Please salvage the only type of playable pvp in eso... fully remove the MMR.

React

Whatever adjustments or resets to the MMR zenimax has incorporated over the past few patches have accomplished nothing. As a player with 10k+ BG games, I am now forced to wait 5-15 minutes solo during prime time to find a game. As soon as I group with 2-3 other people, that turns into a 15-30 minute wait between EVERY game, despite the fact that there is a vast population of players in the lower MMR brackets that i am fully unable to play against. There was once a time before MMR, when you could queue in any size group and get into a game in under a minute, at any time of the day. You would almost NEVER match the same people twice in a row. At this point the BG's experience has degraded so far for players like me who enjoyed it the most, that they are more of a waste of time than anything.

Please ZOS. Save the only non-laggy, enjoyable PVP content in the game. If you don't care enough to fix cyrodiil, and refuse to rework IC into something fresh, just REMOVE THE BROKEN MMR SYSTEM AND SEND BG'S BACK TO THEIR GOLDEN DAYS. It almost feels like you're trying to straight up do away with PVP at this point, as if it is a part of ESO's image you want to phase out.

Mystikkal

Honestly this is a bad idea. Any good BG'er who has entered a BG on an alt knows this... The majority of PvPers in this game can't even come close to competing with the top players. The games would almost always become so unbalanced that it wouldn't be fun for either side

Firstmep

Dont think id call 100cp players regularly going up aganist 4-5 yrs vet pvpers golden days.
Stuff like that still happens, but not that often.
They could make brackets wider and make exeptions like 1k+ cp players maybe shouldnt start with 50 cp players etc.

frostz417

I second this

React

Mystikkal wrote: »

Honestly this is a bad idea. Any good BG'er who has entered a BG on an alt knows this... The majority of PvPers in this game can't even come close to competing with the top players. The games would almost always become so unbalanced that it wouldn't be fun for either side

You're right. The bottom tier players have no chance against top tier players. But do you think they're going to improve by only ever fighting players that are also bottom tier?

Sheltering low skill players by creating an unplayable bg experience for players that ACTUALLY ENJOY AND CARE FOR PVP is just a terrible idea. It is straight up unfair for the most invested players to be punished for their investment, and promotes a "no need to improve" pvp environment which is not at all in line with what pvp actually is.

Firstmep wrote: »

Dont think id call 100cp players regularly going up aganist 4-5 yrs vet pvpers golden days.
Stuff like that still happens, but not that often.
They could make brackets wider and make exeptions like 1k+ cp players maybe shouldnt start with 50 cp players etc.

Below 160cp players and below 50 bgs should just be lumped into the same category. Anyone over that threshold needs to be exposed to what pvp actually is and the extent to which someone can improve, so that they too feel the need to improve.

Deloth_Vyrr

Mystikkal wrote: »

Honestly this is a bad idea. Any good BG'er who has entered a BG on an alt knows this... The majority of PvPers in this game can't even come close to competing with the top players. The games would almost always become so unbalanced that it wouldn't be fun for either side

It's also a bad system to punish high MMR players with insane wait times. It actually encourages you to not want to win and increase your MMR, since all you get for it is a wait time that progressively gets longer and longer: doubling, tripling, eventually getting up to 10-15x longer than those with lower MMR. Winning should never be punished.

Not saying MMR matchmaking shouldn't exist as the OP is suggesting, but the game should be quicker and more agressive with lowering the bar as time passes in que. It needs to widen the "acceptable range" at a quicker pace, and if 5 minutes passes without a match they should be matched up against the closest MMR players in the que at that time, regardless of the size of the MMR gap.

TBois

I think making the MMR transparent would go a long way. Players will understand where they and their enemies stand. They can then adjust their expectations accordingly. If I'm high MMR I will know that I will probably have to wait a little on that toon. If I'm low MMR I can see what MMR my opponents have. It doesn't address the issues directly, but managing expectations is a central part of good service.

Also IC has been a lot of fun without lag when I have gone there this patch, but zos needs to make it part of the base game to increase pops a bit more.

PunkAben

I thinks the server is to old and outdated !
I thinks the software developer is badly trained. (if i have performed i waa fired for long time ago) To many error and bugs, old working program code mess ip like it was completed noobs who make the code.
I thinks Zenimax look shortsighted and just want some fast money well know the game maybe not hold like other long time games, kuje World of Warcraft.
I thinks Zenimax *** at us and dont listen.
I thinks Zenimax dont deal with the priblems.
I thinks it is a awesome if Zenimax could fix a lot of this problems.

ChunkyCat

If you’re good at the game, you get to wait 15 minutes to play.

