🚨BATTLEGROUNDS REWORK🚨

MusicMaster

Hello Everyone!

I have had recent discussions with my guild on our disappointment with the current Battlegrounds system. We are incredibly sad that there is no option for group queue. We have so many ideas, that would require very little effort for improvement. I decided to post those ideas here instead of having them privately in our guild, so that maybe as a community we could look towards some sort of overhaul / rework of the BG system.

In my opinion, there is an entire market of gamers that TESO is missing out on, one that can easily be pulled in with minimal work. There are entire franchises that have built their legacy on the "Deathmatch" style of small scale team battles you see in most first person shooters and MOBA games (Call of Duty, League of Leagends, etc..), and I am sure that there would be plenty of people who would play TESO just for this (I know I would). Imagine the $$$ this game could make with very little in the way of work to make it happen.

Here is my idea for a rework. Offer the following queue options for Battlegrounds:

- Ranked (with tiers) - Solo or premade team option (solo players would be grouped with other PUGs). Performance can increase or decrease your rank. The queue would group similar ranks together for matches. Think of League of Legends style ranking system. Deathmatch only.

- Unranked Group - Queue as a group with friends (or solo and be stuck with PUGs). Choose between different games (Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, etc..) or random queue.

- Unranked Solo - Queue for solo players only (no groups). Have all the normal game modes in group play.

- 1v1 - Queue up to fight 1v1 versus another player on a smaller map.


I think these small changes (the ranked system is the only queue that might require a little more work in terms of programming) would make a LARGE difference for very little effort on the part of the TESO team. Not only will it enrich the experience for current players and make BG worth playing, but it will open up an entire new player base to the game.

Anyone else have similar ideas?

pauld1_ESO

Any form of true matchmaking would be good. Right now every match is the same with one team rolling over the other two, no rhyme or reason to it but I know I am rarely on that team.

Obviously when this is the case for 90% of my BGs there is something horribly wrong. If I didn't know better I would think this was premades ruining the solo queue, but obviously that's not a thing....unless people found a way to circumvent.

the1andonlyskwex

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

MusicMaster

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

roflcopter

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

the1andonlyskwex

But wouldn't everyone leave pretty quickly after experiencing 45 min queues?

Firstmep

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I still have nightmares about cp enabled bgs, every deathmatch went the full 15 minutes.
And back then you could queue as a grp still.
No thank you.

MusicMaster

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I think the ranked queue would be a HUGE hit! There is an entire gamer base that currently doesnt play, who would probably join just for that. Like I mention in the original post, there are entire franchises built solely on the concept of deathmatch style gameplay. Imagine how huge it could be for TESO just to implement that concept. It would be the ultimate end game experience, without every getting boring (with ranking system, there is always something to strive for). Choose between being challenged or not. Group play or solo. Small scale or large scale. I for one would 100% play BG alot more if I could play with friends. And a ranking system / 1v1 option would make it much more enticing to queue solo.

These are changes they did not have before they removed group play. And I think they make all the difference.

I dont care for CP option either way personally.

MusicMaster

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

But wouldn't everyone leave pretty quickly after experiencing 45 min queues?

You are assuming the queues would be that long.

A better product = more players

More players = quicker queue

It's not like the BG queue is super quick now anyway.

roflcopter

Firstmep wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I still have nightmares about cp enabled bgs, every deathmatch went the full 15 minutes.
And back then you could queue as a grp still.
No thank you.

Having it as an option wouldn't force your finger to queue for it right?

roflcopter

MusicMaster wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I think the ranked queue would be a HUGE hit! There is an entire gamer base that currently doesnt play, who would probably join just for that. Like I mention in the original post, there are entire franchises built solely on the concept of deathmatch style gameplay. Imagine how huge it could be for TESO just to implement that concept. It would be the ultimate end game experience, without every getting boring (with ranking system, there is always something to strive for). Choose between being challenged or not. Group play or solo. Small scale or large scale. I for one would 100% play BG alot more if I could play with friends. And a ranking system / 1v1 option would make it much more enticing to queue solo.

These are changes they did not have before they removed group play. And I think they make all the difference.

I dont care for CP option either way personally.

Ultimate end game should encompass the full amount of grinding... including CP. Excluding CP, just gives rise to meta builds and no counters to it. Having CP balances sets and group comps with counter play.

I think your ideas are solid, but also think isolating everything to just non-cp is just silly. Having CP enabled is just an option.

