give us finaly cp battleground

Olupajmibanan

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

We should have two choices for BGs:

CP enabled deathmatch (groupable)

CP disabled random game mode (solo)

This would be the ideal scenario. CP needs to be balanced so that it improves PVP, and doesn't turn everyone into unkillable tanks.

Nah, keep CP for PvE. It’s much easier to balance PvP without CP being a factor.

yea it would also be easier to remove classes from pvp for balance.
removing systems is not the way to go

It is the way, actually. Removing CP from Battlegrounds changed BG experience from unkillable tankfest to fast-paced combat. By removing a system we solved a very bad problem and achieved desired state.

Btw, before we even start that, proc sets do not belong to CP vs non-CP discussion as these started to dominate non-CP only two patches ago after that brainless buff. Until then, proc sets were +- fine, only some small tweaks here and there were needed.

SshadowSscale

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

We should have two choices for BGs:

CP enabled deathmatch (groupable)

CP disabled random game mode (solo)

This would be the ideal scenario. CP needs to be balanced so that it improves PVP, and doesn't turn everyone into unkillable tanks.

Nah, keep CP for PvE. It’s much easier to balance PvP without CP being a factor.

yea it would also be easier to remove classes from pvp for balance.
removing systems is not the way to go

It is the way, actually. Removing CP from Battlegrounds changed BG experience from unkillable tankfest to fast-paced combat. By removing a system we solved a very bad problem and achieved desired state.

Btw, before we even start that, proc sets do not belong to CP vs non-CP discussion as these started to dominate non-CP only two patches ago after that brainless buff. Until then, proc sets were +- fine, only some small tweaks here and there were needed.

before that [snip] change no cp was seen as more balanced by many.... the proc damage buff was not needed and just stupid yet zos has not even adressed it yet

[edited for bashing]

VaranisArano

Emma_Overload wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

We had CP Battlegrounds for an update. It turned into a tank-fest that dragged matches out. ZoS decided they liked the faster pace and quicker TTK of No CP BGs.

Are you expecting a different result with the CP rework, such that ZOS should give it another try?

Yes, I definitely expect a different result. What was the point of "fixing" the CP system unless something actually got fixed? They made us wait YEARS for this rework - they better have something to show for it.

I don't think that purpose of the CP rework was to balance it for a quicker TTK in 4v4v4 Battlegrounds matches.

What do you think changed about the rework that will give ZOS the results they apparently desire in CP battlegrounds?

KhajiitLivesMatter

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

We should have two choices for BGs:

CP enabled deathmatch (groupable)

CP disabled random game mode (solo)

This would be the ideal scenario. CP needs to be balanced so that it improves PVP, and doesn't turn everyone into unkillable tanks.

Nah, keep CP for PvE. It’s much easier to balance PvP without CP being a factor.

yea it would also be easier to remove classes from pvp for balance.
removing systems is not the way to go

It is the way, actually. Removing CP from Battlegrounds changed BG experience from unkillable tankfest to fast-paced combat. By removing a system we solved a very bad problem and achieved desired state.

Btw, before we even start that, proc sets do not belong to CP vs non-CP discussion as these started to dominate non-CP only two patches ago after that brainless buff. Until then, proc sets were +- fine, only some small tweaks here and there were needed.

i dont know what the meta was when bgs had cp enabled so i cant comment on how tanky the players where back than

but atm in cryo u can most players in cp pretty fast - there is no reason why it should be diffrent in bgs

Urvoth

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

We should have two choices for BGs:

CP enabled deathmatch (groupable)

CP disabled random game mode (solo)

This would be the ideal scenario. CP needs to be balanced so that it improves PVP, and doesn't turn everyone into unkillable tanks.

Nah, keep CP for PvE. It’s much easier to balance PvP without CP being a factor.

yea it would also be easier to remove classes from pvp for balance.
removing systems is not the way to go

It is the way, actually. Removing CP from Battlegrounds changed BG experience from unkillable tankfest to fast-paced combat. By removing a system we solved a very bad problem and achieved desired state.

