Do you want more XvXvX or XvX Battlegrounds in the future?

Strider__Roshin

XvX

When you look at this poll as well as the poll that inquires about power sigils being present in TDM; it's clear that what we want and what ZOS wants do not align. I hope @ZOS_BrianWheeler and the others reflect upon this information.

It does appear that they're starting to listen though considering we can finally choose our match type a year later. Now we'll see a lot more activity because they're now working with the PvP community rather than against it. Which I'm thankful for.

BNOC

XvX

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.

I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.

I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.

The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.

Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvX

All game types rely on a team's Mobility and combat prowess. The degree to which one or the other is relied upon depends on each game type. Effective team strategy requires using both combat and Mobility appropriately in each game type. I really don't see what the problem is with that.

It sounds to me like you want the team with better combat prowess to always win. If that is the case, then you will be all set when Somerset comes around and you can pick Deathmatch every time. But if the focus of BG's shifted to xvx, I feel it is inevitable that the vast majority of games would just involve one team getting dominated by the other to the point of being spawn camped.

The problem with it in any game mode bar TDM is that you're punished for engaging in a team fight.

It's almost always better to just run from flag to flag, relic to relic - Ignoring all combat at any expense as it's simply a waste of time and puts you at a disadvantage.

This is only true for domination, all other game modes involve times when engaging in (and winning) a fight is to your advantage.

I should have said that it doesn't really apply to Chaosball either.

Whilst I agree that there are times when engaging is beneficial, there's also times where you find yourself punished as a result., win or lose, because there's a third team.

E.G - I as a purple, run to Red and see Reds defending their base against Greens, there's now a pickup timer so I know nobody there can grab that relic until that team fight is finished. I'll run to the Green base, grab the relic and go cash it in whilst those dopes are fighting still.

It's not tactical, it's not risky, it doesn't involve any skill other than pressing (pickup keybind) and running and it happens more often than you'd think - At least on Xbox - It's not low CP's either, it's guys who think that the BG leader boards hold any significance..

Capping uncontested should never be a thing IMO.

Kel

XvX

I think with the changes coming in Summerset, the maps and match types can remain the same, but take that 3rd team and split it, making matches 6v6.
There's no real reason outside of trying to be different for the sake of being different to have 4v4v4. It's not faction locked, and really has nothing to do with factions at all, so that can't be a reason Zos sticks to this concept.
Chaosball is the worst, when you have the two teams fighting without the ball while the 3rd team turtles up with the ball and just keeps scoring...and if one of the two non-ball having teams does win out, it's usually with one or two players killed in the useless fight so they get mauled by the team with the ball.
4v4v4, for all it tries to be unique, fails in practice in my opinion.

MurderMostFoul

XvXvX

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.

I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.

I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.

The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.

Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvX

All game types rely on a team's Mobility and combat prowess. The degree to which one or the other is relied upon depends on each game type. Effective team strategy requires using both combat and Mobility appropriately in each game type. I really don't see what the problem is with that.

It sounds to me like you want the team with better combat prowess to always win. If that is the case, then you will be all set when Somerset comes around and you can pick Deathmatch every time. But if the focus of BG's shifted to xvx, I feel it is inevitable that the vast majority of games would just involve one team getting dominated by the other to the point of being spawn camped.

The problem with it in any game mode bar TDM is that you're punished for engaging in a team fight.

It's almost always better to just run from flag to flag, relic to relic - Ignoring all combat at any expense as it's simply a waste of time and puts you at a disadvantage.

This is only true for domination, all other game modes involve times when engaging in (and winning) a fight is to your advantage.

I should have said that it doesn't really apply to Chaosball either.

Whilst I agree that there are times when engaging is beneficial, there's also times where you find yourself punished as a result., win or lose, because there's a third team.

E.G - I as a purple, run to Red and see Reds defending their base against Greens, there's now a pickup timer so I know nobody there can grab that relic until that team fight is finished. I'll run to the Green base, grab the relic and go cash it in whilst those dopes are fighting still.

It's not tactical, it's not risky, it doesn't involve any skill other than pressing (pickup keybind) and running and it happens more often than you'd think - At least on Xbox - It's not low CP's either, it's guys who think that the BG leader boards hold any significance..

Capping uncontested should never be a thing IMO.

