v4, after all it is pretty close to 5v5 which is the setup the most popular PvP games on the planet use (CS:GO, Overwatch, LoL, DOTA 2, etc), frankly the weird thing about ESO BG is that there are three teams, that is never going to be balanced.

Uncle_Sweetshare

Sylosi wrote: »

laced wrote: »

Battlegrounds are implemented, people warned they would be crap because 4v4 is by its very nature crap, it ends up being crap, and people are surprised how?

Every game that implements 4v4s sees a massive hit to pvp pretty much imediately, there was NO reason to implement these except to please a MINISCULE niche of players. Instead they should have revamped open world pvp, and brought in objective based 8v8v8.

Literally every game that introduced 4v4 has admitted, after a time, that it was a mistake, why on EARTH ZoS insisted on doing it is beyond me.

There is nothing inherently bad about 4v4, after all it is pretty close to 5v5 which is the setup the most popular PvP games on the planet use (CS:GO, Overwatch, LoL, DOTA 2, etc), frankly the weird thing about ESO BG is that there are three teams, that is never going to be balanced.

Agreed. As others and you have mentioned, 4 players per team is not some crazy off the wall concept, it's just that ESO happens to have a 4 man 'small group', that's all. There's no other special reasoning for it. There's no crazy conspiracy against laced, and 4 man teams doesn't magically make PvP extremely toxic.

As you also mentioned, I'd also much rather it by 1 team v 1 team, however I don't think 3 teams is the end of the world assuming that the game starts with 4 on each team. This whole 2v2v4 thing has gotta go.

Uncle_Sweetshare

RouDeR wrote: »

I played 10 games on ps4 today 9/10 were not 4v4v4 , 4v2v2 was the most common one .

At least we know this issue isn't platform related, as all 3 platforms are plagued with this issue. Unfortunately, this has been an issue since day 1, and we still have yet to see a fix. Granted, it was worse, as some teams were getting up to 12 players on them 2 weeks ago, but holy cow does the team move slow in implementing any fixes (unless it's to nerf an ability based on the top 5% of players clearing vHoF HM too easily).

zaria

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

G0ku wrote: »

I´m all for a working enviroment for battlegrounds. But never ever should they change items/sets for the whole game to balance battlegrounds. Never. Don´t fiddle the game for one minor part of the whole.

Use sth. like battle spirit in pvp especially made for battlegrounds, but please don´t tell them to do balance changes based on battleground experience. This won´t lead to anything good, neither for bg players nor the rest of us....

I can definitely understand the PvE players not wanting sets to be changed based on PvP experiences, however unfortunately base changes to the game based on PvE have always affected the PvP players as well. The best solution in my opinion (and in many others') would be to balance the two environments completely separate from one another (as seen in most other MMOs), but that's certainly not the most cost/time-efficient solution, and if ZOS has shown us anything, it's that they like to cut corners, so I presented what I believe to be the most cost/time-efficient solution.

You already has only against other player effects, like the set who does 10% of max health damage with HA.
Changing other effects too would be easy, they could simply say cyrodil, BG and during duels shields last 6 seconds but 12 outside.

Uncle_Sweetshare

zaria wrote: »

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

G0ku wrote: »

I´m all for a working enviroment for battlegrounds. But never ever should they change items/sets for the whole game to balance battlegrounds. Never. Don´t fiddle the game for one minor part of the whole.

Use sth. like battle spirit in pvp especially made for battlegrounds, but please don´t tell them to do balance changes based on battleground experience. This won´t lead to anything good, neither for bg players nor the rest of us....

I can definitely understand the PvE players not wanting sets to be changed based on PvP experiences, however unfortunately base changes to the game based on PvE have always affected the PvP players as well. The best solution in my opinion (and in many others') would be to balance the two environments completely separate from one another (as seen in most other MMOs), but that's certainly not the most cost/time-efficient solution, and if ZOS has shown us anything, it's that they like to cut corners, so I presented what I believe to be the most cost/time-efficient solution.

You already has only against other player effects, like the set who does 10% of max health damage with HA.
Changing other effects too would be easy, they could simply say cyrodil, BG and during duels shields last 6 seconds but 12 outside.

To be fair, the same can be said for PvE, with the sets that grant Minor Slayer earned from Trials. The issue is that the sets that are designed for PvP are no where near BiS for anyone, so they're essentially just vendor/ decon trash. I don't think that all sets need to be tweaked, nor even all proc sets, but tweaking the ones I mentioned just a little bit would greatly improve the overall health of small scale PvP, imo.