Congrats.

Weesacs

Mystikkal wrote: »

The games would almost always become so unbalanced that it wouldn't be fun for either side

Its like that just now for the top end solo players as well who also suffer this bs ... premade after premade after premade after premade.

Thogard

Rather than MMR being directly linked, I’d like to see two separate “brackets”. Beginner MMR and experienced MMR. Once your MMR goes over a certain level, you get moved from one pool to the other. But inside of each pool it’ll just match you with whoever is queueing, adding to diversity of opponents.

Waffennacht

I agree with OP in general. I also solo queue and quite frankly think that it's BS people whom have spent lest investment in the game get to have more fun than me

oxygen_thief

ChunkyCat wrote: »

If you’re good at the game, you get to wait 15 minutes to play.

Congrats.

Iam bad and I need to wait so I think win/lose ratio doesn't affect the rating

BNOC

Thogard wrote: »

Rather than MMR being directly linked, I’d like to see two separate “brackets”. Beginner MMR and experienced MMR. Once your MMR goes over a certain level, you get moved from one pool to the other. But inside of each pool it’ll just match you with whoever is queueing, adding to diversity of opponents.

This is actually a nice idea.

I wish that they separated BG's into two brackets, 2 team / 3 team games and I think that MMR should only apply to the 2 team game mode.
In the 3 team games there should be no MMR and matchmaking should just be decided from the whole pool.

We still don't know how MMR works as they won't let us know for some reason but imo MMR should not be anywhere near a 3 team game mode, it makes no sense.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

Scrap the MMR system, then, unpopular opinion here, remove group queing. I mostly play solo anyways so I may be biased but this would result in a move diverse spread player pool rather than having teams stacked like pancakes. This would also result in faster que times as there would be a much larger pool to pull from for games. Just my two cents but I’d sacrifice playing BGs with a team ever again if it meant I could get a BG que every 1-2 minutes after leaving a game.

jcm2606

HEBREWHAMMERRR wrote: »

Scrap the MMR system, then, unpopular opinion here, remove group queing. I mostly play solo anyways so I may be biased but this would result in a move diverse spread player pool rather than having teams stacked like pancakes. This would also result in faster que times as there would be a much larger pool to pull from for games. Just my two cents but I’d sacrifice playing BGs with a team ever again if it meant I could get a BG que every 1-2 minutes after leaving a game.

Removing MMR alone might actually make it possible to move groups into their own queue, or at least add stricter group matching (only matching groups with x players against other groups with x+-1 players, for example).

Part of the reason why moving groups into their own queue wouldn't work now is MMR, the MMR of groups is so inflated that groups would just never be able to find matches if they were moved into their own queue.

By removing MMR, you effectively open up the pool of groups each can match against, so it would allow a dedicated group queue, or stricter group matching.

LadyNalcarya

jcm2606 wrote: »

HEBREWHAMMERRR wrote: »

Scrap the MMR system, then, unpopular opinion here, remove group queing. I mostly play solo anyways so I may be biased but this would result in a move diverse spread player pool rather than having teams stacked like pancakes. This would also result in faster que times as there would be a much larger pool to pull from for games. Just my two cents but I’d sacrifice playing BGs with a team ever again if it meant I could get a BG que every 1-2 minutes after leaving a game.

Removing MMR alone might actually make it possible to move groups into their own queue, or at least add stricter group matching (only matching groups with x players against other groups with x+-1 players, for example).

Part of the reason why moving groups into their own queue wouldn't work now is MMR, the MMR of groups is so inflated that groups would just never be able to find matches if they were moved into their own queue.

By removing MMR, you effectively open up the pool of groups each can match against, so it would allow a dedicated group queue, or stricter group matching.

This.

Urvoth

I’d rather not get bots on my team every game. It’s a bit of a lose-lose situation since no MMR means badly balanced games, but having MMR as is currently equates to long queue times.

An actual ranking system would hopefully solve a lot of this.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

Like I said, I could care less if I have to backpack potatoes if the other teams aren’t guaranteed to be a premade. That was kind of how morrowind release was because group ques, and ques in general really, were broke AF.

Let there be an MMR and scrap group que and I’d be pretty hype as this would showcase actual individual skill not a group hard carry.

That being said, if they went this route the idea of a custom matchmaking system where you could influence map, game type, rule sets and make the format exactly how we wanted would push the game leaps and bounds from a competitive standpoint. I mean a system like this has been around for so long, this isn’t reinventing the wheel.

jediodyn_ESO

LadyNalcarya wrote: »

jcm2606 wrote: »

HEBREWHAMMERRR wrote: »

Scrap the MMR system, then, unpopular opinion here, remove group queing. I mostly play solo anyways so I may be biased but this would result in a move diverse spread player pool rather than having teams stacked like pancakes. This would also result in faster que times as there would be a much larger pool to pull from for games. Just my two cents but I’d sacrifice playing BGs with a team ever again if it meant I could get a BG que every 1-2 minutes after leaving a game.

