BG design. 3 teams - how do you like it:

Jules

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Stalemated fights is competitive to you ? Completely dominating a team is competitive to you ?

Sure add the option but let’s not ignore the fact the only time you die at times in matches filled with good players is because of the 3rd team coming in.

That's just simply not true. Ask anyone who's actively participating in the GvG's / 3v3's @Irylia has been hosting. People die in group fights pretty reliably and it can usually be attributed to superior group comp or group coordination. And those are in CP.

NonCP simply does not allow for all these blanketed "stalemated fights" with good players the way you claim. Sure, it'll happen occasionally if people are built to be tankier, but I'd be incredibly shocked if that was an issue every single match. There's not the overabundance of survivability or sustain that CP offers. It's much easier to coordinate ultis and eliminate an opponent very quickly with little time for reaction. And, with it being two teams instead of three, there's a lot more potential to actually focus down your opponent without all the chaos and variability that we have now.

Two teams is far more competitive than three because it narrows everything down to which group outplayed the other. With three teams there's always an added wildcard potential of it being a 2v1 as well as kill stealing.

CatchMeTrolling

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Stalemated fights is competitive to you ? Completely dominating a team is competitive to you ?

Sure add the option but let’s not ignore the fact the only time you die at times in matches filled with good players is because of the 3rd team coming in.

That's just simply not true. Ask anyone who's actively participating in the GvG's / 3v3's @Irylia has been hosting. People die in group fights pretty reliably and it can usually be attributed to superior group comp or group coordination. And those are in CP.

NonCP simply does not allow for all these blanketed "stalemated fights" with good players the way you claim. Sure, it'll happen occasionally if people are built to be tankier, but I'd be incredibly shocked if that was an issue every single match. There's not the overabundance of survivability or sustain that CP offers. It's much easier to coordinate ultis and eliminate an opponent very quickly with little time for reaction. And, with it being two teams instead of three, there's a lot more potential to actually focus down your opponent without all the chaos and variability that we have now.

Two teams is far more competitive than three because it narrows everything down to which group outplayed the other. With three teams there's always an added wildcard potential of it being a 2v1 as well as kill stealing.

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

montiferus

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Stalemated fights is competitive to you ? Completely dominating a team is competitive to you ?

Sure add the option but let’s not ignore the fact the only time you die at times in matches filled with good players is because of the 3rd team coming in.

That's just simply not true. Ask anyone who's actively participating in the GvG's / 3v3's @Irylia has been hosting. People die in group fights pretty reliably and it can usually be attributed to superior group comp or group coordination. And those are in CP.

NonCP simply does not allow for all these blanketed "stalemated fights" with good players the way you claim. Sure, it'll happen occasionally if people are built to be tankier, but I'd be incredibly shocked if that was an issue every single match. There's not the overabundance of survivability or sustain that CP offers. It's much easier to coordinate ultis and eliminate an opponent very quickly with little time for reaction. And, with it being two teams instead of three, there's a lot more potential to actually focus down your opponent without all the chaos and variability that we have now.

Two teams is far more competitive than three because it narrows everything down to which group outplayed the other. With three teams there's always an added wildcard potential of it being a 2v1 as well as kill stealing.

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

sounds like your experience is in 3 way fights and not gvg so maybe you should get more experience in 3v3 or 4v4 before you make assumptions. our group has never had a stalemate in a straight up fight in cyro. not ever.

wheem_ESO

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

And one sided matches will become more one sided.

Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of BGs where my group of random solo queued players would start to get the upper hand on a premade, only to have it ruined by the third team targeting us, presumably thinking that it was the best way for them to get kills. 'Course there are also the "feeder" teams that keep rushing the premade one by one, inflating their score ever higher.

The whole premade-vs-solo thing needs to be changed no matter how many teams there are, but the idea that having 3 always helps "counter" premades just isn't accurate in my experience.

CatchMeTrolling

wheem_ESO wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

And one sided matches will become more one sided.

Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of BGs where my group of random solo queued players would start to get the upper hand on a premade, only to have it ruined by the third team targeting us, presumably thinking that it was the best way for them to get kills. 'Course there are also the "feeder" teams that keep rushing the premade one by one, inflating their score ever higher.

The whole premade-vs-solo thing needs to be changed no matter how many teams there are, but the idea that having 3 always helps "counter" premades just isn't accurate in my experience.

What? What does that have to do with one team completing dominating the other which can happen with 2 or 3 teams...

CatchMeTrolling

montiferus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Stalemated fights is competitive to you ? Completely dominating a team is competitive to you ?

Sure add the option but let’s not ignore the fact the only time you die at times in matches filled with good players is because of the 3rd team coming in.

That's just simply not true. Ask anyone who's actively participating in the GvG's / 3v3's @Irylia has been hosting. People die in group fights pretty reliably and it can usually be attributed to superior group comp or group coordination. And those are in CP.