Kay1

Keep going OP, you have excellent points, don't let this thread die hundreds of people are with you

zaria

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I played 10 games on ps4 today 9/10 were not 4v4v4 , 4v2v2 was the most common one .

At least we know this issue isn't platform related, as all 3 platforms are plagued with this issue. Unfortunately, this has been an issue since day 1, and we still have yet to see a fix. Granted, it was worse, as some teams were getting up to 12 players on them 2 weeks ago, but holy cow does the team move slow in implementing any fixes (unless it's to nerf an ability based on the top 5% of players clearing vHoF HM too easily).

I guess it share code with the train wreck who is the dungeon finder even if BG is technically simpler, no roles or random / specified dungeon with level requirements, just group in 3x4

Uncle_Sweetshare

Kay1 wrote: »

Keep going OP, you have excellent points, don't let this thread die hundreds of people are with you

Thank you kind stranger, and that's the hardest part to be honest; finding talking points so the thread stays at the top and garners more attention. I feel a bit scummy at times because I know there are many other issues that also need to be addressed, but Battlegrounds should have never hit Early Access in this state, nevermind releasing it as a finished product to be ignored until 2 years from now when ZOS does a total team overhaul and completely revamps the entire game because the population dwindled down to nearly nothing (it's almost like they've done this already...).

You'd think they'd have learned from their mistakes.

zaria wrote: »

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

RouDeR wrote: »

I played 10 games on ps4 today 9/10 were not 4v4v4 , 4v2v2 was the most common one .

At least we know this issue isn't platform related, as all 3 platforms are plagued with this issue. Unfortunately, this has been an issue since day 1, and we still have yet to see a fix. Granted, it was worse, as some teams were getting up to 12 players on them 2 weeks ago, but holy cow does the team move slow in implementing any fixes (unless it's to nerf an ability based on the top 5% of players clearing vHoF HM too easily).

I guess it share code with the train wreck who is the dungeon finder even if BG is technically simpler, no roles or random / specified dungeon with level requirements, just group in 3x4

At this point you'd think it would be easier to set aside a few dedicated personnel for a week or so and have them rebuild it entirely from the ground up.

technohic

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

Battlegrounds in its current state leaves much to be desired. PvP arenas have been around in MMOs since Ultima Online, which was launched back in 1997. Since then, many MMOs used a relatively similar formula for their PvP arenas, featuring things such as rankings, team balancing, level brackets, choice of game modes, and more. For whatever reason, despite 20 years of tried and tested features being widely available on every other MMO on the market with a PvP arena, ZOS decided to forego all of this and launch Battlegrounds with no structure whatsoever. I've been updating this thread daily in hopes that ZOS will see this and respond in one form or another. If ZOS does plan to implement these features they should inform us so we can stop making threads like these, and if they don't plan on implementing any of these features, they should still inform us so we can stop making these threads.
Hopefully, with everyone's effort we can get some of these changes implemented so Battlegrounds can live up to its full potential as a source for competitive PvP within ESO.

1. Functioning Group Queue [High Priority]
Despite the recent patch 'fixing' this issue, it still persists, and players are getting stuck in 'you or a player in your group has declined' loop for hours on end.

2. Level Brackets [High Priority]
Currently there are no level brackets, despite the fact that on the ESO website it states Battlegrounds has two brackets (levels 10-49 and levels 10-50).

3. Competitive Queue/ MMR [High Priority]
In addition to level/ gear brackets, we need a separate competitive queue for players Level 50 CP160 and above with a visible MMR/ ranking system.

4. Team Balancing [High Priority]
Matches are consistenly starting with 2v2v4, matching 2 pairs of randoms with a 4 man premade (see #7). Games should not start until there are 4 players on each team.

