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

ecru

meh, gimmie 2 teams

Xsorus wrote: »

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.

After Storm Legion, Rift made ELO visible and allowed premades of up to 5 to queue into warfronts and actually get queues in a reasonable amount of time. They even added a marking on the scoreboard to show who was in a premade with who so there was no guessing about it. Their matchmaking was good enough that even with allowing a full premade group to queue for pvp, they could still keep players at around a 50% win rate. Obviously when most players are winning or losing half their games, spawn camping wasn't very prevalent. Players like myself with extremely high ELOs still had longer queue times, but it wasn't excessive like during SL, and I don't think there is any way that can be avoided in any system. What's my point? Well, if a game like Rift, which probably had 10% of the development resources ESO has could allow premades to queue and still have balanced matches with two teams, then there is absolutely no reason it can't work in ESO too.

Kupoking

meh, gimmie 2 teams

I would just like to have the option

InvictusApollo

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

Or you could... you know... just position yourself somewhere where the other team won't be able to easily flank you?
Or you could stop yourself from overextending or at least swiftly disengage?

I see many people in games just rush into combat thinking that the sooner they get there, the sooner they will start pew pewing, the more damage they will make and thus win. But it doesn't work that way.
It's far better to wait for your teammates to respawn than go alone and die.
It's better to double back and choose attack vector than to position yourself between enemy teams.

dodgehopper_ESO

I'd love to see some two team BG's but I still want the 3 team ones to exist as well.

wheem_ESO

meh, gimmie 2 teams

There are more ways to deal with spawn camping than there are to deal with all the problems caused by having 3 teams. Just as one example - which would also mean that ZOS doesn't have to alter any of the current maps - there could be a teleporter placed in the two active bases that's only usable after the game starts (or specifically after respawning), which ports the player to the third, inactive base.

Now that I made a suggestion that could potentially help with what seems to be the main concern for some people if BGs have 2 teams, I'd like to hear some of their suggestions on how to deal with the issues caused by having 3. Most importantly: how do you prevent games from turning into an ultra boring Merry-Go-Round when all 3 teams know how to "properly" play deathmatch? It isn't fun when everyone spends most of the game avoiding combat as much as they possibly can, unless a Silver Leash, positioning mistake, and/or environmental damage gives an opportunity for sneaking in some kills? As shown in the video that I posted previously, a 15 minute deathmatch between 3 premade teams had 16 kills total, 4 of which were caused directly or indirectly by lava.

ATomiX96

meh, gimmie 2 teams

If they want to push it to some kind of competetive area, they have to make it two teams only!
But sadly, the maps are clearly designed for three Teams so I doubt it will change anytime soon.
Id also like to see a 3v3 or 2v2 mode on smaller maps with limited Line-of-Sight options, kinda like WoW arena.

Vermethys

I don't know, it's different from arena PvP I'm used to in other MMO's and I like how it can sometimes be very chaotic and exciting. But the whole "quickly move away as a team or get sandwiched" thing in Deathmatch gets stale very quickly. I mean, it adds a layer of complexity since you, as a team, need to be aware of your position, but pretty much every Deathmatch boils down to that.

I'm not against 4v4v4, but I think we may need a different mode with only 2 teams -- could be just a regular 4v4, or 8v8 for bigger maps.

Ash_In_My_Sujamma

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

I like the fact that you have to think more about your positioning. I also like the fact that I have to use the word "sandwich" during a fight. I also like sandwiches.