Battlegrounds need to be two teams

Potenza

Or 4vs4 or 6vs6 or 8vs8. Not 3 way. The alliances are not represented anyway so two teams will work. As the way it is now its just chaos and is causing problems. Think about this - it is NOT evenly matched - its always 4 vs 8.
Its not fun play at all. Too chaotic to actually use tactics for the objective so everyone just tries to kill as many of the opponents as possible.

ecru

Been saying this since they released Morrowind. Three teams creates so many problems with balance and matchmaking and is probably the worst decision they've made when it comes to making BGs actually fun/enjoyable. Not only is it chaotic and seemingly unfair most of the time as you're often fighting 4v8 or something similar, it gives organized teams/premades an even bigger advantage over pugs by giving them the ability to turn every single fight into a numbers advantage. No one would have a 90%+ win rate with two larger teams (assuming the premade queue was limited to a group of 4) even without any matchmaking at all, those kinds of ratios are purely a product of the advantages/disadvantages I described above.

I really hope ZOS gets the hint and revamps BGs to 8v8/12v12 (for larger maps) and implements a 4v4 premade-only queue for people who are competitive. Two teams is infinitely easier to balance and makes it easy for ZOS to implement an already well-established matchmaking algorithm like other games use.

jaws343

I wish this were an option. They could even keep the 4v4v4 but have a separate queue for XvX. I also want a free-for-all deathmatch mode (not battle royal). I think this would be an amazing addition and would probably be far more popular than team based play.

exeeter702

8v8 is the perfect player count since it allows you to linit premades to 4 man queues so a premade can only ever have so much influence.

However, the current bg maps are not compatible with such a format. 8v8 deathmatch is not ideal, due to stacking issues. Great 8v8 bgs from other mmos worked so well because the maps were desgined specifically around forcing teams to split or else loss is guaranteed.

3 way team bgs are mostly nonsense and shouldnt be taken seriously. Its for this reason why DM is the dominant game mode.

hesobad

I been saying this since they released BGs. The system now is completely senseless. I made a whole post about it, but I can not understand what ZOS is thinking. Make it possible for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. 1 team versus another. There is no reasoning with Zenimax, they release visually enticing game worlds and that's about it. They have no clue how to run a player versus player game at all

Thogard

hesobad wrote: »

I been saying this since they released BGs. The system now is completely senseless. I made a whole post about it, but I can not understand what ZOS is thinking. Make it possible for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. 1 team versus another. There is no reasoning with Zenimax, they release visually enticing game worlds and that's about it. They have no clue how to run a player versus player game at all

Cyrodil is very well done from a planning and strategy standpoint... it’s the lag that’s the issue.

BGs could be great, but I think ZOS wants to see a higher population before making them competitive or making the leaderboard more meaningful.

Urvoth

Thogard wrote: »

hesobad wrote: »

I been saying this since they released BGs. The system now is completely senseless. I made a whole post about it, but I can not understand what ZOS is thinking. Make it possible for 2v2, 3v3, 4v4. 1 team versus another. There is no reasoning with Zenimax, they release visually enticing game worlds and that's about it. They have no clue how to run a player versus player game at all

Cyrodil is very well done from a planning and strategy standpoint... it’s the lag that’s the issue.

BGs could be great, but I think ZOS wants to see a higher population before making them competitive or making the leaderboard more meaningful.

A two team (6v6?) format with some sort of competitive ranking would likely bring a higher population, though. The player numbers already exist in the game (Cyrodiil CP campaign is nearly always full), and there are certainly many PvP players outside of ESO that would give the game a try if BGs were more serious. Thus, the real issue is with incentivizing people to play BGs, which vertical progression in the form of a ranking system would likely do. That plus more meaningful reward loot and maybe an across the board 15% resource regen increase to make up for the lack of CP would significantly help BG's population.