Removing MMR alone might actually make it possible to move groups into their own queue, or at least add stricter group matching (only matching groups with x players against other groups with x+-1 players, for example).

Part of the reason why moving groups into their own queue wouldn't work now is MMR, the MMR of groups is so inflated that groups would just never be able to find matches if they were moved into their own queue.

By removing MMR, you effectively open up the pool of groups each can match against, so it would allow a dedicated group queue, or stricter group matching.

This.

They just need to make group v group BGs worth it and people will do it.

I know, because I’ve seen it work.

Back when WOW first launched BG’s the top teams on each faction on each server played all the time, because to get “leet” gear and recognition, you had to be at the top... and for more than one week.

I’m not saying ZOS should do it “the same” but I am saying that incentives work. Make a good reward system that makes players want to get into groups and fight each other night after night, week after week, and the BGs will be healthy and active.

Give something else (equally special and unique - but different) to the solo queues champions and - BAM - battlegrounds will actually be fun.

ecru

lol yes please remove mmr so i can go 50-0 in every other bg

gimme some more of those sweet, sweet sub 160 players to eat

HEBREWHAMMERRR wrote: »

Like I said, I could care less if I have to backpack potatoes if the other teams aren’t guaranteed to be a premade. That was kind of how morrowind release was because group ques, and ques in general really, were broke AF.

Let there be an MMR and scrap group que and I’d be pretty hype as this would showcase actual individual skill not a group hard carry.

That being said, if they went this route the idea of a custom matchmaking system where you could influence map, game type, rule sets and make the format exactly how we wanted would push the game leaps and bounds from a competitive standpoint. I mean a system like this has been around for so long, this isn’t reinventing the wheel.

i actually agree with this. in the last game i played i was expected to carry my team and that was fine because at least if there was a premade on one side, there was also a premade on my side. the way it works now is that i might have a decent group of two on my team, and i'll get queued against a stacked 4 man coordinating ults, and that just isn't fun. the biggest mistake they made with matchmaking is allowing a full premade to queue against a full pug or a partial pug/duo. there should never, ever be a situation where one entire team is a premade and the other teams are pugs or only partially premade groups. this is what leads to the worst outcomes/the most imbalanced games.

at least limiting the premade queue to a duo would probably be a good place to start.

Iskiab

Premades don’t bother me, I see some pretty consistently and feel it’s a good game when I see them.

What bothers me more is when I’m in a BG of all... beginners. As a healer it sucks when everyone’s trying to hide behind you playing in divines. I much prefer games where everyone’s competent, getting rid of MMR would make BGs terrible for healers.

All they need to do is have two queues; one that’s ranked with a visible ranking like MMR and another that’s unranked with no MMR. That way people can test specs, goof around, whatever in the unranked but if they want rewards they’d do the ranked matches.

There will definitely be premades who can’t make the cut in ranked matches who will try to dominate in the unranked ones, but it’s still better then what they do now and make lowby premades.

Waffennacht

There hasn't been a single idea I didn't like. I'll take any or all of the above.

I think bugged BGs happen because someone leaves after porting into the arena before all the players have been loaded.

I suspect this occurs frequently because players see the same pre-made and instantly bail.

I ported into a bugged BG, I was the only one on my team, 2 on the other and then what I guessed was a premade full team of four. So I took the penalty and peaced. At best it would have been the same amount of time but just a whole lot of suck if it ever did form

jcm2606

Iskiab wrote: »

Premades don’t bother me, I see some pretty consistently and feel it’s a good game when I see them.

What bothers me more is when I’m in a BG of all... beginners. As a healer it sucks when everyone’s trying to hide behind you playing in divines. I much prefer games where everyone’s competent, getting rid of MMR would make BGs terrible for healers.

All they need to do is have two queues; one that’s ranked with a visible ranking like MMR and another that’s unranked with no MMR. That way people can test specs, goof around, whatever in the unranked but if they want rewards they’d do the ranked matches.

There will definitely be premades who can’t make the cut in ranked matches who will try to dominate in the unranked ones, but it’s still better then what they do now and make lowby premades.

Yeah, if you're a healer, can definitely understand that. So long as your team is good, being the only healer in the entire match would probably lead to very lopsided matches, so a premade or another healer to balance the match out would be better for your experience.

