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

DirtyWizard

I used to love bg's, but don't even bother with them anymore because of the same complaints everyone that plays them often has. impossibly long wait times (not uncommon for 30 min plus for me solo when I still attempted), matching premade groups solo and having non-games, but mainly just being unable to play.

the game doesn't have enough population to merit a ranking based matchmaking, and sadly, I don't think separate q for groups would help much either, just dilute the pool. successful matchmaking was around in 2004 when I was playing Mech Assault on the original Xbox. It boggles my mind that trying to que up for any activity in this game is a chore, it feels like it should be pretty simple. I would have loved to get smashed by the top players on my server every time (and I did) if I could at least play the game and practice a bit. I harvested a lot of nodes in kenarthis roost waiting for bg q to pop.


ESO has some of the most fun gameplay of any game I have ever tried. It is plagued by logistical and performance issues that people put up with because the game itself is pretty awesome. how much fun we would have if we could play it at its full potential.

idk

Liam12548 wrote: »

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.

The difference between the top end and lower end is so great, mostly due to changes Zos has made in the past two years, that your idea would just drive the lower end out of PvP.

You are wrong about sheltering players also. They would find challenge with players near their level and as they improve they will deal with higher level players, as the system is designed to do.

The only reason I can see for suggesting ditching MMR all together is so one can find easier targets. That does not sound much like good PvP.

Raudgrani

For us who don't run "premades", this is pretty much golden. There's not a much more boring thing, than facing some perfected group playing together, and be very used to playing together. I'm pretty glad I don't have to face a group like that every match over and over again (anymore). It might be fun for you, but not for the rest of us.

karthrag_inak

Is this an anti-vax thread?

Weesacs

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

I agree that widening the MMR bracket would help in this scenario. I also agree that the odd game being the extra man in a group of three wouldn't be as bad as it is now, but I'd still be pissed off it was a continual thing for me.

Also, having put more thought into your suggestion, I'd change it slightly so that duo's could be placed in with either of the queues but more weighted towards the grouping queue in the first instance. For example, lets say there are two duo's queued at the same time ... they could be grouped together to form a team of 4 and be placed against the premades rather than be placed in the solo queue. This approach would also increase the number of teams in your second queue. However if they couldn't fit into the group queue then yes, place them in the solo queue.

Another reason I'd weight duo's more towards the grouping queue is because if built correctly, duo's can be deadly, especially when running guard.

MurderMostFoul

Weesacs wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

I agree that widening the MMR bracket would help in this scenario. I also agree that the odd game being the extra man in a group of three wouldn't be as bad as it is now, but I'd still be pissed off it was a continual thing for me.

Also, having put more thought into your suggestion, I'd change it slightly so that duo's could be placed in with either of the queues but more weighted towards the grouping queue in the first instance. For example, lets say there are two duo's queued at the same time ... they could be grouped together to form a team of 4 and be placed against the premades rather than be placed in the solo queue. This approach would also increase the number of teams in your second queue. However if they couldn't fit into the group queue then yes, place them in the solo queue.

Another reason I'd weight duo's more towards the grouping queue is because if built correctly, duo's can be deadly, especially when running guard.

Interesting, so the second matchmaking bin would yield 4/3+1/2+2 v 4/3+1/2+2 v 4/3+1/2+2. Not a bad idea.

idk

karthrag_inak wrote: »

Is this an anti-vax thread?

+1

React

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

HEBREWHAMMERRR

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

Exactly. I looked at the leaderboards and it’s people I’ve never seen in my life. They’re able to crank out games while I sit in MMR purgatory wondering when / if my que will ever pop. Then I have to worry about the sweaty premade that faces me on the other side. The system is in need of some tweaks sooner rather than later.

Qwazzy

Agree.

Also no MMR solo queue option!

HEBREWHAMMERRR

Qwazz wrote: »

Agree.

Also no MMR solo queue option!

100% that’d be great.

Iskiab

Why no solo queue option for MMR? Maybe I’m misunderstanding, do you mean no ranked BGs for solo queuers?

Raudgrani

I ended up IN a "premade" last night. On my stamsorc werewolf. I recognized the names of the others, they play together a lot in Cyrodiil. Well. We didn't have a single death on our team, I think I had 19 kills, and I didn't even have the most. Sure I ran alongside them, but I wasn't in chat with them (probably used Xbox Live chat), so I had no way of knowing what they planned.