ChefZero

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/410026/do-you-want-more-xvxvx-or-xvx-battlegrounds-in-the-future#latest

Pls vote

DeadlyRecluse

I think the underlying design theory is that it's simply not possible to have PvP in this game "balanced" to the point where two-team battlegrounds is anything besides a stomp.

The 3-way design, in theory, hides imbalances mechanically as well as obscuring some imbalances in the matchmaking.

In a perfect world, I think 2 team, ranked battlegrounds would be insanely fun. In the world given to us, I think it would be a toxic salt marsh. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

Urvoth

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

I think the underlying design theory is that it's simply not possible to have PvP in this game "balanced" to the point where two-team battlegrounds is anything besides a stomp.

The 3-way design, in theory, hides imbalances mechanically as well as obscuring some imbalances in the matchmaking.

In a perfect world, I think 2 team, ranked battlegrounds would be insanely fun. In the world given to us, I think it would be a toxic salt marsh. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

How do you think two team BGs could be balanced so that wouldn't be the case? A 6v6 format would allow for more role diversity and specific role goals, so it would probably be theoretically easier to balance than 4v4v4.

Maulkin

I think 3v3v3 is fine. It's different, sure, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Their main problems are terrible match making algos (probably the worst I've seen in my 10-year history of online gaming) and the proc-set meta due to no-CP.

Game format is not one of them, in my opinion.

DeadlyRecluse

Urvoth wrote: »

DeadlyRecluse wrote: »

I think the underlying design theory is that it's simply not possible to have PvP in this game "balanced" to the point where two-team battlegrounds is anything besides a stomp.

The 3-way design, in theory, hides imbalances mechanically as well as obscuring some imbalances in the matchmaking.

In a perfect world, I think 2 team, ranked battlegrounds would be insanely fun. In the world given to us, I think it would be a toxic salt marsh. I'd love to be proven wrong, though.

How do you think two team BGs could be balanced so that wouldn't be the case?

So, I don't actually think they can be, given this game's design.

There's 2 real issues I see with 2-sided, structured fights:

1. Anyone who's done even a little MOBA action or played something like Overwatch is familiar with the instant flaming that happens when someone picks an off-meta character or does something considered suboptimal by the hivemind, and it can get pretty nasty.

Then you consider the insane groupthink generated on this forum, and you end up with a situation where you get death threats for queuing on a magicka warden. Or if you show up on a bow build you get torn apart verbally for not playing objectives. Or if you play a templar that's not a healer, you aren't pulling your weight/filling your role, etc. etc.

That doesn't happen in XvXvX as much, imo, because they are kinda hard to take seriously.There's a lot more randomness or scapegoating options (we lost, but it's because we were fighting two teams at once!). It's what allows all three teams to feel like they did okay, imo.

2. Team fights in this game tend to be pretty consistent, especially if you strip away the extra bits of cyrodiil (NPCs, terrain, etc. etc. On top of that, the population in BG queues is just not that large, with the same names frequently popping up. In a XvXvX you get enough churn where you aren't having the exact same fight over and over again, with predictable results, as long as there isn't one premade shark eating up pugs during that time.

In XvX, though...imagine this. You queue in for deathmatch. You're team is outmatched and loses the first team fight--what do you do? Keep at it? Lose team fight after team fight until they hit 500? XvXvX may not be competitive, but it at least opens up options of trying to sandwich the strongest team, or killsteal off of the weaker team, etc. etc.

In short, I don't see any way to adapt the core PvP gameplay in ESO to anything structured, balanced, or competitive. Dueling tourneys is instructive, to some extent--look at the banlists, rules etc. needed to bring dueling to a somewhat balanced state.

Urvoth wrote: »

A 6v6 format would allow for more role diversity and specific role goals, so it would probably be theoretically easier to balance than 4v4v4.

Agreed, larger teams would alleviate some of the issues.

