What's needed to save Battlegrounds

Strider__Roshin

First and foremost ZOS needs to humble themselves, and realize that what they want isn't necessary what we want, and this selfish decision making is harming their game, and it is why battlegrounds is in the pitiful state it currently is in.

Okay let me state what should already be obvious. When it comes to a game type such as Battlegrounds there are two types of players: Team Death Match (TDM), and Objective-focused.

The grab bag isn't necessary a bad idea, but understand that you're only appealing to the objective players (the minority), and not those who only want to play TDM. Because of this there needs to be Grab Bag and a TDM queue option.

When it comes to team structure 4v4v4 may be a good format for some game types, but certainly not most, and certainly not for anything competitive. By default the teams should be 4v4 not 4v4v4. Don't believe me? Make both options available and see where your players go.

Now when it comes to the objective game types themself, they need to be re-done. Simply put, kills need to matter. For example, in domination capturing a flag should not grant your team points. Instead they should influence how many points your team acquires when you kill a player.

Kill credit. The current system caters magsorcs that spam Mage's Wrath, and infuriates everyone else. The best solution I can think of that doesn't involve nerfing executes is to lump kills and assists into one category (It's called efficiency in Destiny 2).

There needs to be an unique competitive game type (4v4 only), one that you need to show up to physically with a preformed group. It should not have a respawn function (can only be revived by allies), it should be in a TDM style (non-objective), it should have a leaderboard, and it should have a very high incentive (e.g. 10k AP for winning a match, and potentially a gold mat, or a motif page). Losing should not be well rewarded (maybe 1k AP).

When it comes to Champion Points BGs should not be one way or another. Both options should be available.

Finally, we should have the ability to re-queue for the next match without having to leave the match first. Imagine if C.O.D. made you leave after each match? It would feel outdated, and it would just annoy you. Well that's what you're doing to your PvP community.

Kilandros

I agree that 4v4 should be the default format. Game modes like CTF, Domination, etc. just don't work with three teams. There's a reason why all the (successful) FPS franchises focused on team v. team game modes. I suppose ZOS decided on 4v4v4 because Cyrodiil is AvAvA. As usual, ZOS makes poor design choices for the sake of some weird mimicry.

Zer0oo

Kilandros wrote: »

I agree that 4v4 should be the default format. Game modes like CTF, Domination, etc. just don't work with three teams. There's a reason why all the (successful) FPS franchises focused on team v. team game modes. I suppose ZOS decided on 4v4v4 because Cyrodiil is AvAvA. As usual, ZOS makes poor design choices for the sake of some weird mimicry.

They though probably 4vs4vs4 is more balanced because the weaker teams could team up against a stronger team.

Kilandros

Zer0oo wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

I agree that 4v4 should be the default format. Game modes like CTF, Domination, etc. just don't work with three teams. There's a reason why all the (successful) FPS franchises focused on team v. team game modes. I suppose ZOS decided on 4v4v4 because Cyrodiil is AvAvA. As usual, ZOS makes poor design choices for the sake of some weird mimicry.

They though probably 4vs4vs4 is more balanced because the weaker teams could team up against a stronger team.

To be fair, if they were ever remotely concerned with team balance in BGs then they would have created a separate queue for premade teams.

Strider__Roshin

Zer0oo wrote: »

Kilandros wrote: »

I agree that 4v4 should be the default format. Game modes like CTF, Domination, etc. just don't work with three teams. There's a reason why all the (successful) FPS franchises focused on team v. team game modes. I suppose ZOS decided on 4v4v4 because Cyrodiil is AvAvA. As usual, ZOS makes poor design choices for the sake of some weird mimicry.

They though probably 4vs4vs4 is more balanced because the weaker teams could team up against a stronger team.

That's not what happens though. What happens is that the weaker team becomes fodder for the other teams. This is seen more clearly in CTF and TDM where the weaker team gets farmed for easy points.

Sixty5

The issue is that you want to create a number of new queues and the population just isn't there to support that.