Btw, before we even start that, proc sets do not belong to CP vs non-CP discussion as these started to dominate non-CP only two patches ago after that brainless buff. Until then, proc sets were +- fine, only some small tweaks here and there were needed.

i dont know what the meta was when bgs had cp enabled so i cant comment on how tanky the players where back than

but atm in cryo u can most players in cp pretty fast - there is no reason why it should be diffrent in bgs

Players are on average much tankier in cp, though. Good players/teams can already be hard to kill in no cp so imagine how tanky they would be with cp added in.

wheem_ESO

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

We should have two choices for BGs:

CP enabled deathmatch (groupable)

CP disabled random game mode (solo)

This would be the ideal scenario. CP needs to be balanced so that it improves PVP, and doesn't turn everyone into unkillable tanks.

Nah, keep CP for PvE. It’s much easier to balance PvP without CP being a factor.

yea it would also be easier to remove classes from pvp for balance.
removing systems is not the way to go

It is the way, actually. Removing CP from Battlegrounds changed BG experience from unkillable tankfest to fast-paced combat. By removing a system we solved a very bad problem and achieved desired state.

Btw, before we even start that, proc sets do not belong to CP vs non-CP discussion as these started to dominate non-CP only two patches ago after that brainless buff. Until then, proc sets were +- fine, only some small tweaks here and there were needed.

i dont know what the meta was when bgs had cp enabled so i cant comment on how tanky the players where back than

but atm in cryo u can most players in cp pretty fast - there is no reason why it should be diffrent in bgs

I'm not intending to ruffle anyone's feathers, but there's an extremely large gap between the skill level of the average CP-enabled Cyrodiil player and those in the mid/upper MMR range of Battlegrounds. There are reasons that a lot of the "1vX Superstars" have long highlight reels from Cyrodiil fights, with either no Battlegrounds clips whatsoever, or the very occasional one from a low MMR game against some people who don't really know how to PvP.

exeeter702

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Olupajmibanan wrote: »

KhajiitLivesMatter wrote: »

Urvoth wrote: »

sabresandiego_ESO wrote: »

We should have two choices for BGs:

CP enabled deathmatch (groupable)

CP disabled random game mode (solo)

This would be the ideal scenario. CP needs to be balanced so that it improves PVP, and doesn't turn everyone into unkillable tanks.

Nah, keep CP for PvE. It’s much easier to balance PvP without CP being a factor.

yea it would also be easier to remove classes from pvp for balance.
removing systems is not the way to go

It is the way, actually. Removing CP from Battlegrounds changed BG experience from unkillable tankfest to fast-paced combat. By removing a system we solved a very bad problem and achieved desired state.

Btw, before we even start that, proc sets do not belong to CP vs non-CP discussion as these started to dominate non-CP only two patches ago after that brainless buff. Until then, proc sets were +- fine, only some small tweaks here and there were needed.

i dont know what the meta was when bgs had cp enabled so i cant comment on how tanky the players where back than

but atm in cryo u can most players in cp pretty fast - there is no reason why it should be diffrent in bgs

Cyrodil has a much wider range of players in terms of skill and experience, regardless of their cp. In bgs there is an mmr system in place that eventually reaches a point where you are dealing knowledgeable players. To add even more onto this, the burden of performance is far more pronounced in bgs becuase of the player / team count whereas in cyrodil you can get away with being a glass cannon and carried by a large group. In bgs players tend to have much more well rounded builds vs neckbeard all in setups, and if you throw cp into that small scale environment, no one will be dying.