Even if CP enabled is 99th on a list we all know most and more people would play it. Thats the real tragedy here. Cyro proves that.

Juhasow

roflcopter wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I still have nightmares about cp enabled bgs, every deathmatch went the full 15 minutes.
And back then you could queue as a grp still.
No thank you.

Having it as an option wouldn't force your finger to queue for it right?

It was an option once and majority of people playing BG's didn't liked it. This game balance is not best suited for 4v4v4 with enabled CP's.

roflcopter

Juhasow wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I still have nightmares about cp enabled bgs, every deathmatch went the full 15 minutes.
And back then you could queue as a grp still.
No thank you.

Having it as an option wouldn't force your finger to queue for it right?

It was an option once and majority of people playing BG's didn't liked it. This game balance is not best suited for 4v4v4 with enabled CP's.

If I remember correctly it was removed because performance was terrible in it. Not because people didn't like it.

Even if people didn't like it, like you said, why not just leave it as an option like cyro does with non cp options (which are generally unliked and low pop) and let it be low pop for the people who enjoy cp enabled 4v4v4 pvp?

You know how many small groups in cyro would die for some small scale cp enable pvp?

Juhasow

roflcopter wrote: »

Juhasow wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

Firstmep wrote: »

roflcopter wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Won't all of those options just divide the player base? I was under the impression that the likely reason there aren't separate group and solo queues is that there aren't enough players to support two queues. What would happen with 4+?

I think it would do the opposite. It would pull the community together. Currently, there are a lot of people who dont play BG at all because the current system is just lackluster. I am one of those many players who only does it once a day for the XP bonus, if at all.

It sounds like a chicken vs egg argument in the beginning. Which comes first? Growing community involvement, or making improvements to the game? Personally, I believe the players will come if you put out a good product. Bad product = less players. Once they make the correct changes, players will come. In fact, many players will be attracted to the game just for the new BG ranked system. So you would actually GROW your player base, and get more involvement. It may even divert some population from Cyrodiil, helping with lag and server overload issues. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

Think of how many people would be pulled together if they added a CP enabled option! Would be glorious. Even if it was 99th on the list of options would be great to have... just as an option. I know I for one and many others haven't played no CP bg's because the cheese is pretty bad and CP allows for more diversity in builds.

I think BGs would grow more with CP enabled personally. Talk about a missing market!

Adding MM back is probably fine, but I think it would be the same population who played BGs before they removed group queing. Adding CP I think would grow its community.

I still have nightmares about cp enabled bgs, every deathmatch went the full 15 minutes.
And back then you could queue as a grp still.
No thank you.

Having it as an option wouldn't force your finger to queue for it right?

It was an option once and majority of people playing BG's didn't liked it. This game balance is not best suited for 4v4v4 with enabled CP's.

If I remember correctly it was removed because performance was terrible in it. Not because people didn't like it.

Even if people didn't like it, like you said, why not just leave it as an option like cyro does with non cp options (which are generally unliked and low pop) and let it be low pop for the people who enjoy cp enabled 4v4v4 pvp?

You know how many small groups in cyro would die for some small scale cp enable pvp?

BG's never had performance issues to the extent that would push away people from them. CP enabled Cyro had performance issues connected to CP's , CP enabled BG's hadn't. People didn't liked CP enabled BG's because in 4v4v4 scenario it's just to stagnant and boring. There are many examples why.

No CP Cyro is actually populated pretty well and there is a difference between BG and Cyrodill. In Cyro thert is a limit of players that can play so it's always better to have some backup campaign to hold those people who cannot enter full campaigns even if that backup campaign would have low population most of the time. There is no limit for amount of people playing in BG's though so there is no correlation between Cyro and BG you're trying to make.

Small groups in Cyro...that's a good one And on more serious note I do realize that there are some people who would love to have CP enabled BG's but to think that their numbers are so big that it would suddenly bring lot of new players to BG's population is an absurd.

Firstmep

Battleground have been a string of bad decisions from the devs ever since they were released with Morrowind.

The 3 team setting, no real competetive setting, allowing pre made grps and solos together, then completetly removing grp bgs, and the list goes on.

On top of that the rewards are stale, Cyrodiil has gone thru 2 set rotations while BGs still have the same old set, even if they buff those sets, at this point everyone should have 9 billion different pieces of all those sets.

The AP rewards are also incredibly lackluster compared to cyrodiil.