NonCP simply does not allow for all these blanketed "stalemated fights" with good players the way you claim. Sure, it'll happen occasionally if people are built to be tankier, but I'd be incredibly shocked if that was an issue every single match. There's not the overabundance of survivability or sustain that CP offers. It's much easier to coordinate ultis and eliminate an opponent very quickly with little time for reaction. And, with it being two teams instead of three, there's a lot more potential to actually focus down your opponent without all the chaos and variability that we have now.

Two teams is far more competitive than three because it narrows everything down to which group outplayed the other. With three teams there's always an added wildcard potential of it being a 2v1 as well as kill stealing.

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

sounds like your experience is in 3 way fights and not gvg so maybe you should get more experience in 3v3 or 4v4 before you make assumptions. our group has never had a stalemate in a straight up fight in cyro. not ever.

I have experience in every aspect of the game. The fact is it’s silly to even compare gvgs to bgs. Especially when one is completely filled with communication or people that regularly play with each other. Either way they shouldn’t be just simply dying , especially if they play together and have builds that compliment each other. Bgs has solo players, 2 mans and full premades, most matches you get in there’s no one even using their mic. There’s people who never even played with or against each other. If you never had a stalemate or drawn out fight you aren’t facing good players and 9 out of 10 that’s exactly how it goes for small group Cyrodil players. They just farm potatoes. Anyways let’s not compare bgs to gvg, zos most likely will never even implement teamvsteam in a way that it will be played like gvg.

wheem_ESO

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

wheem_ESO wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

And one sided matches will become more one sided.

Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of BGs where my group of random solo queued players would start to get the upper hand on a premade, only to have it ruined by the third team targeting us, presumably thinking that it was the best way for them to get kills. 'Course there are also the "feeder" teams that keep rushing the premade one by one, inflating their score ever higher.

The whole premade-vs-solo thing needs to be changed no matter how many teams there are, but the idea that having 3 always helps "counter" premades just isn't accurate in my experience.

What? What does that have to do with one team completing dominating the other which can happen with 2 or 3 teams...

I thought it was obvious; sometimes premades are dominant because the "third wheel" team consistently causes issues for a decent team of randoms.

CatchMeTrolling

wheem_ESO wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

wheem_ESO wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

And one sided matches will become more one sided.

Not necessarily. I've seen a lot of BGs where my group of random solo queued players would start to get the upper hand on a premade, only to have it ruined by the third team targeting us, presumably thinking that it was the best way for them to get kills. 'Course there are also the "feeder" teams that keep rushing the premade one by one, inflating their score ever higher.

The whole premade-vs-solo thing needs to be changed no matter how many teams there are, but the idea that having 3 always helps "counter" premades just isn't accurate in my experience.

What? What does that have to do with one team completing dominating the other which can happen with 2 or 3 teams...

I thought it was obvious; sometimes premades are dominant because the "third wheel" team consistently causes issues for a decent team of randoms.

You missed the entire point though. Without the third team messing things up the dominating team will always have the upper hand like in any teamvsteam game. It’ll just be a complete team stomp.

Jules

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

First and foremost, your concept that your BG win rate equates to your increased worthiness to have an opinion is deeply misguided. Being mechanically good at this game is one skill set, and the more conceptual aspect of understanding design and theory is a completely different one. Some players have both, but that does not make these skill sets an automatic paired package. So to assert that somehow your BG win rate is a direct conversion to your opinion on game design being more right is just honestly, kindof silly and based on a complete fallacy.

In addition, your argument that noncp has "plenty of survivability and sustain" isn't inherently wrong, but it completely neglects the fact that this is artificially elevated by the presence of three teams. A three team system emboldens both sustain and survivability because it allows the use of LOS and damage avoidance. If there is a third team present, your team will sometimes not be the target. You will be able to recover much easier, you will be able to position easier, you will be able to layer your damage on top of others to kill steal, requiring less resource output in every situation. It just makes 0 sense that fights would become more sluggish when the incoming and outgoing damage would have one team as the sole targets rather than being dispersed throughout two teams. This would logically increase incoming and outgoing damage to each team as it doesn't need to be split between 8 other people, only 4.

There is a reason that nearly every competitive pvp game on the market is a team v team. Not to mention every major sport. A third team is literally just an added variable to the combat. This variable detracts from competition because it creates weird opportunities to play off of the third team and earn wins based on artificial combat mechanics and not just superior play.