At most I'd say you could run 2 seperate queues for battlegrounds before wait times start to get too obnoxious.

As far as rewards go, I do agree that they are currently a joke. I mean I got two medium reinforced impregnable helms as a reward for winning a match a while back. Two of the same item. Additionally the leaderboard rewards could use a bit of a buff too (who wants to buy a decisive gold wizards riposte bow?)
I wouldn't go as far as motif pages for single game wins, but leaderboards sure. As for the game rewards, maybe up the gold a little.

Also having the option to re-queue from the end screen would definitely be nice.

Strider__Roshin

Sixty5 wrote: »

The issue is that you want to create a number of new queues and the population just isn't there to support that.

At most I'd say you could run 2 seperate queues for battlegrounds before wait times start to get too obnoxious.

As far as rewards go, I do agree that they are currently a joke. I mean I got two medium reinforced impregnable helms as a reward for winning a match a while back. Two of the same item. Additionally the leaderboard rewards could use a bit of a buff too (who wants to buy a decisive gold wizards riposte bow?)
I wouldn't go as far as motif pages for single game wins, but leaderboards sure. As for the game rewards, maybe up the gold a little.

Also having the option to re-queue from the end screen would definitely be nice.

If the match types were 4v4 that would certainly quicken queue times. You know how there are two tabs to switch between when you use activity finder? (One tab for vet, and one for non-vet) That's how I would separate non-CP from CP. Once you've selected your tab (on non-CP by default, then it remains on the tab you used last) then you have two options to choose from: Grab Bag or TDM.

As far as the competitive game type goes, you'll have to show up to a particular NPC and he or she will place you in a queue with your preformed team of 4. There should be an NPC for CP and a NPC for non-CP; each with their respective leaderboards. It's really not that complicated.

Minno

Kilandros wrote: »

I agree that 4v4 should be the default format. Game modes like CTF, Domination, etc. just don't work with three teams. There's a reason why all the (successful) FPS franchises focused on team v. team game modes. I suppose ZOS decided on 4v4v4 because Cyrodiil is AvAvA. As usual, ZOS makes poor design choices for the sake of some weird mimicry.

Well there are instances where the AvAvA formate works. Chaosball is a great mode where the game becomes 2v1 making it a greater challenge for the team that is holding the ball. Same for relic fights, if one team accidentally holds 2 relics, it becomes a 2v1 fight or when teams are trying to fight for a relic while defending their own it partitions the fight into 2v2v2 situations.

Flags/domination don't really work. Flags only work for the lava-donut map because you can see which flags you need to hit and how many teammates you need to be successful.

domination, in my opinion fails with a AvAvA format.

Regardless, BG's are relatively lag free, and the only time you are zerged if your team goes off trying to be sypher2.0 . BG's are the future of pvp in ESO; if they can get rid of the pay wall.

VaranisArano

I don't understand why Battlegrounds have to be either No CP or just CP. While I prefer CP and this change makes ,me more likely to do Battlegrounds, why on Nirn are they not providing both options? That seems like a no brainer to me.

Lexxypwns

VaranisArano wrote: »

I don't understand why Battlegrounds have to be either No CP or just CP. While I prefer CP and this change makes ,me more likely to do Battlegrounds, why on Nirn are they not providing both options? That seems like a no brainer to me.

Lack of population. On a night in BGs on my platform I'll see at most 30 unique players in 3-5 hours. That's during prime time on weekends. Typically I see the same 8 or 9 players with a rotating cast of 5-6 randoms coming in and out over a few hours.

Now, split that in 2 and you'll never get a match

Riggsy

Daus wrote: »

Kill credit. The current system caters magsorcs that spam Mage's Wrath, and infuriates everyone else. The best solution I can think of that doesn't involve nerfing executes is to lump kills and assists into one category (It's called efficiency in Destiny 2).

Yup, its such a pain to explain time and time again that assists are as worthy as kills, if not being greater than kills. You get the assist for doing majority of damage to a target, you get a "kill" for dealing that final hit that takes the target's health to 0. It is more difficult to rack-up assists yet people hold up kills like its the be all end all of BGs, cracks me up every time. ZOS needs to look at it, and if anything fix the wording.