Point is, the other two teams probably didn't have blast, other than Dawnbreakers and Howls of Agony, of course. At the end, the whole match was about us trying to even catch up with them, two groups more or less running side by side to get away from us. There's an obvious need for like a queue for solo players, and premade groups.

idk

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

So Zos needs to changes some aspects of how the leaderboards work. It does seem pretty clear people do not want high MMR players chasing off less experienced players and it does not make sense that a high MMR player would want to be matched up with a low MMR player more often which is exactly what you are suggesting.

BTW, Zos has no interest in logging into anyone's account. That just does not make sense.

BNOC

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

I have to add that the easiest way to get to the top of the leaderboards is to ignore PVP and just turn into a PvO bot.
Die 30 times a game if you have to, just make sure you get 20 captures in dom, hold the ball and run for as long as possible in chaos ball or cap empty relics whilst everyone else fights - Go out of your way to avoid combat and preferably do it with a speed nb build so it's easer - You'll finish these games miles above the rest score wise everytime, even if you don't win.

WoppaBoem

Split pre-mades and solo's. I can see why the MMR is there as sometimes I play again low MMR and they just melt. That is boring but as solo against Pre-mades is very unpleasant. Yesterday kept facing the same Nerco Bash team, there was no point in playing. I loved Bg's a lot. I am good but not super good. By playing a lot and having many wins I now only face really good players and pre-mades (many times grouped with very low MMR solo players, they keep grouping me with very low ranks). Making Bg's unplayable, makes me sad.

Shanehere

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.

I agree with this, if they distributed it like CP10-160, CP161-300, CP301-500, CP501-700, CP710+ they would still be a decent number of players in each bracket relatively close in experience.

BNOC

Shanehere wrote: »

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.

I agree with this, if they distributed it like CP10-160, CP161-300, CP301-500, CP501-700, CP710+ they would still be a decent number of players in each bracket relatively close in experience.

That's not totally effective though, transfers or returning players would then just safely stomp their way through BG's.

You could just start a new account, get to 160CP and then just level up (very slowly) in BG's that you're absolutely smashing.

Often, transferring players at 160CP are better than most casual players at 810.

jcm2606

Shanehere wrote: »

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.

I agree with this, if they distributed it like CP10-160, CP161-300, CP301-500, CP501-700, CP710+ they would still be a decent number of players in each bracket relatively close in experience.

CP is in no way indicative of experience. A CP 200 could be insanely good at the game, whether it just clicked for them or they've transferred from another platform, while a CP 1000+ could be insanely useless, because they earned that through questing or mindlessly grinding mobs.

The only CP-related split I'm in favour of is under-160 and over-160, because of the gear cap. Those who have just hit CP for the first time are at a distinct and monumental disadvantage, because they don't have even a semblance of proper gear equipped. It's either they split those under from those over, or they remove the middling tiers of gear between level 50 and CP 160, and have the gear cap be just CP 160. (Personally, I'd prefer the latter.)

Alucardo

Terrible idea. Have you ever rolled an alt, gone into BGs and completely ezclapped your way through until the MMR caught up? Yeah, it's not fun for me, and I'm sure it's not fun for the people I'm up against. I'd rather sit in a queue and wait for a balanced match.
What they do need to do is make battlegrounds more enticing somehow to get more people in there. The more combatants, the less time you have wait. I know there's not that many people participating because I generally see the same names almost every match, just on different teams.

Qwazzy

Alucardo wrote: »

Terrible idea. Have you ever rolled an alt, gone into BGs and completely ezclapped your way through until the MMR caught up? Yeah, it's not fun for me, and I'm sure it's not fun for the people I'm up against. I'd rather sit in a queue and wait for a balanced match.
What they do need to do is make battlegrounds more enticing somehow to get more people in there. The more combatants, the less time you have wait. I know there's not that many people participating because I generally see the same names almost every match, just on different teams.

30+ minute queue times between EVERY match isn't fun no matter how you color it.

J2JMC

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

BNOC

J2JMC wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

That doesn't solve anything.

Basing MMR on Win Loss in ESO is a recipe for disaster - It's too easy to ignore all PVP and just cap objectives, even if you die 30 times you can finish top on score by literally playing objective.

The fact is, when you put those guys into games that need active PVP (Like all bg's should) they will and do just get pummelled non stop - When it gets that high, you need people who will fight and hold their own, not just run from any PVP to the next flag cap.

This method also promotes ignoring PVP as you only need wins.

idk

J2JMC wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

+1 and basically what I said above concerning the perceived motives.

Alucardo

Qwazz wrote: »

Alucardo wrote: »

Terrible idea. Have you ever rolled an alt, gone into BGs and completely ezclapped your way through until the MMR caught up? Yeah, it's not fun for me, and I'm sure it's not fun for the people I'm up against. I'd rather sit in a queue and wait for a balanced match.
What they do need to do is make battlegrounds more enticing somehow to get more people in there. The more combatants, the less time you have wait. I know there's not that many people participating because I generally see the same names almost every match, just on different teams.