TBH, I think the only thing that would *really* work is a set of tools given to players to setup and run their own events, something like an arena where the host can tweak a variety of settings hard banlists, soft banlists (1 earthgore per team, for example), CP vs noCP, etc. etc. But that doesn't create the drop-in, drop-out competitive format that people want.

idk

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

Potenza

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

Sounds like you have not seriously played the battlegrounds here or anywhere else. It has nothing to do with what I am 'accustomed' to. With the experience I have in both types of battlegrounds I can tell you that a 3 way battleground not a good way to run battlegrounds. Its a comparison I am able to make - and I will tell you that a 3 way is not fun, its chaotic, not evenly matched, no strategy to win other than to get the most kills.

ecru

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

There's a good reason literally every competitive game (including Chess, Go, etc) and sport are two teams. Three teams is just a gimmick in instanced pvp.

Urvoth

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

RebornV3x

XvXvX is garbage its cool on paper but actually dumb almost every BG I play turns into a 4v8 it sucks I just wanna fight 1 other team and not have to worry about a whole other team coming from behind and killing us

MurderMostFoul

I get plenty of 1 on 1 action elsewhere.

I like spicing things up with some 3 way.

CatchMeTrolling

Would make team stomping more prevalent and obvious, be careful what you ask for. That 3rd team adds uncertainty to a match , you can think you’re about to win then next thing you know the bottom team makes a big comeback.

Having a third team is only a “problem”when no one plays the objective, which isn’t a factor now since every game is a deathmatch. Albeit, even if you make it just two teams that doesn’t mean people will play objectives. In just about every pvp game it’s more likely that people will want to kill each other and pad their stats.

CatchMeTrolling

Urvoth wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

Think you missed his point and making his point simultaneously.

Maulkin

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

Think you missed his point and making his point simultaneously.

The OP's point is that XvXvX is too chaotic for strategy. That's patently wrong.

In a 3-way fight you need more strategy than an XvX. You need to be careful how you approach the fight to avoid getting sandwiched between two teams. You need to be choose when to pull back and when to push based on that. If you approach the fights without strategy and you get rekt, you can't complain that the game is too chaotic for strategy.

If the map design and objectives did not drastically change but they merely reduced the teams by 1... then BGs would be nothing more than face planting into the opposition. These maps are round/circular, designed for XvXvX. They are not linear with various lanes/alleys. The maps don't encourage any strategy and neither really do the game modes. The only thing that encourages some strategy is the 3-team dynamic.

The only problem is, especially on PC, the lack of voice comms means players don't coordinate at all. I'm not sure if console is better.

ecru

Maulkin wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

Think you missed his point and making his point simultaneously.

The OP's point is that XvXvX is too chaotic for strategy. That's patently wrong.

In a 3-way fight you need more strategy than an XvX. You need to be careful how you approach the fight to avoid getting sandwiched between two teams. You need to be choose when to pull back and when to push based on that. If you approach the fights without strategy and you get rekt, you can't complain that the game is too chaotic for strategy.

If the map design and objectives did not drastically change but they merely reduced the teams by 1... then BGs would be nothing more than face planting into the opposition. These maps are round/circular, designed for XvXvX. They are not linear with various lanes/alleys. The maps don't encourage any strategy and neither really do the game modes. The only thing that encourages some strategy is the 3-team dynamic.

The only problem is, especially on PC, the lack of voice comms means players don't coordinate at all. I'm not sure if console is better.

The fact that you need "more" strategy just leads to even more imbalanced matches than you would otherwise get with two teams because it gives organized premades an advantage.

It's not a good system.

Sevn

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I actually agree with this statement, not necessarily for the OP, but for many who request this. People tend to dislike and dismiss what they are not accustom to. Sorta like thinking the original is much better than the sequel simply because it was their first experience. I like the chaos and uncertainty of the current system tbh.