Sixty5

Daus wrote: »

Sixty5 wrote: »

The issue is that you want to create a number of new queues and the population just isn't there to support that.

At most I'd say you could run 2 seperate queues for battlegrounds before wait times start to get too obnoxious.

As far as rewards go, I do agree that they are currently a joke. I mean I got two medium reinforced impregnable helms as a reward for winning a match a while back. Two of the same item. Additionally the leaderboard rewards could use a bit of a buff too (who wants to buy a decisive gold wizards riposte bow?)
I wouldn't go as far as motif pages for single game wins, but leaderboards sure. As for the game rewards, maybe up the gold a little.

Also having the option to re-queue from the end screen would definitely be nice.

If the match types were 4v4 that would certainly quicken queue times. You know how there are two tabs to switch between when you use activity finder? (One tab for vet, and one for non-vet) That's how I would separate non-CP from CP. Once you've selected your tab (on non-CP by default, then it remains on the tab you used last) then you have two options to choose from: Grab Bag or TDM.

As far as the competitive game type goes, you'll have to show up to a particular NPC and he or she will place you in a queue with your preformed team of 4. There should be an NPC for CP and a NPC for non-CP; each with their respective leaderboards. It's really not that complicated.

That still doesn't solve the issue of population.

Firstly all of the maps are designed for 4v4v4, so that would be a bunch of work on the part of ZoS to create 4v4 maps.

Right now you need 12 people to play a match in battlegrounds. There is one queue.

If you split it up into Deathmatch/Objective and CP/Non-CP you have 4 seperate queues, each needing 12 people to form a game. This means that you need a minimum of 48 active players to fill all 4 queues.

Currently battlegrounds doesn't have the population to support that, at least not all of the time. Sure I'd love to be able to just queue for one game mode and not ever have to play chaosball again, but until the population in battlegrounds is more robust, it can't happen.

Strider__Roshin

Sixty5 wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

Sixty5 wrote: »

The issue is that you want to create a number of new queues and the population just isn't there to support that.

At most I'd say you could run 2 seperate queues for battlegrounds before wait times start to get too obnoxious.

As far as rewards go, I do agree that they are currently a joke. I mean I got two medium reinforced impregnable helms as a reward for winning a match a while back. Two of the same item. Additionally the leaderboard rewards could use a bit of a buff too (who wants to buy a decisive gold wizards riposte bow?)
I wouldn't go as far as motif pages for single game wins, but leaderboards sure. As for the game rewards, maybe up the gold a little.

Also having the option to re-queue from the end screen would definitely be nice.

If the match types were 4v4 that would certainly quicken queue times. You know how there are two tabs to switch between when you use activity finder? (One tab for vet, and one for non-vet) That's how I would separate non-CP from CP. Once you've selected your tab (on non-CP by default, then it remains on the tab you used last) then you have two options to choose from: Grab Bag or TDM.

As far as the competitive game type goes, you'll have to show up to a particular NPC and he or she will place you in a queue with your preformed team of 4. There should be an NPC for CP and a NPC for non-CP; each with their respective leaderboards. It's really not that complicated.

That still doesn't solve the issue of population.

Firstly all of the maps are designed for 4v4v4, so that would be a bunch of work on the part of ZoS to create 4v4 maps.

Right now you need 12 people to play a match in battlegrounds. There is one queue.

If you split it up into Deathmatch/Objective and CP/Non-CP you have 4 seperate queues, each needing 12 people to form a game. This means that you need a minimum of 48 active players to fill all 4 queues.

Currently battlegrounds doesn't have the population to support that, at least not all of the time. Sure I'd love to be able to just queue for one game mode and not ever have to play chaosball again, but until the population in battlegrounds is more robust, it can't happen.