5. Proc Set Changes [High Priority]
Unavoidable burst procs (Viper/ Red Mountain type) need their damage lowered and/or cooldown raised and/or damage changed to DoT, avoidable burst damage procs (Selene/ Widowmaker/ Velidreth type) need their damage slightly lowered and cooldowns equalized, DoT procs (Illambris/ Grothdarr type) are fine, and support procs (Pirate Skeleton/ Lord Warden type) are fine (excluding Troll King which needs its regen lowered).
Proc sets should also be changed to scale based on Weapon Damage and Stamina, or Spell Power and Magicka instead of flat damage/ heals/ etc. This would slightly lower their effectiveness in non-CP PvP and slightly raise their effectiveness in CP PvP and in PvE.
Quoting myself from another thread (it's a doozey):

The issue with proc sets comes from multiple players on same teams running multiple unavoidable burst damage procs (Such as Viper, Red Mountain, etc.), and the fact that these sets deal damage outside of your rotation. By that, I mean they can go off during other animations, and don't require an additional key to be pressed or skill to be slotted. Because they're all unavoidable damage that happens outside of your normal rotation, nothing has to be sacrificed in order for them to work. For those reasons I believe that the damage for these sets need to be lowered, the cooldown extended, or the damage changed from DD to DoT.

Next in line would be burst procs that are avoidable, such as Velidreth, Selene, or Widowmaker (which surprisingly hasn't been brought up often here). These sets aren't always avoidable due to CC, no Stamina to dodge, etc., but they are avoidable. Now, let's take Velidreth and compare it to Selene. Velidreth is easily avoidable (the center ball not so much, but for sake of argument) and has a long cooldown, so there's not too much hate on it in here. Selene is also avoidable, but because it hits hard and is on a short cooldown, it gets lots of hate here. Personally, I think the damage on these sets should be slightly lowered, and the cooldowns semi-equalized (so there isn't a clear BiS).

Then we have the DoT procs, and to no one's surprise, there's not a lot of hate on these. Grothdarr procs? Walk away, but if you don't it's okay because you can pop Vigor to out heal the damage. Illambris procs? Get out of the circle, or stand in it and pop Vigor to out heal the damage. Scourge Harvester procs? Stand there in bewilderment that someone is running Scourge Harvester, and pop Vigor to out heal the damage. These sets just aren't very effective in PvP, and I think that they fine in terms of numbers, but would be more viable if the burst set numbers were lowered.

Lastly, we have support proc sets. These also don't get a lot of hate because they all complement builds instead of being the build. You can't exactly make a build that revolves entirely around Pirate Skeleton or Lord Warden (Troll King is the rare exception here), but they're great additional effects to have. On the other hand, there are plenty of builds that revolve around Selene/ Viper/ Widowmaker, where the rest of the build doesn't matter as long as you have a gap closer and CC. Personally I think the support sets are fine where they are, numbers wise.

Long story short, the issue with proc sets isn't proc sets as a whole, but the burst damage procs and the fact that they do massive amounts of damage outside your rotation. I think any time there are clear, across-the-board BiS items for anything (tanking, DPS, healing, etc.), those items need to be reevaluated and tweaked so there isn't a clear BiS.

6. Option to Reconnect if DC'd/ Crashed [High Priority]
Players should have up to 3 minutes to get back into the game if they DC or crash while in Battlegrounds before the game removes them and gives them the 20 minute leaver's penalty. Players that choose to leave manually via the UI should still be able to do so and incur the leaver's penalty.

7. Solo/Duo/Trio and 4 Man Team Queues [High Priority]
Those that are queuing with less than 4 players should only play with/ against eachother, and those queuing with 4 players should only play against other 4 player groups. "Team" MMR can be an average of the 4 players within the group.

8. Choice of Game Mode [Medium Priority]
A lot of players have their preferred game mode and shouldn't be forced to play 'random' all the time.

9. Improved End-of-Match Rewards [Medium Priority]
XP and AP rewards need to be greatly increased as you can currently gain more AP by capping a few resources in Cyrodiil than in a Battlegrounds match, and in a quarter of the time.

10. Remove Power Sigils [Medium Priority]
There's no need for additional RNG in ESO's combat, especially in an enclosed arena.

11. Leaderboards [Medium Priority]
The leaderboards should be based on performance, not time played. With an MMR system in place, leaderboards could be based on said MMR for the sake of simplicity.

12. Players Start Match with 0 Ultimate [Low Priority]
Ultimates can be used to gain a massive advantage over opponents in the first few seconds of a game (ie. massive burst damage to grab sigil at the start of a match), and to improve match fluidity each player should start with 0 Ultimate.

13. Non-CP and CP Competitive Queue [Low Priority]
Casual (non-Competitive) Queue can remain non-CP, however the competitive players should be given the choice between non-CP and CP matches, with separate MMRs.

14. Role Based Queues [Low Priority]
There is currently no role selection for Battlegrounds groups, leading group composition to be entirely RNG.