As long as they keep the original design I have no problem with the option to give players the cookie cutter experience they are looking for.

idk

ecru wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

There's a good reason literally every competitive game (including Chess, Go, etc) and sport are two teams. Three teams is just a gimmick in instanced pvp.

There is 3 man chess. Great you bring this up. It is a little more challenging for some to pick up. Obviously easier to get two people together as well.

Besides, it seems few are having as much issue with XvXvX being this thread is still on page one after 4 or 5 days.

Maulkin

ecru wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

Think you missed his point and making his point simultaneously.

The OP's point is that XvXvX is too chaotic for strategy. That's patently wrong.

In a 3-way fight you need more strategy than an XvX. You need to be careful how you approach the fight to avoid getting sandwiched between two teams. You need to be choose when to pull back and when to push based on that. If you approach the fights without strategy and you get rekt, you can't complain that the game is too chaotic for strategy.

If the map design and objectives did not drastically change but they merely reduced the teams by 1... then BGs would be nothing more than face planting into the opposition. These maps are round/circular, designed for XvXvX. They are not linear with various lanes/alleys. The maps don't encourage any strategy and neither really do the game modes. The only thing that encourages some strategy is the 3-team dynamic.

The only problem is, especially on PC, the lack of voice comms means players don't coordinate at all. I'm not sure if console is better.

The fact that you need "more" strategy just leads to even more imbalanced matches than you would otherwise get with two teams because it gives organized premades an advantage.

It's not a good system.

You're not thinking this through correctly, imo at least.

Organised premades will always have a huge advantage over randoms, 2 or 3 teams does not change that in the slightest. There's a reason no other MOBA or team shooter game allows it to happen in ranked matches.

However, I would actually argue that if one team is a premade and the other two are randoms, at least the randoms can focus on each other while avoiding/kiting the premade. Or they can least kill-steal from the premade when it's pummeling the other team. Equally, if 2 out of 3 teams are premades the 3rd team can opportunistically pick up the scraps of the fight between the premades.

If there are only 2 teams in the arena and one of them is a premade running as a blob with a healbot and synchronising ults, there's absolutely nothing the other (random) team can do.

That'd be definitely worse in my opinion. But like I said, to each their own.

exeeter702

Maulkin wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

Think you missed his point and making his point simultaneously.

The OP's point is that XvXvX is too chaotic for strategy. That's patently wrong.

In a 3-way fight you need more strategy than an XvX. You need to be careful how you approach the fight to avoid getting sandwiched between two teams. You need to be choose when to pull back and when to push based on that. If you approach the fights without strategy and you get rekt, you can't complain that the game is too chaotic for strategy.

If the map design and objectives did not drastically change but they merely reduced the teams by 1... then BGs would be nothing more than face planting into the opposition. These maps are round/circular, designed for XvXvX. They are not linear with various lanes/alleys. The maps don't encourage any strategy and neither really do the game modes. The only thing that encourages some strategy is the 3-team dynamic.

The only problem is, especially on PC, the lack of voice comms means players don't coordinate at all. I'm not sure if console is better.

The fact that you need "more" strategy just leads to even more imbalanced matches than you would otherwise get with two teams because it gives organized premades an advantage.

It's not a good system.

You're not thinking this through correctly, imo at least.

Organised premades will always have a huge advantage over randoms, 2 or 3 teams does not change that in the slightest. There's a reason no other MOBA or team shooter game allows it to happen in ranked matches.

However, I would actually argue that if one team is a premade and the other two are randoms, at least the randoms can focus on each other while avoiding/kiting the premade. Or they can least kill-steal from the premade when it's pummeling the other team. Equally, if 2 out of 3 teams are premades the 3rd team can opportunistically pick up the scraps of the fight between the premades.

If there are only 2 teams in the arena and one of them is a premade running as a blob with a healbot and synchronising ults, there's absolutely nothing the other (random) team can do.

That'd be definitely worse in my opinion. But like I said, to each their own.