Before they do any changes they need to revamp the rewards for BGs, otherwise only the same 5 ppl will play them.

MurderMostFoul

Anyone hoping for sweeping changes to BGs is bound to be disappointed. There is room for improvement, to be sure, but they are only going to come through incremental changes.

New BGs systems, modes, brackets, etc. are not on the horizon.

precambria

At this point expecting any PvP content at all is more or less setting yourself up for disappointment, I only really have been back to this game for a year and they just don't care AT ALL about battlegrounds we had over a month of a bug that would prevent teams from filling so there was never full teams, now there is a bug where you can't see your teams bars, they make sets that completely destroy no CP PvP, it's not uncommon to have 3-4 hunters venom procs on you at once.

Them removing grouping and thus uprooting entire communities of players and causing countless people to quit is actually the ONLY thing they have done for us or rather TO us, these are not the actions of a company that wants us around to be frank and they will likely get their wish once another MMO with decent combat is released.

ecru

8v8 with larger maps and max group queue size of 4 will fix the vast vast majority of problems in BG's. That's it. That's all they need to do. Every major problem with BG's is directly caused by the 4v4v4 system. 4v4v4 has never been and will never be good. There is a reason no one in ESO plays BG's, and everyone in WoW queues for instanced pvp. People even prefer the lagfest that is Cyrodiil over BG's because 4v4v4 is an awful gameplay experience.

BG's seem extremely unpopular to me. Even on a brand new character, random queues are still like 10 minutes. Why are so few people queueing for them? In a game with 5% of the playerbase of ESO, instanced matches were instant queues. Look at how dead these forums are--a few threads a week related to a game mode that anyone in the game can join "instantly" at any time, regardless of experience, level, gear, etc.

To ZOS--give it up and implement normal two team instanced pvp that has worked just fine in every other game. The third team contributes absolutely nothing positive to instanced pvp. It was a mistake and the only way that BG's will ever be appealing is to fix that mistake with the implementation of a normal instanced game mode. Different isn't always better, and in this case, different is a whole lot worse.

Firstmep

ecru wrote: »

8v8 with larger maps and max group queue size of 4 will fix the vast vast majority of problems in BG's. That's it. That's all they need to do. Every major problem with BG's is directly caused by the 4v4v4 system. 4v4v4 has never been and will never be good. There is a reason no one in ESO plays BG's, and everyone in WoW queues for instanced pvp. People even prefer the lagfest that is Cyrodiil over BG's because 4v4v4 is an awful gameplay experience.

BG's seem extremely unpopular to me. Even on a brand new character, random queues are still like 10 minutes. Why are so few people queueing for them? In a game with 5% of the playerbase of ESO, instanced matches were instant queues. Look at how dead these forums are--a few threads a week related to a game mode that anyone in the game can join "instantly" at any time, regardless of experience, level, gear, etc.

To ZOS--give it up and implement normal two team instanced pvp that has worked just fine in every other game. The third team contributes absolutely nothing positive to instanced pvp. It was a mistake and the only way that BG's will ever be appealing is to fix that mistake with the implementation of a normal instanced game mode. Different isn't always better, and in this case, different is a whole lot worse.

Pretty much, deathmatches are almost always decided by which team can 3rd party better, at least at higher mmrs.
It's not unusual to get games where it's a Mexican standoff for 5 minutes straight cuz no one wants to push in fear of getting sandwiched.

MusicMaster

ecru wrote: »

8v8 with larger maps and max group queue size of 4 will fix the vast vast majority of problems in BG's. That's it. That's all they need to do. Every major problem with BG's is directly caused by the 4v4v4 system. 4v4v4 has never been and will never be good. There is a reason no one in ESO plays BG's, and everyone in WoW queues for instanced pvp. People even prefer the lagfest that is Cyrodiil over BG's because 4v4v4 is an awful gameplay experience.

BG's seem extremely unpopular to me. Even on a brand new character, random queues are still like 10 minutes. Why are so few people queueing for them? In a game with 5% of the playerbase of ESO, instanced matches were instant queues. Look at how dead these forums are--a few threads a week related to a game mode that anyone in the game can join "instantly" at any time, regardless of experience, level, gear, etc.

To ZOS--give it up and implement normal two team instanced pvp that has worked just fine in every other game. The third team contributes absolutely nothing positive to instanced pvp. It was a mistake and the only way that BG's will ever be appealing is to fix that mistake with the implementation of a normal instanced game mode. Different isn't always better, and in this case, different is a whole lot worse.