Changing the matches to 4v4 will quicken queues. Ask yourself, why do you think the population is so low? Pay gate? Yeah I'm sure that has some influence. The primary reasons are actually due to two items:

1) lack of incentive. The AP gain is pitiful. Your time would be better served by capturing resources in Cyrodiil easily.

2) it's not fun. A LOT of players just want to play TDM, and nothing is more infuriating than getting one objective game after another when all you want to have is small scale PvP. Honestly, is that not the whole reason why we wanted battlegrounds to begin with? It was such a simple thing to get right, and they blew it.

This is why the population is low. And I don't foresee it getting any better any time soon. Adding CP won't solve a thing.

Minno

Riggsy wrote: »

Daus wrote: »

Kill credit. The current system caters magsorcs that spam Mage's Wrath, and infuriates everyone else. The best solution I can think of that doesn't involve nerfing executes is to lump kills and assists into one category (It's called efficiency in Destiny 2).

Yup, its such a pain to explain time and time again that assists are as worthy as kills, if not being greater than kills. You get the assist for doing majority of damage to a target, you get a "kill" for dealing that final hit that takes the target's health to 0. It is more difficult to rack-up assists yet people hold up kills like its the be all end all of BGs, cracks me up every time. ZOS needs to look at it, and if anything fix the wording.

Here's how I stack the stat sheet in BGs:
- points = players focused on objectives. Someone has to hold the chaos ball/grab those relics/flags.
- kills = players focused on fast burst and adding executes so other players don't have to.
- deaths = metric to decide how tanky you want your tank build.
- assists = players focused on engaging just enough to drop down consistent pressure. They aren't home-run kings, but they put the balls in play that make those selfish home-runs game defining.

Can't have one without the others.

Blobsky

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Trashs1

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

well for me its the opposite i dont know many ppl who didnt buy morrowind. although they are mostly pve oriented players..

Juhasow

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Your dentist is making surgery for less then 15$ ? Is it real surgery or just teeths hammer smashing ?

Strider__Roshin

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

The reason why the population is so low is because people just want to play TDM, and kills are useless in objective based games. My entire guild was excited for BGs, and we all participated, but we got burned out pretty quickly.

The queue times for one were horrible, and then there's the issue of grab bag. All we want to do is TDM because it's the only game type where kills matter, and with each dlc they dilute grab bag more and more. Now we don't even bother.

In order to get small scale PvP we hang out in the sewers, but even that gets zergy and discouraging.

If they can do BGs correctly it would greatly increase the population.

Ragnarock41

Juhasow wrote: »

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Your dentist is making surgery for less then 15$ ? Is it real surgery or just teeths hammer smashing ?

less than 15$? Where do you buy it for 15$? Im very curious now.

DDuke

What needs to happen to save BGs:

1. Competitive leaderboards based on win rate, not just on how much you play.
2. MMR, premades get queued against premades (or four randomly selected players with high win rates).
3. Seasonal (monthly?) unique rewards based on leaderboard position. Rewards can be anything from crown crates to special unique cosmetics/titles/gear etc.
4. More intuitive way to queue into BGs, having them only visible in group finder doesn't really advertise them much (compare to Alliance War which has its own tab & UI elements in your character screen).

Simple.

Blobsky

Juhasow wrote: »

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Your dentist is making surgery for less then 15$ ? Is it real surgery or just teeths hammer smashing ?

"Doors" are not dentists. Morrowind cost £45 on release. I cant see people buying it now as mostly it is dead content assides from the pve aspects which were cool, but by no means worth that much

Riggsy

The easiest solution (while keeping it non-CP) would be as others have said: remove the pay-wall so everyone can play BGs.
After that, incentivize BG play. When we had the double AP event a few months ago you got decent AP from playing them. In my opinion that double AP bonus should've remained (seeing how the win rewards/leaderboard rewards are pitiful).

As for the queues, after doubling the AP the BGs should be split between TDM and the other objectives given randomly. If you queue for the objectives, after you finish you receive an AP bonus (like the rewards random dungeons give).

Those alone would boost the population and require almost nothing new (a few tweaks to the code).