And you arent looking at the bigget picture. In the current maps obviously a 4v4 would heavily favor premades where 3 teams of which 2 are pugs and the other is a premade, you can play the odds and reduce the effectivness of a premade..... on paper. In reality that suggestion is a joke.

People asking for 2 team bgs arent asking to simply make bgs as they exist in eso into 2 team affairs, that would be awful. 2 team bgs need to have properly designed map layouts and the team size needs to be at least 8 with objectives that heavliy incentivize pvp while simultaneously forcing teams to split up. This is why the stack up and zerg argument is worthless, since doing that garuntees a loss in well designed bgs. And then you limit premades to 4 man groups, so their influence in a match is only ever so strong in 8v8 formats.

3 team bgs are a joke and should never be taken seriously. Any depth that can be formulated or found is resoundingly trumped by the wildcard nature of a 3rd variable (team). Trying to balance them for anything other than a casual random pow wow is useless, and its why nearly every mmo (worth mentioning) that offeres structured organized instanced pvp has done so with different maps designed specifically around game types and with 2 teams.

ecru

^^^ this person gets it

Maulkin wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Maulkin wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Not really. I assume OP has made this suggestion because it is what he/she is accustomed to.

If games mostly did XvXvX and one started doing XvX then people would be posting it needs to be XvXvX. It is merely because it is what they are accustomed to.

I've played other XvX games and no one ever complains about wanting XvXvX. Something like 5v5/6v6 is generally considered fairly balanced and competitive. The larger team size compared to 4 man teams allows for a bit more strategy and role diversification, while being less chaotic than XvXvX or Zerg vs Zerg.

Think you missed his point and making his point simultaneously.

The OP's point is that XvXvX is too chaotic for strategy. That's patently wrong.

In a 3-way fight you need more strategy than an XvX. You need to be careful how you approach the fight to avoid getting sandwiched between two teams. You need to be choose when to pull back and when to push based on that. If you approach the fights without strategy and you get rekt, you can't complain that the game is too chaotic for strategy.

If the map design and objectives did not drastically change but they merely reduced the teams by 1... then BGs would be nothing more than face planting into the opposition. These maps are round/circular, designed for XvXvX. They are not linear with various lanes/alleys. The maps don't encourage any strategy and neither really do the game modes. The only thing that encourages some strategy is the 3-team dynamic.

The only problem is, especially on PC, the lack of voice comms means players don't coordinate at all. I'm not sure if console is better.

The fact that you need "more" strategy just leads to even more imbalanced matches than you would otherwise get with two teams because it gives organized premades an advantage.

It's not a good system.

You're not thinking this through correctly, imo at least.

Organised premades will always have a huge advantage over randoms, 2 or 3 teams does not change that in the slightest. There's a reason no other MOBA or team shooter game allows it to happen in ranked matches.

However, I would actually argue that if one team is a premade and the other two are randoms, at least the randoms can focus on each other while avoiding/kiting the premade. Or they can least kill-steal from the premade when it's pummeling the other team. Equally, if 2 out of 3 teams are premades the 3rd team can opportunistically pick up the scraps of the fight between the premades.

If there are only 2 teams in the arena and one of them is a premade running as a blob with a healbot and synchronising ults, there's absolutely nothing the other (random) team can do.

That'd be definitely worse in my opinion. But like I said, to each their own.

I think you're the one who isn't thinking this through. Organized premades won't have as much of an advantage if the entire team isn't made up of a premade. If it were 8v8, it would be premade + pugs vs premade + pugs, or premade + pugs vs pugs. You wouldn't allow large groups of 8 to queue, only groups of 4.

You're assuming the default mode would be 4v4 for a two team BG and I really doubt ZOS would implement that. If they have anyone who has any experience in instanced pvp, they'll already know that matches as small as 4v4 are too easily imbalanced by one or two higher skilled players on a team and lead to extremely lopsided matches.