I agree with giving up on the 4v4v4 and switching to the same model every other big franchise uses (2 teams, around 6v6). But I think more changes than just that are required.

Ranked play play would be AMAZING! It would be ridiculously popular (everyone i have talked to said it would take up a lot of their playtime, especially end game). Other franchises have shown that you can build a successful business on that alone. And it would bring in an even larger influx of investors to the game who currently dont play, because they will want to come just to compete in that alone. I know personally, I would spend a majority of my time (And much more money) on the game if they had a ranked battlegrounds.

MusicMaster

@ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_Nith

Is there anyone we can talk to directly about making this happen? Any talk between devs already about reworking Battlegrounds?

There is such a large market out there waiting to be picked up. These changes wouldn't require that much work.

Maybe we can get something like this on the PTS? I would be willing to donate my time to help in any way possible if it will help get the ball rolling.

the1andonlyskwex

Something those other games have that ESO doesn't is a low barrier to entry. New players can buy games like CoD and Overwatch and compete on a nearly level playing field almost immediately. ESO doesn't work like that. First you need to level a character, then you need to grind skill points, then you need to grind gear, and then you can finally be competitive in PvP.

Just adding ranked queues won't change that. It will divide the existing player base and kill battlegrounds entirely long before any new players are leveled/geared enough to even participate.

MusicMaster

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Something those other games have that ESO doesn't is a low barrier to entry. New players can buy games like CoD and Overwatch and compete on a nearly level playing field almost immediately. ESO doesn't work like that. First you need to level a character, then you need to grind skill points, then you need to grind gear, and then you can finally be competitive in PvP.

Just adding ranked queues won't change that. It will divide the existing player base and kill battlegrounds entirely long before any new players are leveled/geared enough to even participate.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The barrier to entry isnt THAT bad to ESO...I can level new characters from 3 to 50 in a day. A week is easily more than doable, which is nothing in terms of entry to the game. The ESO team has improved their leveling system from years past.

Also, gear again, is not that hard to come by. Basic gear to be competitive in PVP can be crafted, bought, or farmed, and there is a wealth of resources (especially in the form of guilds) to help new players. My guild is one of those that looks out for the newcomer. If they keep ranked at No-CP, I see no issues with new players picking up the game and getting involved rather quickly.

As far as the current player base is concerned, there are tons of people who would jump at the opportunity for ranked play. Cyrodiil is already over populated, and pulling some action from there would be a GOOD thing. At endgame, there are unfortunately many aspects of ESO that become stale for the veteran player. A ranked battlegrounds would never become stale, as there is always something to work for. Something to achieve in PVP. Competitive players want to be the best. They will flow in just to prove it.

Again, I've had so many discussions with both guildies and other players, and the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of such a change.

Xologamer

MusicMaster wrote: »

Hello Everyone!

I have had recent discussions with my guild on our disappointment with the current Battlegrounds system. We are incredibly sad that there is no option for group queue. We have so many ideas, that would require very little effort for improvement. I decided to post those ideas here instead of having them privately in our guild, so that maybe as a community we could look towards some sort of overhaul / rework of the BG system.

In my opinion, there is an entire market of gamers that TESO is missing out on, one that can easily be pulled in with minimal work. There are entire franchises that have built their legacy on the "Deathmatch" style of small scale team battles you see in most first person shooters and MOBA games (Call of Duty, League of Leagends, etc..), and I am sure that there would be plenty of people who would play TESO just for this (I know I would). Imagine the $$$ this game could make with very little in the way of work to make it happen.

Here is my idea for a rework. Offer the following queue options for Battlegrounds:

- Ranked (with tiers) - Solo or premade team option (solo players would be grouped with other PUGs). Performance can increase or decrease your rank. The queue would group similar ranks together for matches. Think of League of Legends style ranking system. Deathmatch only.

- Unranked Group - Queue as a group with friends (or solo and be stuck with PUGs). Choose between different games (Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, etc..) or random queue.

- Unranked Solo - Queue for solo players only (no groups). Have all the normal game modes in group play.

- 1v1 - Queue up to fight 1v1 versus another player on a smaller map.


I think these small changes (the ranked system is the only queue that might require a little more work in terms of programming) would make a LARGE difference for very little effort on the part of the TESO team. Not only will it enrich the experience for current players and make BG worth playing, but it will open up an entire new player base to the game.