Overall, the reality is that there is a wealth of evidence to prove that a two team system would be worlds more competitive than three. A two team system increases the strain on resources and survivability and demands more engaging damage output to win. In a two team system, your group can't win simply because you have some sorcs KS'ing. You'd need the initial damage to back that up and get those people into execute prior. In a two team system, you can't sandwich a third team and dominate them in an 8v4. In a two team system, you can't avoid incoming damage as much as you are the only targets, so you'd need to up your survivability and your sustain. You can believe that two teams would be less fun all you want, and that's fine. But at the end of the day, the argument that two teams would be more sluggish or less competitive is not one based in reality.

CatchMeTrolling

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

First and foremost, your concept that your BG win rate equates to your increased worthiness to have an opinion is deeply misguided. Being mechanically good at this game is one skill set, and the more conceptual aspect of understanding design and theory is a completely different one. Some players have both, but that does not make these skill sets an automatic paired package. So to assert that somehow your BG win rate is a direct conversion to your opinion on game design being more right is just honestly, kindof silly and based on a complete fallacy.

In addition, your argument that noncp has "plenty of survivability and sustain" isn't inherently wrong, but it completely neglects the fact that this is artificially elevated by the presence of three teams. A three team system emboldens both sustain and survivability because it allows the use of LOS and damage avoidance. If there is a third team present, your team will sometimes not be the target. You will be able to recover much easier, you will be able to position easier, you will be able to layer your damage on top of others to kill steal, requiring less resource output in every situation. It just makes 0 sense that fights would become more sluggish when the incoming and outgoing damage would have one team as the sole targets rather than being dispersed throughout two teams. This would logically increase incoming and outgoing damage to each team as it doesn't need to be split between 8 other people, only 4.

There is a reason that nearly every competitive pvp game on the market is a team v team. Not to mention every major sport. A third team is literally just an added variable to the combat. This variable detracts from competition because it creates weird opportunities to play off of the third team and earn wins based on artificial combat mechanics and not just superior play.

Overall, the reality is that there is a wealth of evidence to prove that a two team system would be worlds more competitive than three. A two team system increases the strain on resources and survivability and demands more engaging damage output to win. In a two team system, your group can't win simply because you have some sorcs KS'ing. You'd need the initial damage to back that up and get those people into execute prior. In a two team system, you can't sandwich a third team and dominate them in an 8v4. In a two team system, you can't avoid incoming damage as much as you are the only targets, so you'd need to up your survivability and your sustain. You can believe that two teams would be less fun all you want, and that's fine. But at the end of the day, the argument that two teams would be more sluggish or less competitive is not one based in reality.

Okay.

kerthas

meh, gimmie 2 teams

like it had been said multiples times in here, and in other post. Another pvp mode like bgs but for 3v3-4v4-5v5 etc etc, with some rules or battlefield made like you can't rush in in yolo style in wipe out the ennemy team. With a rank system, and appropriate reward in terms of whoch rank you end up the "season". That would be actually sick, and make pvp more appealing and competitive for the game.

With the option do it in cp and whitout cp.

Jules

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

First and foremost, your concept that your BG win rate equates to your increased worthiness to have an opinion is deeply misguided. Being mechanically good at this game is one skill set, and the more conceptual aspect of understanding design and theory is a completely different one. Some players have both, but that does not make these skill sets an automatic paired package. So to assert that somehow your BG win rate is a direct conversion to your opinion on game design being more right is just honestly, kindof silly and based on a complete fallacy.

In addition, your argument that noncp has "plenty of survivability and sustain" isn't inherently wrong, but it completely neglects the fact that this is artificially elevated by the presence of three teams. A three team system emboldens both sustain and survivability because it allows the use of LOS and damage avoidance. If there is a third team present, your team will sometimes not be the target. You will be able to recover much easier, you will be able to position easier, you will be able to layer your damage on top of others to kill steal, requiring less resource output in every situation. It just makes 0 sense that fights would become more sluggish when the incoming and outgoing damage would have one team as the sole targets rather than being dispersed throughout two teams. This would logically increase incoming and outgoing damage to each team as it doesn't need to be split between 8 other people, only 4.

There is a reason that nearly every competitive pvp game on the market is a team v team. Not to mention every major sport. A third team is literally just an added variable to the combat. This variable detracts from competition because it creates weird opportunities to play off of the third team and earn wins based on artificial combat mechanics and not just superior play.

Overall, the reality is that there is a wealth of evidence to prove that a two team system would be worlds more competitive than three. A two team system increases the strain on resources and survivability and demands more engaging damage output to win. In a two team system, your group can't win simply because you have some sorcs KS'ing. You'd need the initial damage to back that up and get those people into execute prior. In a two team system, you can't sandwich a third team and dominate them in an 8v4. In a two team system, you can't avoid incoming damage as much as you are the only targets, so you'd need to up your survivability and your sustain. You can believe that two teams would be less fun all you want, and that's fine. But at the end of the day, the argument that two teams would be more sluggish or less competitive is not one based in reality.

Okay.

That’s what I thought.