Urvoth

@exeeter702

I agree with everything for the most part, but I think 6v6 with multiple objectives would be better than 8v8. 6v6 allows for good players to have a bit more influence on the outcome, while not being as heavily weighted as in 4v4. Especially with multiple objectives, it would still encourage teams to split up and the teamplay strategy would likely end up being similar to class based shooters like TF2 where you have faster classes play more independently and your tankier, less mobile players play alongside the healer.

Besides that, I don't think you should limit premades to only being able to fill part of a team, but instead just queue against other premades with the same group count. Or with a ranking system, have premades queued at a higher level than their average rank. CS:GO does essentially that with 5 man teams getting put against players of the highest group member's rank.

exeeter702

Urvoth wrote: »

@exeeter702

I agree with everything for the most part, but I think 6v6 with multiple objectives would be better than 8v8. 6v6 allows for good players to have a bit more influence on the outcome, while not being as heavily weighted as in 4v4. Especially with multiple objectives, it would still encourage teams to split up and the teamplay strategy would likely end up being similar to class based shooters like TF2 where you have faster classes play more independently and your tankier, less mobile players play alongside the healer.

Besides that, I don't think you should limit premades to only being able to fill part of a team, but instead just queue against other premades with the same group count. Or with a ranking system, have premades queued at a higher level than their average rank. CS:GO does essentially that with 5 man teams getting put against players of the highest group member's rank.

I get what you are saying, its just that when you split bg queues into premades only and pugs, you end up with rough queue times unless the playerbase is really there. In a robust healthy competitive online game that it good. But in an mmo such as this, that player pool is not large enough to justify splitting the queues. This is why 8 man queues are ideal since you can still have premades and pugs / < 4 man premades play together. The other issue this brings up is where does the system place a 3 man premade? It would have to be in the pug queue since the system will have to give you 1 solo queued player. And a 3 man premade is just as strong against randoms.

6v6 is good as well but with eso using a 4 person group format, its a natrual fit to use 8v8. Swtor WZs were 8 man affairs and the games hardly felt crowded or a *** really and still allowed stronger players to have agency in a matches outcome. What happens is you have a few scenarios....

2 4 man premades
4 man + 2 duo
4 man + 3 man + 1solo
4 man + 4 solos
2 3 man + 2 solo
3 man + 1 solo + 2 duos
Etc etc etc all the way down to 8 solos. And while this may seem convoluted, its actually a fairly easy process for matchmaking systems to adhere to.

If and when an mmo has a large player base actively particpating in bgs or instanced pvp can then start splitting premades and think about a ranked match making system. On that note however, when your bgs are designed in a way where an indivdual has less and less agency to influence the outcome of a match, the less attractive and usefull a solo queue ranking system becomes. So again a ranked system can not work until the playe base is there to support an independent premade queue or Bgs are designed in a way that provides the possibility that a strong player can have a meaningfull impact / influence on a matches outcome.

Pijng

jaws343 wrote: »

I wish this were an option. They could even keep the 4v4v4 but have a separate queue for XvX. I also want a free-for-all deathmatch mode (not battle royal). I think this would be an amazing addition and would probably be far more popular than team based play.

Free-for-all sucks. It could be great for some warm-up, but as a real mode — just useless. So you're running solo around killing each other without perfecting the teamplay? Nah sorry, I can do that in Cyro as well.

Urvoth

Pijng wrote: »

jaws343 wrote: »

I wish this were an option. They could even keep the 4v4v4 but have a separate queue for XvX. I also want a free-for-all deathmatch mode (not battle royal). I think this would be an amazing addition and would probably be far more popular than team based play.

Free-for-all sucks. It could be great for some warm-up, but as a real mode — just useless. So you're running solo around killing each other without perfecting the teamplay? Nah sorry, I can do that in Cyro as well.

Yeah, I don't think FFA would be a good fit for this game. 6v6 or 12v12 with mounts would be way better imo.