If green had no one defending and you exploit that, so be it. Although successfully exploiting that situation does not require combat skills, it does require strategic decision making. In your example, your tactic gave you the advantage.

Capping uncontested is only a thing when a whole team foolishly runs off to fight another, and leaves their flag unguarded.

Sparr0w

Personally I'd like an XvXvXvXvX with a more tactical map, like high ground, low visibility etc... Would really focus on group play.

Solariken

I don't really care honestly, I'm just happy to have instant PvP access.

BNOC

XvX

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

BNOC wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

XvX would only work if there was effective skill-based matchmaking implemented. Frankly, I don't think that is really possible in this game given all the variables that impact player performance.

I've been playing 'The Division' lately. It is a RPG-shooter with a huge variety of builds given all it's loot and player abilities. It also has a 4v4 mode which the developer has said uses skill based matchmaking. However, around 75% of matches are entirely noncompetitive, complete blowouts.

I have no doubt that there would be the same result in ESO if they switched to XvX. The better team would just wipe the floor with the lesser. At least that is a little harder to do with XvXvX.

The problem with XvXvX is that, all too often, it already is XvX whilst X3 is on the other side of the map, ignoring all combat and capping flags/relics - It's impossible to be in 2 places at once. Team fights can and do often go on long enough for X3 to take multiple points in domination, capture a relic or so on.

Granted, running the London Marathon or playing Hide N Seek isn't effective in every game mode, but it is in most and is a problem tied exclusively to XvXvX

All game types rely on a team's Mobility and combat prowess. The degree to which one or the other is relied upon depends on each game type. Effective team strategy requires using both combat and Mobility appropriately in each game type. I really don't see what the problem is with that.

It sounds to me like you want the team with better combat prowess to always win. If that is the case, then you will be all set when Somerset comes around and you can pick Deathmatch every time. But if the focus of BG's shifted to xvx, I feel it is inevitable that the vast majority of games would just involve one team getting dominated by the other to the point of being spawn camped.

The problem with it in any game mode bar TDM is that you're punished for engaging in a team fight.

It's almost always better to just run from flag to flag, relic to relic - Ignoring all combat at any expense as it's simply a waste of time and puts you at a disadvantage.

This is only true for domination, all other game modes involve times when engaging in (and winning) a fight is to your advantage.

I should have said that it doesn't really apply to Chaosball either.

Whilst I agree that there are times when engaging is beneficial, there's also times where you find yourself punished as a result., win or lose, because there's a third team.

E.G - I as a purple, run to Red and see Reds defending their base against Greens, there's now a pickup timer so I know nobody there can grab that relic until that team fight is finished. I'll run to the Green base, grab the relic and go cash it in whilst those dopes are fighting still.

It's not tactical, it's not risky, it doesn't involve any skill other than pressing (pickup keybind) and running and it happens more often than you'd think - At least on Xbox - It's not low CP's either, it's guys who think that the BG leader boards hold any significance..

Capping uncontested should never be a thing IMO.

If green had no one defending and you exploit that, so be it. Although successfully exploiting that situation does not require combat skills, it does require strategic decision making. In your example, your tactic gave you the advantage.

Capping uncontested is only a thing when a whole team foolishly runs off to fight another, and leaves their flag unguarded.

Splitting your team a part is just putting yourself at one disadvantage for the sake of another.

If BG's were frequented more often by 4-man groups, you would very rarely see them split apart like that against another 4 man and I suspect that when the matchmaking is more balanced and matches players fairly, engaging whilst outnumbered will be purely a death sentence.

If one team sends 2 guys our way, they aren't going to do anything and if they come all together, they're losing a relic (So are we, technically)
So, what's next? Every team just stands on their base all game as a 4 man and waits the timer out for a 0-0-0?

The point is, "AHH PVP, run the other way" is, but shouldn't be an effective strategy in BG PVP.

Anotherone773

XvX

The BG setup in Wow is one of the few things i like about it. ESO BGs are super generic in comparison. Besides better BGs( map wise and objective wise) id like to see different group modes 2V2,4v4, 8V8, 12V12

Ashamray

XvX

6х6, please. It's the same amount of players involved.

Thogard

XvX

I just want FFA

Strider__Roshin

XvX

Thogard wrote: »

I just want FFA

Best kind of solo queue.