CatchMeTrolling

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Jules wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

Lol okay let’s just dismiss the actual experience in bgs. I’m pretty sure I have more bg experience than the average person on here. If anything I’d like to see everyone’s wins in bgs before they even post about them. Not to be elitist but to see if their opinions can actually be considered because at least you can get an idea of how many matches they played. Plus, I’ve already said all of this before this thread was even a thing. High mmr bgs are filled with stalemated sluggish fights. The dev vs reps fight is a great example of it and some of them wasn’t even regular bg players.

There’s plenty of sustain and there’s plenty of survivability in no cp bgs. Why do you think bg players loathe dedicated healers ? Because they mess up the flow of combat (there’s a few players that will regularly pump out a mill in heals) and you’re pretty much guaranteed to come across one at higher levels. That combined with off heals and a sense of knowing what you’re doing leads to drawn out fights. A dps magwarden alone can pump out 500k plus heals and they’re the fotm.

Like I said they can add the option if they want but I know sluggish fights will just become more sluggish. And one sided matches will become more one sided.

https://imgur.com/a/D04qMCq

First and foremost, your concept that your BG win rate equates to your increased worthiness to have an opinion is deeply misguided. Being mechanically good at this game is one skill set, and the more conceptual aspect of understanding design and theory is a completely different one. Some players have both, but that does not make these skill sets an automatic paired package. So to assert that somehow your BG win rate is a direct conversion to your opinion on game design being more right is just honestly, kindof silly and based on a complete fallacy.

In addition, your argument that noncp has "plenty of survivability and sustain" isn't inherently wrong, but it completely neglects the fact that this is artificially elevated by the presence of three teams. A three team system emboldens both sustain and survivability because it allows the use of LOS and damage avoidance. If there is a third team present, your team will sometimes not be the target. You will be able to recover much easier, you will be able to position easier, you will be able to layer your damage on top of others to kill steal, requiring less resource output in every situation. It just makes 0 sense that fights would become more sluggish when the incoming and outgoing damage would have one team as the sole targets rather than being dispersed throughout two teams. This would logically increase incoming and outgoing damage to each team as it doesn't need to be split between 8 other people, only 4.

There is a reason that nearly every competitive pvp game on the market is a team v team. Not to mention every major sport. A third team is literally just an added variable to the combat. This variable detracts from competition because it creates weird opportunities to play off of the third team and earn wins based on artificial combat mechanics and not just superior play.

Overall, the reality is that there is a wealth of evidence to prove that a two team system would be worlds more competitive than three. A two team system increases the strain on resources and survivability and demands more engaging damage output to win. In a two team system, your group can't win simply because you have some sorcs KS'ing. You'd need the initial damage to back that up and get those people into execute prior. In a two team system, you can't sandwich a third team and dominate them in an 8v4. In a two team system, you can't avoid incoming damage as much as you are the only targets, so you'd need to up your survivability and your sustain. You can believe that two teams would be less fun all you want, and that's fine. But at the end of the day, the argument that two teams would be more sluggish or less competitive is not one based in reality.

Okay.

That’s what I thought.

Based on your opening line it’s obvious you just like to talk without comprehending, this response proves that. I never equated wins with anything, I literally basically said I’m mentioning wins because you can get an idea of how many games someone has played with their wins. Because obviously you can’t see games played but only wins sherlock but being that you’re exclusively a pc player I’m sure you’re ignorant when it comes to that. Based on that response it was no point to continue the conversation. And if you’ll take the opinion of someone that only played 200 games over someone who played thousands over the course of a long time than that says it all.

The rest is just clear you want to erase someone else’s experience with your opinion. And again that’s a pointless conversation.

roarr

meh, gimmie 2 teams

Dudes that invented football clearly had no idea what they are doing.

Obviously there should be 3 teams and 3 gates.

Fifa, are you hearing this?!

Na0cho

yes please, i like being backstabbed by greens while i'm fighting red scum

I don’t like 2 team but maybe 4 team?

Also they should add other modes like, for example an elimination mode where u only get one or limited lives and last man standing wins for the team.

That’s just one example there are countless modes they could add.

They don’t all need to be balanced or be in the random rotation, but more options are always good.

Maybe even a mini siege mode?

Na0cho

yes please, i like being backstabbed by greens while i'm fighting red scum

I feel like 2 team matches will be too easy to steamroll.

Or one team gets a lucky proc burst on the healer and it’s gg.


I’ve been in many matches where my team was last place and getting severely outplayed and can back and win due to the three faction mechanics.

ecru

meh, gimmie 2 teams

Na0cho wrote: »

I feel like 2 team matches will be too easy to steamroll.

Or one team gets a lucky proc burst on the healer and it’s gg.


I’ve been in many matches where my team was last place and getting severely outplayed and can back and win due to the three faction mechanics.