Anyone else have similar ideas?

good idea but no
not enought player to split the queues
ah and if u do the first thing u should fix is the lag of a cp option this is truly destroying bgs

FangOfTheTwoMoons

Its unlikely ZOS will do any big changes to BGs or really any major revamps for pvp. It's not how they make their money so it's a waste of resources for them. Only reason Cyrodiil AoE is getting nerfed is because its causing the game to break. Literally.

Nothing proves this point more than the lack of separate pvp balancing from pve, which further exacerbated the issue that we find ourselves dealing with today.

MusicMaster

Xologamer wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

Hello Everyone!

I have had recent discussions with my guild on our disappointment with the current Battlegrounds system. We are incredibly sad that there is no option for group queue. We have so many ideas, that would require very little effort for improvement. I decided to post those ideas here instead of having them privately in our guild, so that maybe as a community we could look towards some sort of overhaul / rework of the BG system.

In my opinion, there is an entire market of gamers that TESO is missing out on, one that can easily be pulled in with minimal work. There are entire franchises that have built their legacy on the "Deathmatch" style of small scale team battles you see in most first person shooters and MOBA games (Call of Duty, League of Leagends, etc..), and I am sure that there would be plenty of people who would play TESO just for this (I know I would). Imagine the $$$ this game could make with very little in the way of work to make it happen.

Here is my idea for a rework. Offer the following queue options for Battlegrounds:

- Ranked (with tiers) - Solo or premade team option (solo players would be grouped with other PUGs). Performance can increase or decrease your rank. The queue would group similar ranks together for matches. Think of League of Legends style ranking system. Deathmatch only.

- Unranked Group - Queue as a group with friends (or solo and be stuck with PUGs). Choose between different games (Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, etc..) or random queue.

- Unranked Solo - Queue for solo players only (no groups). Have all the normal game modes in group play.

- 1v1 - Queue up to fight 1v1 versus another player on a smaller map.


I think these small changes (the ranked system is the only queue that might require a little more work in terms of programming) would make a LARGE difference for very little effort on the part of the TESO team. Not only will it enrich the experience for current players and make BG worth playing, but it will open up an entire new player base to the game.

Anyone else have similar ideas?

good idea but no
not enought player to split the queues
ah and if u do the first thing u should fix is the lag of a cp option this is truly destroying bgs

There are plenty of players to split queue...the reason it hasn't worked before is because the product was bad. No one wants to play a bad product, they just avoid it, or do it once per day for the daily bonus

Fix the product, and the players will flock in

MusicMaster

FangOfTheTwoMoons wrote: »

Its unlikely ZOS will do any big changes to BGs or really any major revamps for pvp. It's not how they make their money so it's a waste of resources for them. Only reason Cyrodiil AoE is getting nerfed is because its causing the game to break. Literally.

Nothing proves this point more than the lack of separate pvp balancing from pve, which further exacerbated the issue that we find ourselves dealing with today.

They would make a lot of money by making these changes, with very little effort on their part. It's a win win.

ecru

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

Something those other games have that ESO doesn't is a low barrier to entry. New players can buy games like CoD and Overwatch and compete on a nearly level playing field almost immediately. ESO doesn't work like that. First you need to level a character, then you need to grind skill points, then you need to grind gear, and then you can finally be competitive in PvP.

Just adding ranked queues won't change that. It will divide the existing player base and kill battlegrounds entirely long before any new players are leveled/geared enough to even participate.

Stat normalization for undergeared players in sub cp160 bg's and putting the <cp160 players in the same bracket as the 1-50 players would go a long way to fixing this sort of imbalance. I don't think anything can be done about skill points, but doing a stat check on a player entering an instanced BG at <cp160 and if they aren't above a certain point, bumping their stats/resists/recovery up to a minimum amount would help narrow the gap a bit.

Instanced pvp can be a huge draw if it's done right, but in ESO's case, it's not. Nearly half of Rift's playerbase was there entirely for extremely basic, random queue instanced pvp. The games were just normal 10v10 or 15v15 matches with objectives (no deathmatch), and even though Rift had 5-10% of the playerbase as ESO has, the pvp community was huge. They ran the same map rotations for years with only a few maps added here and there, but it didn't matter because the pvp itself was good and the matches were balanced. Ranked isn't even necessary for this kind of retention, although it'd be nice to have.