30+ minute queue times between EVERY match isn't fun no matter how you color it.

I won't disagree that it sucks, but it's better than the alternative, which is like breaking into a kindergarten and picking fights with children. When newer players get matched against veteran twinks it no doubt turns them off battlegrounds and we won't see them again. BGs need to be made more enticing, not scare people off.

brandonv516

J2JMC wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

Actually your suggestion would not help OP at all because he does not play the objective ever.

So because he actually loses a lot of matches (other than DM) he would be placed with a lot of terrible players.

Waffennacht

BNOC wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

I have to add that the easiest way to get to the top of the leaderboards is to ignore PVP and just turn into a PvO bot.
Die 30 times a game if you have to, just make sure you get 20 captures in dom, hold the ball and run for as long as possible in chaos ball or cap empty relics whilst everyone else fights - Go out of your way to avoid combat and preferably do it with a speed nb build so it's easer - You'll finish these games miles above the rest score wise everytime, even if you don't win.

Well yeah. Duh. Play the objective. F kill/death ratio if it isn't death match.

The fact you felt you needed to point this out makes me wanna slap those whom don't play the objective

exeeter702

People here talking like BGs in eso are in anyway designed to be a competitive platform........

W/l mmr?
Low skill / high skill mmr?

None of this would have even been a issue whatsoever had zos not been so damn perversely obsessed with make BGs a 3 team wack a mole affair. The problems with this entire system is rooted at its very core and none of the suggestions spoken here would do anything.

Premade / queue separation does nothing but divide the already small player pool that participates in BGs, resulting in longer queues for everyone which is then further compounded by high mmr queue times.

Variation group size matchmaking solves no problem with the mmr system still intact.

Removing everything but solo queue is just a big FU to anyone that wants to play with friends in a genre that emphasizes group play.

Having casual and ranked queues is a dead end because again you are not only separating the player pool between 2 formats, you are still going to run into an even worse issue with high mmr queue times. Which says nothing of how anti competitive these bg maps are designed, trying to shoehorn some kind of ranked system into them is laughable at best.

There is no compromise so long as 3 teams of 4 is the format and the player pool is as small as it is. You can axe the mmr system entirely and tell everyone its either sink or swim which would alleviate queue times for experienced players, with the minor risk of driving away less experienced players. Couple that with making the brackets <160 and >160 and you have a pallatable system. But of course you still run into the issue with premades.

Bgs should have never been 3 team affairs with multiple different game modes employed on each of the maps, that was the absolute nail in the coffin. One that clearly demonstrated a lack of experience and a lack of forsight for the long term.
They must have known they didnt have a highly competitive system which i can only assume their logic was "lets make it as casual as possible by making 3 team objective based bgs so its just random enough that everyone can have fun!" Yet didnt account for what would happen with premade coordination in the one and only bg mode that anyone even gives a damn about, death match.

They needed to realize exactly what purpise BGs were going to serve instead of trying to have their cale and eat it. They should have seen that this pvp format was never going to be competitive despite players trying to convince themselves otherwise and went ahead with 2 team bgs where 8 players where on each team and each map was specifically designed around a single game mode and you could only queue up as a 4 man group at most. Proper objective design would garuntee a quick loss if teams just lumped up instead of splitting up. And experienced players have a real potential opportunity to influence the outcome of a match without making it a blowout for lesser experienced players. You would have had at one extreme two 4 man premades on each team and on the other extreme 16 solos and never 2 premades vs 8 solos.

Massive missed opportunity.

React

J2JMC wrote: »

Liam12548 wrote: »

I'd love to invite a zenimax employee to sign into my account and attempt to que for a BG in different group sizes, live streaming for all you "the MMR is necessary and isn't an issue" believers. Unless you yourself have the experience I do with BGs, you have no grounds in arguing this one way or the other. The fact is the highest MMR players literally cannot play BGs. If you look at the leaderboards, the top 25 ish players are unmatchable by people in my bracket..

The only way to get to the top of the BG leaderboards is to have low MMR. If this doesn't show you what is wrong with the system, I don't know what will.

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

So I completely ignore the objective in BG's, and have since it was introduced into the game. I play BG's as deathmatch always, because I'm only interested in them for a PLAYABLE PVP OPTION, which seems non existent elsewhere in the game. Due to this, I have around 2k BG wins out of 10k BG games, and probably some ungodly K/D ratio as well as ridiculously high damage & healing statistics.