One team wiping another team absolutely shouldn't mean the end of a match, and definitely didn't in other games. With two teams, if the objective isn't purely deathmatch, you can spread objectives out around the (larger) map that will force teams to make decisions to split up, and punish them for sticking together as one single group. This encourages more intelligent play than, say, just waiting for the second team to get into a fight with the third team so you can go cap all of the points on the map or sandwich them between the other team.

Two teams would also encourage more diverse specs in BGs. Right now you can't really run glass cannon specs unless you're a nb because you're not guaranteed a healer, but with two teams (8v8) you would be a lot more likely to have at least one healer on your team. You could still run tanky specs to pursue objectives by yourself, but it wouldn't be as required to survive like it is now. I think players would also be more encouraged to heal if it were 8v8 because playing a healer would be less likely to leave your team in a situation where it doesn't have enough dps to win. Right now with three teams and four teammates you can queue in as a healer, possibly be the second healer on a 4 person team, and end up with a team that can't really die, but can't kill anything either. 6 dps and 2 healers probably wouldn't have this issue.

Xsorus

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Xsorus

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

ecru

meh, gimmie 2 teams

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Sure you did.

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

I sincerely doubt you played a whole lot of Rift, or you were very good at all, if you don't recognize who you're replying to.

montiferus

meh, gimmie 2 teams

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

I have experience in every aspect of the game.

The fact is it’s silly to even compare gvgs to bgs.

Really? When was the last time you did small scale open world PVP? How about end game trials?

Also the whole point people are trying to make is that it would be nice for the option to have a premade v premade deathmatch. Thats essentially a GvG.

Corpier

meh, gimmie 2 teams

I'd like to see 2 team BGs in the future. Team vs. team Deathmatch would be good for one thing. Additionally it would open new possibilities for maps and structures for existing game modes.

Such as lanes. Every map wouldn't have to be a triangle. For example there could be 2 team maps in which Capture the Relic could be a push/pull battle across a bridge, or where there is a single flag both teams attempt to force the other off of so it plays like a Deathmatch where players are forced to stand their ground.

Honestly I'd like the option of both 2 team and 3 team BGs, but with a condition. Make 3 team BGs exclusively solo que. If ZoS wants there to be 3 team pvp for the aspects of randomness and chaos, then prevent premade groups from entering that mode and make it a solo que mode. 2 team BGs being more structured would be a great place for the more organized or competitive premade groups to go with the option for solo que players to CHOOSE play in the mode with other groups.

idk

Great example of a poll clearly designed to be biased. I know, it is intended.

I choose to not answer a poorly written poll, but I do like the 3 team design. I just wish it was 8v8v8 as I think that would add more.

I do not think we need to have XvX as there are plenty of games that have that for those that really want a two team design. I always think it is a poor idea to be a total copy cat. If Zos wanted to do that they would go for the battle royale instead.

CatchMeTrolling

montiferus wrote: »

CatchMeTrolling wrote: »

I have experience in every aspect of the game.

The fact is it’s silly to even compare gvgs to bgs.

Really? When was the last time you did small scale open world PVP? How about end game trials?

Also the whole point people are trying to make is that it would be nice for the option to have a premade v premade deathmatch. Thats essentially a GvG.

Don’t see how either question is relevant to what you originally said. Either way most of my play time overall has been spent in open world and as solo/small scale. Only time I played large scale was when the game released and obviously when I had to take and defend emp keeps. The fact is small scale groups don’t seek out competent players, they go after potatoes. But if being tryhards is your type of thing then you and others might get something out of it. While I don’t, I only care to get good fights, most people leave me alone in open world. I’ve tower farmed with and without the doors, resourced farmed, gate farmed, scroll farmed, keep farmed and broke the stairs of the keep farmed. Was it fun? Sure, but let’s not glorify potato killing.

As for the two team thing I never said don’t add the option. It’s just not going to go how you expect it to go , especially with esos combat . Some how eso bgs has every issue mmo bgs usually face; people either die too quick, take forever to die or premades.

Gvgs are regulated , bgs you can wear whatever you want. So one guy in troll king can extend the fight. Zos is not adding custom matches knowing them, they’ll simply add two teams and call it a day. Or add it 2 years later.

Xsorus

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Sure you did.

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

I sincerely doubt you played a whole lot of Rift, or you were very good at all, if you don't recognize who you're replying to.

I could care less who I’m replying to; you think that spawn camping hasn’t existed in multiple games with two team battlegrounds... that tells me everything I have to know about the quality of the player I’m talking to.

ecru

meh, gimmie 2 teams

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Sure you did.

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

I sincerely doubt you played a whole lot of Rift, or you were very good at all, if you don't recognize who you're replying to.