ZOS is really throwing away a huge opportunity here to retain players, especially with no group queueing. With 8v8 groups of 4 could easily be allowed and that alone would retain players. The person I used to pvp with the most quit the game because of the change to group queueing in BG's, and I know other players who mostly played to duo queue in BG's who quit then too.

Xologamer wrote: »

MusicMaster wrote: »

Hello Everyone!

I have had recent discussions with my guild on our disappointment with the current Battlegrounds system. We are incredibly sad that there is no option for group queue. We have so many ideas, that would require very little effort for improvement. I decided to post those ideas here instead of having them privately in our guild, so that maybe as a community we could look towards some sort of overhaul / rework of the BG system.

In my opinion, there is an entire market of gamers that TESO is missing out on, one that can easily be pulled in with minimal work. There are entire franchises that have built their legacy on the "Deathmatch" style of small scale team battles you see in most first person shooters and MOBA games (Call of Duty, League of Leagends, etc..), and I am sure that there would be plenty of people who would play TESO just for this (I know I would). Imagine the $$$ this game could make with very little in the way of work to make it happen.

Here is my idea for a rework. Offer the following queue options for Battlegrounds:

- Ranked (with tiers) - Solo or premade team option (solo players would be grouped with other PUGs). Performance can increase or decrease your rank. The queue would group similar ranks together for matches. Think of League of Legends style ranking system. Deathmatch only.

- Unranked Group - Queue as a group with friends (or solo and be stuck with PUGs). Choose between different games (Deathmatch, Capture the Flag, etc..) or random queue.

- Unranked Solo - Queue for solo players only (no groups). Have all the normal game modes in group play.

- 1v1 - Queue up to fight 1v1 versus another player on a smaller map.


I think these small changes (the ranked system is the only queue that might require a little more work in terms of programming) would make a LARGE difference for very little effort on the part of the TESO team. Not only will it enrich the experience for current players and make BG worth playing, but it will open up an entire new player base to the game.

Anyone else have similar ideas?

good idea but no
not enought player to split the queues
ah and if u do the first thing u should fix is the lag of a cp option this is truly destroying bgs

I don't think the playerbase is large enough to split the queues up like this, but these aren't bad ideas. If I had my way I'd just implement 8v8 with group queueing up to 4 as the only queue option, and match premades with premades on the other side, so you'd have 4 premade + 4 pug vs 4 premade + 4 pug. Those matches would balance themselves out pretty well. I'd also remove deathmatch entirely, deathmatch outside of ranked is too chaotic and unpredictable as far as outcomes go, especially if you have 8 players all facing off with each other.

A 4v4 group only deathmatch queue with end of the month rankings and a leaderboard and such would be the only other game mode I'd add in besides the basic group queue I described above. I'm skeptical of there being enough players for this 4v4 mode to even work, but it would at least be present to give people who want competitive group pvp a chance.

SweepsAllClowns

I don't see any point to even much discuss about some ranked battlegrounds in the current state, when nowadays so many matches start with extremely unbalanced numbers like 2v3v4, 2v4v4 or sometimes even 1v4v4. Also when someone quits or crashes in your team resulting more likely a loss, that means you take a penalty as a decrease in your rank, meaning the ranks wouldn't be accurate and therefore the whole rank system would be worthless.

Jeremy

pauld1_ESO wrote: »

Any form of true matchmaking would be good. Right now every match is the same with one team rolling over the other two, no rhyme or reason to it but I know I am rarely on that team.

Obviously when this is the case for 90% of my BGs there is something horribly wrong. If I didn't know better I would think this was premades ruining the solo queue, but obviously that's not a thing....unless people found a way to circumvent.

They still get in. I think what they do is all queue up together at the same time during slow hours.

MusicMaster

SweepsAllClowns wrote: »

I don't see any point to even much discuss about some ranked battlegrounds in the current state, when nowadays so many matches start with extremely unbalanced numbers like 2v3v4, 2v4v4 or sometimes even 1v4v4. Also when someone quits or crashes in your team resulting more likely a loss, that means you take a penalty as a decrease in your rank, meaning the ranks wouldn't be accurate and therefore the whole rank system would be worthless.

1. You switch to two teams, not 3...that will help with balance

2. A ranking system would take into account people who leave or crash. LoL does it. It's not a hard thing to implement. Not to mention ranks would be the culmination of performance in many games, not just one. So probabilstic theory takes effect.