AsheronRealaidain

XvX

4v4 or 6v6 in all of the BG maps we have now would be so much better than 4v4v4. I haven't played WoW since Lich King, and I rarely play GW2 these days but the BGs in both of those games are so good IMO. I was so hyped for ESO BGs and this format just.... barely works well.

Would also love to see something like WoW's Alterac Valley BG (probably my favorite,) only 12v12 or something along those lines (40v40 would be a bit much I think.) It could be a way to bring a bit of the Cyrodiil experience to BGs for people who don't like Cyrodiil, or just people who like the larger scale PvP experience without having full on 40v40 lag fest at the bridge... 12v12 tower defense, battle to kill the other team's General/King/Queen/whatever. Something like that would be amazing.

Hutch679

XvX

There is always going to be a weakest team. In an XvXvX the two better teams just gang up on the weakest.... such a terrible concept.

IcyDeadPeople

XvXvX

I would like to see free-for-all deathmatch, also custom battlegrounds matches, for example queue up with 12 friends and you are guaranteed to enter your own private session populating all 3 teams. We used to be able to do this by queuing 3 teams at same time, but now the queues are filled with lot more people and hard to get everybody in the same session. When we set up our own teams, we can make sure the teams are more balanced, so even beginners have a fun time.

Would be awesome if someday, there were a new arena category of player housing, allowing players to design our own battlegrounds matches, perhaps run custom matches in our house for any number of participants and spectators.

In the past when we used to only be able to duel in Cyrodiil, we did a lot of fun matches with for example 4 werewolves vs 6 vampires vs 6 humans etc, or 10v10v10 matches where each faction would send in one player at a time, then as each player dies, the next in their faction enters arena

DDuke

XvX

Yeah... haven't done a ton of BGs yet compared to some other people, but I'm finding it incredibly frustrating when the 3rd team just feeds relics/kills/whatever to the other enemy team and there's not much you can do about it.

You're already struggling with the RNG of matchmaking when it comes to your own team when solo queueing, so having to also hope one of the enemy teams isn't full of ***s is just... not very pleasant.

shiningforce

XvX

Would love to see something like Warsong, arathi basin and the like such as swotr battlegrounds take place in ESO. People have been asking for it for years now. 3v3 battlegrounds is ok but gets boring after awhile, same shape, everything is too close by, etc. Would love just to pug all day a 2v2 team battle with 16 players on each side or more battling away trying to get objectives accomplished. CYrodill is just too BIG

SugaComa

Anyone remember socom ?

If so I'd like to see some of those game modes brought into ESO

Then add guild ladders

Avnr

make map that kill premades and no ball groups

Pourekos

XvX

As others have mentioned, two teams only with higher numbers of players in each team (8 min, ideally 12 or more) should be in the game. 3-team games never fared well in MMORPGs, while the low player count per team makes them practically glorified Arenas from WoW. Having a more direct focus as a team, along with higher numbers of players per team, allows for more high level strategy to take place during a game that can, on occasion, even make a bunch of random people overcome premades- Arathi Basin in WoW as an example is a map where I have seen that happen numerous times.

Jamie098

XvX

sadly they ignore this or do not consider... since we get again 4v4v4...

StarOfElyon

Tigeracer wrote: »

The only thing that I have about the 3-way nature of battlegrounds, is when you are attacking the leading team and then some a-hole on another losing team decides to attack you. Wtf is wrong with those people?

YES! I was going to say this too. I hate when that happens, especially when the winning team is close to clutching. The best chance solos have against the premades squads is to join forces against them but the other team attacks us instead, right at the end, which makes them weaker too, and then the winning team swoops in and cleans up the scraps. I get so angry. I want to shout "Thanks! You idiots just gave them the match right at the end!" I could understand if the third place team was far behind but sometimes we'd be neck and neck. I guess they get so scared of the premade that they can't help themselves. I wish I could wave my characters hands like, "Stop fighting us!" DX

StarOfElyon

ChefZero wrote: »

or

I wish would could have XvXvXvX. That would really spice things up!!!

Jamie098

XvX

something to show strenght of players and group in a 6v6 ( xvx ) would be nice with a premade apply

Urvoth

XvX

Nearly a year ago for this post plus numerous other threads asking for XvX since then and yet we still get more 4v4v4 content...just shows BGs are an afterthought for ZOS.