15. Custom Games [Low Priority]
Custom games/ lobbies where you can queue as 12 players and be placed into a match with all 12 players (teams being separated by their small groups).

If anyone has anything they wish to have added to the list feel free to comment and I will add it when I can. Thank you for reading!

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_BrianWheeler @Wrobel

I agree with most of this except role matching should be a much higher priority as it reduces a big part of what makes premades superior in most MMOs outside of communications and familiarity. This could be the most important if the queues turn out to be too long when separating PUGs and groups.

I caution against too high of AP rewards as to not make arenas a shortcut that encourages people who will just participate just enough to not get an AFK boot.

Uncle_Sweetshare

technohic wrote: »

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

Battlegrounds in its current state leaves much to be desired. PvP arenas have been around in MMOs since Ultima Online, which was launched back in 1997. Since then, many MMOs used a relatively similar formula for their PvP arenas, featuring things such as rankings, team balancing, level brackets, choice of game modes, and more. For whatever reason, despite 20 years of tried and tested features being widely available on every other MMO on the market with a PvP arena, ZOS decided to forego all of this and launch Battlegrounds with no structure whatsoever. I've been updating this thread daily in hopes that ZOS will see this and respond in one form or another. If ZOS does plan to implement these features they should inform us so we can stop making threads like these, and if they don't plan on implementing any of these features, they should still inform us so we can stop making these threads.
Hopefully, with everyone's effort we can get some of these changes implemented so Battlegrounds can live up to its full potential as a source for competitive PvP within ESO.

1. Functioning Group Queue [High Priority]
Despite the recent patch 'fixing' this issue, it still persists, and players are getting stuck in 'you or a player in your group has declined' loop for hours on end.

2. Level Brackets [High Priority]
Currently there are no level brackets, despite the fact that on the ESO website it states Battlegrounds has two brackets (levels 10-49 and levels 10-50).

3. Competitive Queue/ MMR [High Priority]
In addition to level/ gear brackets, we need a separate competitive queue for players Level 50 CP160 and above with a visible MMR/ ranking system.

4. Team Balancing [High Priority]
Matches are consistenly starting with 2v2v4, matching 2 pairs of randoms with a 4 man premade (see #7). Games should not start until there are 4 players on each team.

5. Proc Set Changes [High Priority]
Unavoidable burst procs (Viper/ Red Mountain type) need their damage lowered and/or cooldown raised and/or damage changed to DoT, avoidable burst damage procs (Selene/ Widowmaker/ Velidreth type) need their damage slightly lowered and cooldowns equalized, DoT procs (Illambris/ Grothdarr type) are fine, and support procs (Pirate Skeleton/ Lord Warden type) are fine (excluding Troll King which needs its regen lowered).
Proc sets should also be changed to scale based on Weapon Damage and Stamina, or Spell Power and Magicka instead of flat damage/ heals/ etc. This would slightly lower their effectiveness in non-CP PvP and slightly raise their effectiveness in CP PvP and in PvE.
Quoting myself from another thread (it's a doozey):

The issue with proc sets comes from multiple players on same teams running multiple unavoidable burst damage procs (Such as Viper, Red Mountain, etc.), and the fact that these sets deal damage outside of your rotation. By that, I mean they can go off during other animations, and don't require an additional key to be pressed or skill to be slotted. Because they're all unavoidable damage that happens outside of your normal rotation, nothing has to be sacrificed in order for them to work. For those reasons I believe that the damage for these sets need to be lowered, the cooldown extended, or the damage changed from DD to DoT.

Next in line would be burst procs that are avoidable, such as Velidreth, Selene, or Widowmaker (which surprisingly hasn't been brought up often here). These sets aren't always avoidable due to CC, no Stamina to dodge, etc., but they are avoidable. Now, let's take Velidreth and compare it to Selene. Velidreth is easily avoidable (the center ball not so much, but for sake of argument) and has a long cooldown, so there's not too much hate on it in here. Selene is also avoidable, but because it hits hard and is on a short cooldown, it gets lots of hate here. Personally, I think the damage on these sets should be slightly lowered, and the cooldowns semi-equalized (so there isn't a clear BiS).