Personally, I really dislike premades, both playing in and against them. Playing in them leads to playing against other premades more often than not, which ultimately leads to games that time out, since nobody can kill anybody else. Playing against them completely sucks the fun out of the game for me, I just don't find it fun to continuously jump into a meat grinder over and over again.

Waffennacht wrote: »

There hasn't been a single idea I didn't like. I'll take any or all of the above.

I think bugged BGs happen because someone leaves after porting into the arena before all the players have been loaded.

I suspect this occurs frequently because players see the same pre-made and instantly bail.

I ported into a bugged BG, I was the only one on my team, 2 on the other and then what I guessed was a premade full team of four. So I took the penalty and peaced. At best it would have been the same amount of time but just a whole lot of suck if it ever did form

I think you're heading in the right direction, but at the wrong destination. I do think bugged matches happen when someone leaves, but not after porting into the match. Rather, I think bugged matches happen when someone unexpectedly leaves in the middle of the load screen, causing the queue to think they're just taking their time porting in, more often than not causing the queue to reserve their spot.

Ash_In_My_Sujamma

Add the option to choose between solo/group-casual/ranked bg queues. Mmr is not the issue here but the lack of control while queueing. Of course asking zos to add features in the queueing system can only result in a more broken queueing system, though I am not sure if that's humanly possible at this point.

Betty_Booms

MMR is just keeping ppl on the hamster wheel.

Ppl are fed up with wait times and make alts that still go and trounce low MMR players...its a delusion designed to create longivity in the game.

ecru

Betty_Booms wrote: »

MMR is just keeping ppl on the hamster wheel.

Ppl are fed up with wait times and make alts that still go and trounce low MMR players...its a delusion designed to create longivity in the game.

It seems like you still won't get a ton of games vs potatoes if you're already max cp. On my new alts most of the people in my BGs are still close to max cp or max. The skill level is definitely way way lower, and people's ranks are often really low, but it doesn't seem like you start out at rock bottom against brand new players unless you're low cp and haven't done any BGs at all. I could be wrong but this has been my experience.

PhoenixGrey

Just separate group and solo queues. It really is that simple.

MurderMostFoul

I feel the need to back this suggestion again:

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Under this very simple system, you wouldn't even need separate queues. All folks joining would be auto sorted and all matches would be:

singles/duos v. singles/duos

or

single+trio/quartet v. single+trio/quartet

You could get rid of the MMR inflation for groups, then do something about MMR outliers so they don't wait forever.

Weesacs

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

I feel the need to back this suggestion again:

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Under this very simple system, you wouldn't even need separate queues. All folks joining would be auto sorted and all matches would be:

singles/duos v. singles/duos

or

single+trio/quartet v. single+trio/quartet

You could get rid of the MMR inflation for groups, then do something about MMR outliers so they don't wait forever.

I like the idea of this approach. However just two points I'd like to add: Firstly, games shouldn't begin unless all teams have equals numbers - the current occasional games where its 4 v 3 v 3 etc need to stop. Secondly, what conditions determine the random single player in the second group I.e. the single+trio/quartet group? As someone who plays BGs solo all the time with a high MMR I'd be pissed if I continuously got put into the single+trio/quartet group. Apart from that I like the suggestion 👍

MurderMostFoul

Weesacs wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

I feel the need to back this suggestion again:

Maulkin wrote: »

This has been said countless of times. They don't even need 4 queues. Two will do fine:



2 Queues, a small and a large group queue, with solo players falling into both. Trio +1 random is strong enough to take on a Quartet (full premade). And solo players are fine mixing with duos.

This is both easier to implement than MMR and it will cause smaller fragmentation of the relatively small player base than proper MMR would cause.

Under this very simple system, you wouldn't even need separate queues. All folks joining would be auto sorted and all matches would be:

singles/duos v. singles/duos

or

single+trio/quartet v. single+trio/quartet

You could get rid of the MMR inflation for groups, then do something about MMR outliers so they don't wait forever.

I like the idea of this approach. However just two points I'd like to add: Firstly, games shouldn't begin unless all teams have equals numbers - the current occasional games where its 4 v 3 v 3 etc need to stop. Secondly, what conditions determine the random single player in the second group I.e. the single+trio/quartet group? As someone who plays BGs solo all the time with a high MMR I'd be pissed if I continuously got put into the single+trio/quartet group. Apart from that I like the suggestion 👍

The lack of full groups wouldn't be as much of a problem if they just widened the MMR matching brackets I imagine. Regarding the second point, being the solo in a 4 v 4 v 3+1 isn't so bad. But most solo queues will be populating the duos/solo matches.