🚨BATTLEGROUNDS REWORK🚨

the1andonlyskwex

With respect to 2 vs 3 team PvP:

I'm pretty sure the whole 3-team concept comes from Dark Age of Camelot, which supposedly had amazing PvP. The claim from people who advocated for 3 team PvP was that it resulted in more balanced matches because the two losing teams would gang up on the winning team.

Personally, I'm not convinced it actually plays out like that very often. More often than not, what I see is the losing teams basically fighting amongst themselves while the winning team takes advantage by either focusing on the objective or killing off their weakened/distracted opponents.

stybbe17b16_ESO

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

With respect to 2 vs 3 team PvP:

I'm pretty sure the whole 3-team concept comes from Dark Age of Camelot, which supposedly had amazing PvP. The claim from people who advocated for 3 team PvP was that it resulted in more balanced matches because the two losing teams would gang up on the winning team.

Personally, I'm not convinced it actually plays out like that very often. More often than not, what I see is the losing teams basically fighting amongst themselves while the winning team takes advantage by either focusing on the objective or killing off their weakened/distracted opponents.

Ye I wonder if Dark Age of Camelot had same reward system. I could see the losing teams gang up if only the winning team got the daily win reward. But when top 2 teams get the reward it just ends up with second and third team fighting each other for second place because it is easier.

ecru

the1andonlyskwex wrote: »

With respect to 2 vs 3 team PvP:

I'm pretty sure the whole 3-team concept comes from Dark Age of Camelot, which supposedly had amazing PvP. The claim from people who advocated for 3 team PvP was that it resulted in more balanced matches because the two losing teams would gang up on the winning team.

Personally, I'm not convinced it actually plays out like that very often. More often than not, what I see is the losing teams basically fighting amongst themselves while the winning team takes advantage by either focusing on the objective or killing off their weakened/distracted opponents.

I played DAoC, and the Cyrodiil concept was probably taken from DAoC as it's the very close to the three realm pvp system. The only, difference is that ESO has one pvp zone, while in DAoC each realm had it's own pvp enabled zone. There was also darkness falls which could be compared to Imperial City.

DAoC got large scale pvp "right", so it was a good concept to draw from. They should have looked at games that got instanced pvp right when it came time to implement that (WoW, Rift), but unfortunately we ended up with 4v4v4.

MurderMostFoul

Two team objective modes may work, but i doubt two team deathmatch would work. It would probably be very one-sided, every match.

Khatou

I think there should be a group voting system to dissolve a group, if a group has less than 4 players, or something to extend the search time and especially it should be taken into account if a group has only one player!

UppGRAYxDD

There should be no cp, no teams, no MMR, no groups, just a 12 man free-for-all...