Then we have the DoT procs, and to no one's surprise, there's not a lot of hate on these. Grothdarr procs? Walk away, but if you don't it's okay because you can pop Vigor to out heal the damage. Illambris procs? Get out of the circle, or stand in it and pop Vigor to out heal the damage. Scourge Harvester procs? Stand there in bewilderment that someone is running Scourge Harvester, and pop Vigor to out heal the damage. These sets just aren't very effective in PvP, and I think that they fine in terms of numbers, but would be more viable if the burst set numbers were lowered.

Lastly, we have support proc sets. These also don't get a lot of hate because they all complement builds instead of being the build. You can't exactly make a build that revolves entirely around Pirate Skeleton or Lord Warden (Troll King is the rare exception here), but they're great additional effects to have. On the other hand, there are plenty of builds that revolve around Selene/ Viper/ Widowmaker, where the rest of the build doesn't matter as long as you have a gap closer and CC. Personally I think the support sets are fine where they are, numbers wise.

Long story short, the issue with proc sets isn't proc sets as a whole, but the burst damage procs and the fact that they do massive amounts of damage outside your rotation. I think any time there are clear, across-the-board BiS items for anything (tanking, DPS, healing, etc.), those items need to be reevaluated and tweaked so there isn't a clear BiS.

6. Option to Reconnect if DC'd/ Crashed [High Priority]
Players should have up to 3 minutes to get back into the game if they DC or crash while in Battlegrounds before the game removes them and gives them the 20 minute leaver's penalty. Players that choose to leave manually via the UI should still be able to do so and incur the leaver's penalty.

7. Solo/Duo/Trio and 4 Man Team Queues [High Priority]
Those that are queuing with less than 4 players should only play with/ against eachother, and those queuing with 4 players should only play against other 4 player groups. "Team" MMR can be an average of the 4 players within the group.

8. Choice of Game Mode [Medium Priority]
A lot of players have their preferred game mode and shouldn't be forced to play 'random' all the time.

9. Improved End-of-Match Rewards [Medium Priority]
XP and AP rewards need to be greatly increased as you can currently gain more AP by capping a few resources in Cyrodiil than in a Battlegrounds match, and in a quarter of the time.

10. Remove Power Sigils [Medium Priority]
There's no need for additional RNG in ESO's combat, especially in an enclosed arena.

11. Leaderboards [Medium Priority]
The leaderboards should be based on performance, not time played. With an MMR system in place, leaderboards could be based on said MMR for the sake of simplicity.

12. Players Start Match with 0 Ultimate [Low Priority]
Ultimates can be used to gain a massive advantage over opponents in the first few seconds of a game (ie. massive burst damage to grab sigil at the start of a match), and to improve match fluidity each player should start with 0 Ultimate.

13. Non-CP and CP Competitive Queue [Low Priority]
Casual (non-Competitive) Queue can remain non-CP, however the competitive players should be given the choice between non-CP and CP matches, with separate MMRs.

14. Role Based Queues [Low Priority]
There is currently no role selection for Battlegrounds groups, leading group composition to be entirely RNG.

15. Custom Games [Low Priority]
Custom games/ lobbies where you can queue as 12 players and be placed into a match with all 12 players (teams being separated by their small groups).

If anyone has anything they wish to have added to the list feel free to comment and I will add it when I can. Thank you for reading!

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_RichLambert @ZOS_BrianWheeler @Wrobel

I agree with most of this except role matching should be a much higher priority as it reduces a big part of what makes premades superior in most MMOs outside of communications and familiarity. This could be the most important if the queues turn out to be too long when separating PUGs and groups.

I caution against too high of AP rewards as to not make arenas a shortcut that encourages people who will just participate just enough to not get an AFK boot.

I can bump role based queues up the list, for sure.

As for the too high of AP, I agree, but I think something along the lines of 10k per match would be much better than the 2.5k we currently earn. To earn 2.5k in Cyrodiil all you have to do is go solo cap a resource and kill the random player that comes to defend it, and that might take 2 minutes, tops. It's crazy that after their extensive 'testing' that they would think 2.5k AP was an acceptable reward.

Also, I believe you can still vote kick players from groups, so unfortunately the community will have to police itself when it comes to players trying to milk the system.

mihaiisraging

Uncle_Sweetshare wrote: »

I don't think the portion of the community that prefers small scale PvP is nearly as small as you're making it to be, laced. In every MMO I've played with competitive PvP arenas, the most competitive players flocked to small scale, including but not limited to WoW, GW1, GW2, TERA, and ArcheAge. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but it is extremely biased.

Totally agree. The arenas in gw1 were the best