SimonBelmont

I thoroughly support the suggestion of adding a CP-enabled Battleground option. CP, for most of us, are a big part of our builds. When CP are suppressed, we often have an incomplete, dysfunctional build. The only characters this wouldn't be true for are under 50s...and PvPers who specifically create a build which does not depend on CP. Why are both of those groups being catered to?

wheem_ESO

SimonBelmont wrote: »

I thoroughly support the suggestion of adding a CP-enabled Battleground option. CP, for most of us, are a big part of our builds. When CP are suppressed, we often have an incomplete, dysfunctional build. The only characters this wouldn't be true for are under 50s...and PvPers who specifically create a build which does not depend on CP. Why are both of those groups being catered to?

Because playing small group PvP against people that have three thousand less CP than you will be disgusting and not fun at all.

Foto1

please no. I don't want to grind up to 2700cp to enter BG

Emma_Overload

VaranisArano wrote: »

Emma_Overload wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

We had CP Battlegrounds for an update. It turned into a tank-fest that dragged matches out. ZoS decided they liked the faster pace and quicker TTK of No CP BGs.

Are you expecting a different result with the CP rework, such that ZOS should give it another try?

Yes, I definitely expect a different result. What was the point of "fixing" the CP system unless something actually got fixed? They made us wait YEARS for this rework - they better have something to show for it.

I don't think that purpose of the CP rework was to balance it for a quicker TTK in 4v4v4 Battlegrounds matches.

What do you think changed about the rework that will give ZOS the results they apparently desire in CP battlegrounds?

I was mostly hoping that there would be a psychological benefit, that players would believe the new CP system was better so we could stop arguing about it. I'm willing to adapt to anything, as long as my progression matters again.

I really don't understand the mindset of players who want to play BGs with No CP. CP is an integral part of the ESO experience. Removing it means you're not really playing ESO, in my opinion. No CP BGs are a daily reminder that the devs have failed to balance progression across all game modes.

All the problems people complain about in CP enabled Battlegrounds are present in other PvP modes, they're just not as obvious. The logical response is to fix THOSE problems (e.g. unkillable tanks), not to yank out a core mechanic. Imagine if NASCAR reacted to the problem of occasional crashes by mandating a 30 mph speed limit on the track. Yeah, that might solve the problem, but it wouldn't be proper racing anymore.

I still don't see why we can't have separate queues for CP and No CP. The "playerbase is too small" argument is weak and self-fulfilling. I refuse to play any form of No CP PvP unless my guild drags me into it. Enabling a CP queue would grow the player population, not shrink it, in my opinion.

At the very least, ZOS should enable a CP option alongside the No CP option for a few weeks or months to see if players like it.

KhajiitLivesMatter

Emma_Overload wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Emma_Overload wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

We had CP Battlegrounds for an update. It turned into a tank-fest that dragged matches out. ZoS decided they liked the faster pace and quicker TTK of No CP BGs.

Are you expecting a different result with the CP rework, such that ZOS should give it another try?

Yes, I definitely expect a different result. What was the point of "fixing" the CP system unless something actually got fixed? They made us wait YEARS for this rework - they better have something to show for it.

I don't think that purpose of the CP rework was to balance it for a quicker TTK in 4v4v4 Battlegrounds matches.

What do you think changed about the rework that will give ZOS the results they apparently desire in CP battlegrounds?

I was mostly hoping that there would be a psychological benefit, that players would believe the new CP system was better so we could stop arguing about it. I'm willing to adapt to anything, as long as my progression matters again.

I really don't understand the mindset of players who want to play BGs with No CP. CP is an integral part of the ESO experience. Removing it means you're not really playing ESO, in my opinion. No CP BGs are a daily reminder that the devs have failed to balance progression across all game modes.

All the problems people complain about in CP enabled Battlegrounds are present in other PvP modes, they're just not as obvious. The logical response is to fix THOSE problems (e.g. unkillable tanks), not to yank out a core mechanic. Imagine if NASCAR reacted to the problem of occasional crashes by mandating a 30 mph speed limit on the track. Yeah, that might solve the problem, but it wouldn't be proper racing anymore.