Juhasow

Blobsky wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Your dentist is making surgery for less then 15$ ? Is it real surgery or just teeths hammer smashing ?

"Doors" are not dentists. Morrowind cost £45 on release. I cant see people buying it now as mostly it is dead content assides from the pve aspects which were cool, but by no means worth that much

I had it for 87 pln which is around 18£ around 2 weeks after Morrowind release when BGs wasnt dead yet . Currently it's even cheaper.

Beardimus

I disagree on splitting the grab bag and 4x4.
I didn't originally like Grab bag but I think now its good that all modes get population, else they less popular will die off.

also - originally I liked DM, but then after playing more its my least fave now as the objective games have better tactics.

4x4 as an option is an ok idea, but certainly not default, 4x4x4 rocks - and again even the option could mean less people in the queues. With low POP i'm unsure these ideas work for the community as longer queue times we don't want.

Suggestions -
Splitting pre-made queue and solo is key for interest as most players I know that dabble and get stomped by that one pro team you see all night don't come back as its dull.

Going CP will mean many of the skilled lower CP players playing right now will be narked off - at least they have Witches event to gain a few CP coming up but still if you are 200CP now its going to suck for a while. I think its going to kill off regular lower CP players.

LAST suggestion is a private BG. i.e. you can run a Guild only event, even if that's 1v1v1 - or all wail on your tank 4v1 etc - this would be cool.

Juhasow

Ragnarock41 wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Your dentist is making surgery for less then 15$ ? Is it real surgery or just teeths hammer smashing ?

less than 15$? Where do you buy it for 15$? Im very curious now.

Well last time I maded thread about that it was closed because You cant advertise other websites on forum apparently.
So due to that I can only answer : INTERNET. There is bunch of retailers selling Morrowind for cheaper prices then on official ESO website. Cant post links here unfortunately. You just have to find one and make sure it's legit source.

Sixty5

Honestly I wouldn't mind ZoS selling a battleground access ticket for 1500 crowns.

More people more fun.

MehrunesFlagon

they should have just released them with one mode. Deathmatch.

Subversus

Juhasow wrote: »

Blobsky wrote: »

None of this would matter, as there simply aren't enough BG players for so many options... barely 1 game ever fills as it is. Morrowind cost more than a dental surgery and so many of my PvP buddies didnt buy it. Honestly I paid for it but wouldnt give two sheets if they made it free, there mighy actually be oponents then

Your dentist is making surgery for less then 15$ ? Is it real surgery or just teeths hammer smashing ?

On a separate note, I payed 8 euros for mine on Kinguin...

RinaldoGandolphi

I like the different objective game modes and 4v4v4. It’s keeps things interesting.

Furthermore if I wanted to play TDM I’d play COD, Battlefield or other such games that are actually balanced properly for TDM. ESO is fun but balance is a joke, that’s ok though because the game is still fun at times

exeeter702

4v4v4 is complete garbage.

Battle grounds should be 8v8 with 2 sided maps designed specifically for the game type they are accociated with. 1 CTF unique maps, 1 Dom map, some other hybrids much akin to swtors pylon map or wows temple map etc etc.

Then you only ever allow a premade group at most to be 4 players. That way you never have a stacked team in 8v8 for the most part. This keeps queue times healthy and alleviates the issue of premades destroying pugs as 4 man premades in a team of 8 while advantageous, is not a gaeunteed blowup as you will have to account for 4 other players on your team not completely in sync with you.

You *** do this along with some form of prestige reward structure and bgs will become more attractive. And more attractive bgs means more participation. More participation means you can then begin to even consider implementing an mmr system.

People asking for an mmr system now, asking that premades have their own queue and asking for map types to be chosen by players frankly dont know what they are talking about.

The devs insistent desire for nonsense 3 way pvp was the death nail in bgs. 3 way objective pvp is a complete joke and no other mmo that has had even a fraction of success with bgs have ever implemented instanced pvp with 3 teams.

Swtor in all its failures still has a healther bg (warzone) population than eso at this very moment.