The players in this "high MMR bracket" are mostly average tier players that play the objective in pre-made groups constantly, resulting in them reaching the upper bracket through W/L ratio and objective points alone. So to address your "He only wants to stomp pugs" statement, I already do that in high MMR bg's. The problem arises when I literally am unable to queue with friends without a 15-30 MINUTE queue time, every time. This results in me either having to waste hours sitting around doing nothing in a group waiting for a queue, or purposely going into a more or less 1v4v4 scenario over and over again by myself (usually against the exact same groups over and over again if they continuously queue, despite the NUMEROUS possible games I am barred from by MMR).

This is a completely broken system that does absolutely nothing but ruin the experience for players that put the time into BG's. It's funny because now some of the players that topped the leaderboards following the inception of MMR are now reaching the higher MMR bracket because of their W/L ratios and medal scores, resulting in them having ridiculous queue times as groups as well. It's a vicious cycle that is going to steadily ruin the BG experience for any person that commits a few months playing them, and has no purpose in a strictly casual game.

If they aren't going to remove it, they should be 100% transparent with which factors contribute the most to your MMR and to what MMR people actually possess. That might at least shed some light on the parts of their formula that are problematic in the higher MMR brackets.

J2JMC

BNOC wrote: »

J2JMC wrote: »

The solution to this is to make mmr w/l based while weighting the amount of mmr gained/lost against the players you beat/lose to.

This will solve your time issue. Although something tells me you still wouldn't be happy since you'll constantly be fighting the same high mmr grouped players and not given the opportunity to stomp scrubs. But I guess you can keep pretending that you care about lower skilled players improving LMAO!

That doesn't solve anything.

Basing MMR on Win Loss in ESO is a recipe for disaster - It's too easy to ignore all PVP and just cap objectives, even if you die 30 times you can finish top on score by literally playing objective.

The fact is, when you put those guys into games that need active PVP (Like all bg's should) they will and do just get pummelled non stop - When it gets that high, you need people who will fight and hold their own, not just run from any PVP to the next flag cap.

This method also promotes ignoring PVP as you only need wins.

@BNOC That's a completely separate topic from OP's issue of queue times, which my suggestion would alleviate. But since you brought it up, outside of Crazy King which I will give you, every other objective bg mode requires pvp to succeed. The only exception to this is when two teams decide to exclusively fight each other so the third just takes the free win. But here's the beauty of w/l mmr, if your teammates are bad, then that means the other team is also bad. So as long as you stomp the game, you'll get the wins and climb to an mmr with other people who can hold their own.

brandonv516 wrote: »

Actually your suggestion would not help OP at all because he does not play the objective ever.

So because he actually loses a lot of matches (other than DM) he would be placed with a lot of terrible players.

@brandonv516 Actually, OP losing makes my suggestion even better. The topic is bg queue times. If OP is losing a lot of games, then that means he will be lower mmr. Lower mmr=faster queue times in every single game that employs an mmr system. This thread was literally made because OP believes his mmr was too high to match with players.

Liam12548 wrote: »

So I completely ignore the objective in BG's, and have since it was introduced into the game. I play BG's as deathmatch always, because I'm only interested in them for a PLAYABLE PVP OPTION, which seems non existent elsewhere in the game. Due to this, I have around 2k BG wins out of 10k BG games, and probably some ungodly K/D ratio as well as ridiculously high damage & healing statistics.

The players in this "high MMR bracket" are mostly average tier players that play the objective in pre-made groups constantly, resulting in them reaching the upper bracket through W/L ratio and objective points alone. So to address your "He only wants to stomp pugs" statement, I already do that in high MMR bg's. The problem arises when I literally am unable to queue with friends without a 15-30 MINUTE queue time, every time. This results in me either having to waste hours sitting around doing nothing in a group waiting for a queue, or purposely going into a more or less 1v4v4 scenario over and over again by myself (usually against the exact same groups over and over again if they continuously queue, despite the NUMEROUS possible games I am barred from by MMR)...

I have no sympathy for you losing in objective based game modes when you can literally queue up for deathmatch (easily the most popular game mode) and never worry about objective game modes lol. You can even queue for chaos ball which is another mode that prioritizes pvp since there is only one objective to fight over.

Your second paragraph just furthers the point that my suggestion would be great for you. By your own admission, you lose lots of games. If mmr was w/l based instead of time played, you would be in a lower mmr. Naturally, as what happens with every single game that implements w/l mmr into their matchmaking, your queue times would be significantly faster because you would have a low mmr. You'll continue to "prepare new players for real pvp" while getting fast queue times. Win-win situation.