I still don't see why we can't have separate queues for CP and No CP. The "playerbase is too small" argument is weak and self-fulfilling. I refuse to play any form of No CP PvP unless my guild drags me into it. Enabling a CP queue would grow the player population, not shrink it, in my opinion.

At the very least, ZOS should enable a CP option alongside the No CP option for a few weeks or months to see if players like it.

perfectly said i agree with u.

SimonBelmont

wheem_ESO wrote: »

SimonBelmont wrote: »

I thoroughly support the suggestion of adding a CP-enabled Battleground option. CP, for most of us, are a big part of our builds. When CP are suppressed, we often have an incomplete, dysfunctional build. The only characters this wouldn't be true for are under 50s...and PvPers who specifically create a build which does not depend on CP. Why are both of those groups being catered to?

Because playing small group PvP against people that have three thousand less CP than you will be disgusting and not fun at all.

Foto1 wrote: »

please no. I don't want to grind up to 2700cp to enter BG

You, and many others in this thread, seem to be woefully ill-informed. Three thousand CP is over three times the total CP possible. As well, it is not being suggested that all BGs have CP enabled. But, rather, that 2 new options (CP Enabled Random & CP Enabled Solo Random) be added. If a player didn't want CP to be a factor, they could simply stick with the BGs they've always done!

VaranisArano

Emma_Overload wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Emma_Overload wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

We had CP Battlegrounds for an update. It turned into a tank-fest that dragged matches out. ZoS decided they liked the faster pace and quicker TTK of No CP BGs.

Are you expecting a different result with the CP rework, such that ZOS should give it another try?

Yes, I definitely expect a different result. What was the point of "fixing" the CP system unless something actually got fixed? They made us wait YEARS for this rework - they better have something to show for it.

I don't think that purpose of the CP rework was to balance it for a quicker TTK in 4v4v4 Battlegrounds matches.

What do you think changed about the rework that will give ZOS the results they apparently desire in CP battlegrounds?

I was mostly hoping that there would be a psychological benefit, that players would believe the new CP system was better so we could stop arguing about it. I'm willing to adapt to anything, as long as my progression matters again.

I really don't understand the mindset of players who want to play BGs with No CP. CP is an integral part of the ESO experience. Removing it means you're not really playing ESO, in my opinion. No CP BGs are a daily reminder that the devs have failed to balance progression across all game modes.

All the problems people complain about in CP enabled Battlegrounds are present in other PvP modes, they're just not as obvious. The logical response is to fix THOSE problems (e.g. unkillable tanks), not to yank out a core mechanic. Imagine if NASCAR reacted to the problem of occasional crashes by mandating a 30 mph speed limit on the track. Yeah, that might solve the problem, but it wouldn't be proper racing anymore.

I still don't see why we can't have separate queues for CP and No CP. The "playerbase is too small" argument is weak and self-fulfilling. I refuse to play any form of No CP PvP unless my guild drags me into it. Enabling a CP queue would grow the player population, not shrink it, in my opinion.

At the very least, ZOS should enable a CP option alongside the No CP option for a few weeks or months to see if players like it.

How do you fix "unkillable tanks" that are balanced in Cyrodiil where they face large groups of players but are unbalanced in a 15 minute 4v4v4 game mode?

That was one of the issues when ZOS did CP Battlegrounds. They had tanky builds that weren't actually unkillable in Cyrodiil because you can always bring more numbers to bear, but who were dragging out matches in Battlegrounds. I know its fashionable to complain about players being too tanky in general, but the extra mitigation is supposed to be a benefit of CP progression, right? So why take away from players in CP Cyrodiil to create a quicker Time To Kill in CP BGs...when ZOS can get the quicker TTK they want with No CP Battlegrounds? If you balance for 4v4v4 CP Battlegrounds, you get weird results in Cyrodiil where players generally aren't fighting in 4v4v4 battles. Moreover, while you get to use your CP in Battlegrounds, if it takes some major nerfs to get it balanced for a 4v4v4, is that really progression?