I could care less who I’m replying to; you think that spawn camping hasn’t existed in multiple games with two team battlegrounds... that tells me everything I have to know about the quality of the player I’m talking to.

I never said it doesn't exist. I said it doesn't happen in every single match like people (including you, who "spawn camped every game in Rift", which you didn't) insist it would. A whole lot of games have matchmaking systems that work just fine and don't lead to spawn camping every single game just because there are two teams.

Rift had a solid matchmaking system that lead to most players having around a 50% win rate. Extremely high ELO outliers (like myself) were barely over 60% because the system worked quite well. There's no need to make things up to prove your point.

Xsorus

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Sure you did.

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

I sincerely doubt you played a whole lot of Rift, or you were very good at all, if you don't recognize who you're replying to.

I could care less who I’m replying to; you think that spawn camping hasn’t existed in multiple games with two team battlegrounds... that tells me everything I have to know about the quality of the player I’m talking to.

I never said it doesn't exist. I said it doesn't happen in every single match like people (including you, who "spawn camped every game in Rift", which you didn't) insist it would. A whole lot of games have matchmaking systems that work just fine and don't lead to spawn camping every single game just because there are two teams.

Rift had a solid matchmaking system that lead to most players having around a 50% win rate. Extremely high ELO outliers (like myself) were barely over 60% because the system worked quite well. There's no need to make things up to prove your point.

I would say 80% of the matches my guild was in ended up in us spawncamping the other side, 100% if we had a warrior running the vindicator soul line.

Maybe you didn’t run in a guild group like I did, but I can tell you a 60% win rate would be laughable.

Hell the fact that subdue existed in that game at all should tell you how much spawn camping happened... cause if one side had that and the other side did not.. someone was getting spawn camped. If one side had a last gasp necro or god help you two and the other side had a Bard... you were getting spawn camped, you ran behind that tree with your group in black garden and you let a warcaller get the red bauble... guess what... spawn camped... oh you have a bunch of warriors and rogues and the other side had a pyro\necro back when they could chain stun you to death with aoes... spawn camped...

Hell the only reason sub rank 8 players had a chance in pvp at all in that game was because I pointed out to the devs that having different valor levels on the pvp gear was moronic because valor was designed around separating pvp and pve gear not pvp with other pvp gear...

If none of this sounds familiar to you, congrats you played rift after everyone left and it sucked.

Liww

its trash and promotes vulturing and opportunism instead of being tactical.

ecru

meh, gimmie 2 teams

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Sure you did.

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

I sincerely doubt you played a whole lot of Rift, or you were very good at all, if you don't recognize who you're replying to.

I could care less who I’m replying to; you think that spawn camping hasn’t existed in multiple games with two team battlegrounds... that tells me everything I have to know about the quality of the player I’m talking to.

I never said it doesn't exist. I said it doesn't happen in every single match like people (including you, who "spawn camped every game in Rift", which you didn't) insist it would. A whole lot of games have matchmaking systems that work just fine and don't lead to spawn camping every single game just because there are two teams.

Rift had a solid matchmaking system that lead to most players having around a 50% win rate. Extremely high ELO outliers (like myself) were barely over 60% because the system worked quite well. There's no need to make things up to prove your point.

I would say 80% of the matches my guild was in ended up in us spawncamping the other side, 100% if we had a warrior running the vindicator soul line.

Maybe you didn’t run in a guild group like I did, but I can tell you a 60% win rate would be laughable.

Hell the fact that subdue existed in that game at all should tell you how much spawn camping happened... cause if one side had that and the other side did not.. someone was getting spawn camped. If one side had a last gasp necro or god help you two and the other side had a Bard... you were getting spawn camped, you ran behind that tree with your group in black garden and you let a warcaller get the red bauble... guess what... spawn camped... oh you have a bunch of warriors and rogues and the other side had a pyro\necro back when they could chain stun you to death with aoes... spawn camped...

Hell the only reason sub rank 8 players had a chance in pvp at all in that game was because I pointed out to the devs that having different valor levels on the pvp gear was moronic because valor was designed around separating pvp and pve gear not pvp with other pvp gear...

If none of this sounds familiar to you, congrats you played rift after everyone left and it sucked.

Rift had no matchmaking for most of Vanilla, but when Storm Legion came out, we had solid matchmaking for the next five years which worked quite well. If your argument is that you played a game in it's first year that had imbalanced instanced pvp due to no matchmaking, that isn't a very convincing argument. A lot of games aren't particularly balanced at release, especially games with no matchmaking. There were players here on the forums with win rates over 96% in BGs when they had zero matchmaking, which should tell you what happens when there is no matchmaking whatsoever. Using a period of time in a game with no matchmaking is probably the worst example I can think of to prove that two teams leads to spawn camping.

