[Battlegrounds] Deathmatch 4x4 (not 4x4x4).

joaaocaampos

Simple poll.

I think Capture the Flag, Domination, Chaosball etc can continue as a 4x4x4 mode. It works very well.

But I don't think the same thing happens with Deathmatch. Two teams simply decide to focus on just one.

That's not fair. What do you think?

Krayl

I agree. What i notice in DM is usually one team turtles long enough to not be in last place, and then eventually just joins in killing the last place team after that's been decided.

joaaocaampos

Oh, cool, "failed to load the poll."

ecru

4 vs 4 is way too easily imbalanced due to the small team size. BGs should have been 8v8 from the start.

If they ever add a BG mode with two teams, I'll never queue for anything else.

I do think that some sort of ranked, premade only 4 vs 4 mode would be a good idea though.

Sweetare

All BGS schuld be 8vs8 imo.
Teams are not alliance sorted.. No idea why the need to split it in 3.
Played such BGS (well, they were even bigger.. But 8 per team is okay) for years and never really got bored.
Here.. I really hate the 3 way design

Waffennacht

I like the 3 way personally. As a PuG player, if one team is essentially a premade, or mostly pros, and I get Joe Shmo, I need that third team to have a chance at winning

Sweetare

Waffennacht wrote: »

I like the 3 way personally. As a PuG player, if one team is essentially a premade, or mostly pros, and I get Joe Shmo, I need that third team to have a chance at winning

That's why there should be normal and rated bgs. And premades should never go in the same queue als randoms.
No idea if there's still enough bg population to split the queue like that tho

Strider__Roshin

With Mage's Fury in the game I think team vs team is way more balanced.

CyrusArya

We should have the option for custom lobbies of 2v2, 4v4, 6v6, etc.

But for random ques I think 4v4v4 is the way to go because it prevents a scenario where one side completely outclasses and outguns the other, and the weaker team has to just sit there and take it for 15 minutes. Three factions adds some....distractions. I’m fairly certain that’s why they went this route in the first place.

ecru

Waffennacht wrote: »

I like the 3 way personally. As a PuG player, if one team is essentially a premade, or mostly pros, and I get Joe Shmo, I need that third team to have a chance at winning

You're assuming that your team is more organized than the premade, which in most cases is going to be completely wrong. Any good, organized premade will use the third team to their advantage, rear ending the other two teams while they're fighting.

CyrusArya wrote: »

We should have the option for custom lobbies of 2v2, 4v4, 6v6, etc.

But for random ques I think 4v4v4 is the way to go because it prevents a scenario where one side completely outclasses and outguns the other, and the weaker team has to just sit there and take it for 15 minutes. Three factions adds some....distractions. I’m fairly certain that’s why they went this route in the first place.

No, it does the opposite. It creates a situation where the premade or more organized team has a bigger advantage than it would otherwise because it allows them to engage with superior numbers. The likelihood that the weaker teams will join together to take down the stronger team is nil because there is no communication and it simply isn't something I've seen in BGs unless it's people just running around avoiding pvp and playing objectives.

There was no logic behind their decision for three teams, it was purely based on having three factions. No other game has three teams, and for good reason--even if you could balance it (you can't), with perfect matchmaking, you will lose two thirds of your games. This is a terrible outcome and leads to an awful experience for players in general, because no one likes to lose.

With two teams and perfect matchmaking, you'll win at least half of your games, or close, possibly a ~45% win rate. With three teams you could probably sink as low as 25% and the system will still be "working". It's a really, really bad design decision that should never have made it past PTS.

The fact that someone at zos was like, "hey, what if we create an instanced pvp arena where 8 people have to lose every time 4 people win?" and everyone somehow got on board with that idea completely blows my mind.

Jinchuu

So let's assume they were to listen to the whiners and makes these changes. What would you cry about when you get mollywhopped by the other team of 4 or 8?

Betty_Booms

With three teams there is still incentive to come in second. How would the rewards work in team v team?

Also, unless you are making a bad premade, you get your mix of strong and week pugs. Ive been in pugs that have taken out premades. Not regular but happens. I dont think this could have been possible without that third team though.

I like the third team. That you can change strategy and target other teams etc. Two teams seems too boring. You could be put up against the same team each time. At least three teams adds more variety.

Cutting a team off will only make the premade or strong group stronger. They wont have that other comoetition or the ability to be samwiched. There will be less variables and more control for them.

Waffennacht

ecru wrote: »

Waffennacht wrote: »

I like the 3 way personally. As a PuG player, if one team is essentially a premade, or mostly pros, and I get Joe Shmo, I need that third team to have a chance at winning

You're assuming that your team is more organized than the premade, which in most cases is going to be completely wrong. Any good, organized premade will use the third team to their advantage, rear ending the other two teams while they're fighting.

Not exactly, I'm assuming I can prey on the third team and win it that way. Stealing the pre-mades' kills.

I'm assuming the pre-made is roflstomping everything insight, it's then my prerogative to avoid them.

brandonv516

I'm good with 3 teams. No thanks.

iCaliban

Jinchuu wrote: »

So let's assume they were to listen to the whiners and makes these changes. What would you cry about when you get mollywhopped by the other team of 4 or 8?

Reading is hard. As is being a decent person apparently. This isnt a whine thread.

I agree with the posters saying 8v8 or 6v6 would be better.

Vrany69

exactly, the alliances dont have any point anyways, what morons designed this xD

Aliyavana

Mag sorcs would be unable to kill steal so sure