I mean, sure, they could try a CP Battlegrounds queue again. But unless ZOS seriously adjusts the tankiness of all CP players in Cyrodiil and IC too in order to balance for 4v4v4 game modes, the results are going to be the same.

wheem_ESO

Emma_Overload wrote: »

I really don't understand the mindset of players who want to play BGs with No CP. CP is an integral part of the ESO experience. Removing it means you're not really playing ESO, in my opinion. No CP BGs are a daily reminder that the devs have failed to balance progression across all game modes.

Several of us have already given our reasoning, but I'll do it again: I'm steadfastly against unfair advantages and disadvantages that are based on nothing more than either playing the game for longer, or playing more PvE (which tends to award far more experience points). I know that I'm not the only person that has seen a player with 300-400 CP perform very well in PvP, and been able to hang with players at 810+ in Battlegrounds. That phenomenon should not go away, and those players shouldn't be forced to do an immensely boring PvE grind just to be competitive in the part of the game that they actually want to enjoy.

Emma_Overload wrote: »

All the problems people complain about in CP enabled Battlegrounds are present in other PvP modes, they're just not as obvious. The logical response is to fix THOSE problems (e.g. unkillable tanks), not to yank out a core mechanic. Imagine if NASCAR reacted to the problem of occasional crashes by mandating a 30 mph speed limit on the track. Yeah, that might solve the problem, but it wouldn't be proper racing anymore.

Balancing Battlegrounds around max CP might be possible, but it would certainly be difficult. And can you imagine the outcry when a "tank" who's used to playing in Cyrodiil and not dying to large groups of people attacking them suddenly becomes killable by a team of 3 dps + 1 healer in a Battleground? Not to mention the potential effects on PvE, which always causes an uproar, even if it's quite a minor impact.

SimonBelmont wrote: »

wheem_ESO wrote: »

SimonBelmont wrote: »

I thoroughly support the suggestion of adding a CP-enabled Battleground option. CP, for most of us, are a big part of our builds. When CP are suppressed, we often have an incomplete, dysfunctional build. The only characters this wouldn't be true for are under 50s...and PvPers who specifically create a build which does not depend on CP. Why are both of those groups being catered to?

Because playing small group PvP against people that have three thousand less CP than you will be disgusting and not fun at all.

Foto1 wrote: »

please no. I don't want to grind up to 2700cp to enter BG

You, and many others in this thread, seem to be woefully ill-informed. Three thousand CP is over three times the total CP possible. As well, it is not being suggested that all BGs have CP enabled. But, rather, that 2 new options (CP Enabled Random & CP Enabled Solo Random) be added. If a player didn't want CP to be a factor, they could simply stick with the BGs they've always done!

This is the forum for the Public Test Server, which has a CP-cap of 3,600 points. The other poster and I are obviously referring to this cap, and not the 810 point cap on the live servers. 'Course, even 810 can take a bit of time to reach for live players, especially those who are mostly or exclusively doing Battlegrounds.

SimonBelmont

wheem_ESO wrote: »

Several of us have already given our reasoning, but I'll do it again: I'm steadfastly against unfair advantages and disadvantages that are based on nothing more than either playing the game for longer, or playing more PvE (which tends to award far more experience points). I know that I'm not the only person that has seen a player with 300-400 CP perform very well in PvP, and been able to hang with players at 810+ in Battlegrounds. That phenomenon should not go away, and those players shouldn't be forced to do an immensely boring PvE grind just to be competitive in the part of the game that they actually want to enjoy.

How does CP represent an unfair advantage? It's not as though access to CP varies from player to player. Unless you're referring to limitations on your available game-time or lack of initiative. Either is a you problem. Not an us problem. And if you don't want to see CP in your BGs, then queue for the old No-CP ver. (Which no one is suggesting be removed!) Why do you insist we all be subjected to your preferred form of content?

wheem_ESO wrote: »

Balancing Battlegrounds around max CP might be possible, but it would certainly be difficult. And can you imagine the outcry when a "tank" who's used to playing in Cyrodiil and not dying to large groups of people attacking them suddenly becomes killable by a team of 3 dps + 1 healer in a Battleground? Not to mention the potential effects on PvE, which always causes an uproar, even if it's quite a minor impact.