Also, if you think over 60% isn't good, you've never played a game with proper matchmaking. I had the highest Cleric ELO and second highest overall ELO in the entire game for a number of years because my win rate was well over 60%. Winning over 60% of your games means that the system fails to settle you in a bracket where opponents are equally skilled because it cannot match you up with opponents good enough to provide a challenge to you/beat you. You will not find players with well over a 60% win rate in games like Overwatch, League, DOTA, etc etc unless they are the top 1% of the 1%. For example, if you played Overwatch and had a consistent 65% win rate you would hit the Masters bracket and be top 500 in a very short period of time.

All of this information is probably wasted on someone who thinks pug stomping with a guild group is something to brag about or relevant to this discussion though.

Xsorus

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

There is a reason no other game has three teams. I wish zos would give up on their failed experiment and just implement two team matches like every other game, but they're doubling down on it and releasing maps which encourage even more chaotic play, like the newest BG map. Teleporters that place teams on top of each other isn't interesting, it just creates even more chaotic gameplay than we had before.

It isn't fun, it isn't interesting, it isn't fair, it isn't balanced, and the only people who like it are people who have never pvp'd in any other MMO.

vamp_emily wrote: »

If BGs were only 2 teams, then the losing team would never leave the base and let winners sit there till the time ran out.

I'm not sure if you realize, but every other game in existence has only two teams, and this does not happen.

Rikumaru wrote: »

Imagine premade teams if there was only two teams each match. Imo having 3 teams makes more unexpected events to occur than if there was only two teams. But I do think there should be a queue for a two teams gamemode.

In an 8v8 scenario premades would not be allowed to make up an entire team. A premade of four would queue in with pugs, so it would be more balanced than it is now, not less. RIght now we have ice blockade spamming permafrost rotating spin to win premades who just clean up over and over again after or during the fight between the pug teams. Giving one team the ability to queue as a full premade in a system where a more organized team has the chance to use a third team to create a numbers advantage for themselves is one of the most short-sighted balance decisions I've ever encountered.

Gameplay where you're constantly outnumbered, constantly outnumbering your opponents, or getting attacked from behind half the time just isn't interesting no matter how you try to spin it.

I’m sorry, did you just say spawn camping didn’t happen in any other game with bgs? Because it’s happened in every single mmo I’ve played that has had bgs and two teams. In fact I did it all the time I every single game.

Sure you did.

Xsorus wrote: »

ecru wrote: »

Iskiab wrote: »

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

You've never played a high mmr bg in your life, have you?

Yup, I’m pretty sure I have. It’s impossible to tell because your MMR rank isn’t public, but I’m fairly certain it’s high.

Being aggressive and knowing when to be aggressive is what separates good pvpers from the best. That’s how some pvp guilds dominate and some never reach that level.

MaxJrFTW wrote: »

I have never, ever seen anyone, anywhere, ask for a third team in games with instanced small-scale matches. I played Rift for years and there was never a suggestion or mention of a possible third team

I played DaoC and Rift too. The pvp guilds left Rift within a year and a bit after release. The BGs were okay there but they also had larger maps and more players.

I remember lots of spawn camping, with the goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team. At least that doesn’t happen in ESO.

It does happen sometimes in ESO, and the matchmaking in Rift was good enough to make sure it didn't happen very often. I'm not entirely sure you played Rift very much if you didn't mention their ELO system, which worked well enough to keep the vast majority of players around a 50% win rate. You can suggest people got camped at their spawn all you want, but the success of their matchmaking system at keeping people at a mostly even win/loss rate speaks for itself. I'm not sure what you mean about the "Goal of BGs to see if you could shut out the other team". All maps had multiple exit points from the spawn, and all maps were objective based with no deathmatch mode at all.

Instanced PVP in Rift was worlds ahead of what we have in ESO right now. It was good enough that a large portion of the playerbase stuck around only for that part of the game, even if there were only ever a handful of maps. Guess how many teams they had? Believe it or not, only two, just like instanced pvp in every other game.

I'm still kind of confused as to why people are insisting that three teams is better. It obviously isn't working well in ESO, and clearly has never been implemented in other games for reasons that should be obvious by now, so what's the real draw for people who like it? Do you enjoy most fights you win or lose being unfair? Do you like every fair fight being interrupted by a third team? What's interesting about that? It should be pretty obvious why most players don't like it--most players prefer fair fights, or fights that feel fair. Winning a fair fight feels like an accomplishment, and losing one often means you just got outplayed, not just outnumbered. 4v4v4 BGs never seem fair, and winning never feels like an accomplishment, because to win you have to fight as unfair as you possibly can. Is that what people like about it?

As someone who played the crap out of Rift, the top pvp players in that game all left after they introduced their queue system for their Warfronts because people cried about premades. Before that my guild absolutely dominated our server and regularly spawned camped the other side. Hell as someone who ran a Warcaller and pyromancer a lot I could single handily wipe the whole other side of given a chance, after the change... you still had spawn camping if one side was stacked heavily or one side had healers or a damn tank who ran the pvp taunt line before it was nerfed.

But don’t let you think it was just rift, in Warhammer online, world of Warcraft and SWTOR you still ended up with spawn camping, and for those that think 8v8 wouldn’t result in spawn camping.. you clearly didn’t play Swtor... because I ran in a 4 pyrotech group... and our group alone could kill the entire team so fast that it ended up with us spawn camping them at the huttball spawn entrance.

2 team bgs always will have spawn camping if one side is stomping the other side.

I sincerely doubt you played a whole lot of Rift, or you were very good at all, if you don't recognize who you're replying to.

I could care less who I’m replying to; you think that spawn camping hasn’t existed in multiple games with two team battlegrounds... that tells me everything I have to know about the quality of the player I’m talking to.

I never said it doesn't exist. I said it doesn't happen in every single match like people (including you, who "spawn camped every game in Rift", which you didn't) insist it would. A whole lot of games have matchmaking systems that work just fine and don't lead to spawn camping every single game just because there are two teams.

Rift had a solid matchmaking system that lead to most players having around a 50% win rate. Extremely high ELO outliers (like myself) were barely over 60% because the system worked quite well. There's no need to make things up to prove your point.

I would say 80% of the matches my guild was in ended up in us spawncamping the other side, 100% if we had a warrior running the vindicator soul line.

Maybe you didn’t run in a guild group like I did, but I can tell you a 60% win rate would be laughable.

Hell the fact that subdue existed in that game at all should tell you how much spawn camping happened... cause if one side had that and the other side did not.. someone was getting spawn camped. If one side had a last gasp necro or god help you two and the other side had a Bard... you were getting spawn camped, you ran behind that tree with your group in black garden and you let a warcaller get the red bauble... guess what... spawn camped... oh you have a bunch of warriors and rogues and the other side had a pyro\necro back when they could chain stun you to death with aoes... spawn camped...

Hell the only reason sub rank 8 players had a chance in pvp at all in that game was because I pointed out to the devs that having different valor levels on the pvp gear was moronic because valor was designed around separating pvp and pve gear not pvp with other pvp gear...

If none of this sounds familiar to you, congrats you played rift after everyone left and it sucked.

Rift had no matchmaking for most of Vanilla, but when Storm Legion came out, we had solid matchmaking for the next five years which worked quite well. If your argument is that you played a game in it's first year that had imbalanced instanced pvp due to no matchmaking, that isn't a very convincing argument. A lot of games aren't particularly balanced at release, especially games with no matchmaking. There were players here on the forums with win rates over 96% in BGs when they had zero matchmaking, which should tell you what happens when there is no matchmaking whatsoever. Using a period of time in a game with no matchmaking is probably the worst example I can think of to prove that two teams leads to spawn camping.

Also, if you think over 60% isn't good, you've never played a game with proper matchmaking. I had the highest Cleric ELO and second highest overall ELO in the entire game for a number of years because my win rate was well over 60%. Winning over 60% of your games means that the system fails to settle you in a bracket where opponents are equally skilled because it cannot match you up with opponents good enough to provide a challenge to you/beat you. You will not find players with well over a 60% win rate in games like Overwatch, League, DOTA, etc etc unless they are the top 1% of the 1%. For example, if you played Overwatch and had a consistent 65% win rate you would hit the Masters bracket and be top 500 in a very short period of time.

All of this information is probably wasted on someone who thinks pug stomping with a guild group is something to brag about or relevant to this discussion though.

What match making? They make a premades queue and ran all the premades out of the game and left nothing but pugs left, even then you had spawn camping in the matches just like in every other MMO with bgs, saying that Rift was unbalanced in the first year is hilarious because rift was unbalanced as hell after storm legion as well. In fact I bet 8 years later.. the game is still unbalanced... that’s not the fault of the devs.. there is just a crap ton of spec options in that game that leads to unbalances.

Also I find your comment about pug stomping hilarious, what do you think is going to happen in this game? You realize the only reason pug stomping stopped in Rift was because anything past 2 people resulted in being out in a premades queue of 1+ hour plus... you think ZOS is going to make a premades queue in this game? After it decimated Rift pvp population?

Also my guild hated pug stomping, so much we organized group vs group fights outside of the warfronts to promote world pvp. However pug stomping is going to happen unless you just don’t want guilds to pvp with another.

*edit* also saying you had an els of 60% in Rift while ignoring you weren’t in a guild group the majority of the time shows how bad it’d be with actual groups running vs pugs. It’s why we won the majority of Bgs we fought (even against other premades)... because premades vs pug is always going to be a blood bath... even more so in a 2 sided match.