The presence of CP in a BG would not negatively impact any of these issues. If anything, it would correct some them.

wheem_ESO wrote: »

This is the forum for the Public Test Server, which has a CP-cap of 3,600 points. The other poster and I are obviously referring to this cap, and not the 810 point cap on the live servers. 'Course, even 810 can take a bit of time to reach for live players, especially those who are mostly or exclusively doing Battlegrounds.

It would not matter whether we were talking about a ten or ten-thousand CP cap. They are a part of our characters. And we all have equal access to them (within the game). Many of us want our character's builds to fully apply, no matter what aspect of the game we are focusing on.

...For BG options to be limited to No-CP only, would be similar to if (in WoW) Blizzard said, "Our normal End-Game PVP options are being disabled. But the Exp-Locked (Twink) PVP content will still be available!"

The idea that No-CP is an acceptable answer to balance issues, is just...dumber than eating a bag of quickcrete.

FENGRUSH

Theres people that play BGs in this thread trying to explain to people who don't play BGs why this idea is bad right now.

Itd be great if problems were so apparent and worse in CP BGs, but it's not the case. There are problems that need addressing and I think everyone across the board would like to see that happen to have BGs in a sensible CP system that doesnt lead to unkillable players creating and constantly unenjoyable environment.

SimonBelmont

No explanation has been given which illustrates how adding CP-enabled versions of our existing BG queuing options would harm the game or even: fail to improve it.

"I like it the way it is!", "ZOS can't even balance the game we have now!" &| "Queue times will get longer!" are not legitimate explanations of anything. They are rhetoric.

There are two queuing options for BGs right now: Random Battleground & Solo Random Battleground.

How would the average player, or Zenimax, be negatively impacted by there being four queuing options for BGs (E.G.: Random Battleground, Solo Random Battleground, CP-Enabled Random Battleground & CP-Enabled Solo Random Battleground)?

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Theres people that play BGs in this thread trying to explain to people who don't play BGs why this idea is bad right now.

So, you're saying that, if a player supports the idea of implementing CP-enabled BG options, along side the existing BG options, they must be a player who does not play BGs?

wheem_ESO

The issue is most likely seen as further splitting up the playerbase, as well as balance being rather bad in CP-enabled PvP when you can't bring a zerg.

Have you ever wondered why ZOS removed the ability to queue for specific game modes, despite the fact that nobody was asking for such a thing, and lots of people exclusively queued for Deathmatch before? At least a few players also specifically queued for other game modes when it was allowed, and will now insta-quit if the game is a Deathmatch.

This move to random-only coincided with the splitting of solo and group queues, which actually has been requested by players for a very long time - basically as long as BGs have been a thing. And while I don't have any polling data, I'd be willing to bet money that the vast majority of people who are actually interested in playing Battlegrounds more than once in a blue moon would much rather bring back the ability to queue for specific game modes, rather than tack on CP-enabled random solo and group queues.

Does anyone really think that ZOS is going to implement simultaneous queue options for:

• No-CP Random solo.
• No-CP Deathmatch solo.
• No-CP Flag Game solo.
• No-CP Land Grab solo.
  
  
  
• No-CP Random group.
• No-CP Deathmatch group.
• No-CP Flag Game group.
• No-CP Land Grab group.
  
  
  
• CP-enabled Random solo.
• CP-enabled Deathmatch solo.
• CP-enabled Flag Game solo.
• CP-enabled Land Grab solo.
  
  
  
• CP-enabled Random group.
• CP-enabled Deathmatch group.
• CP-enabled Flag Game group.
• CP-enabled Land Grab group.

I certainly don't, and given how CP-enabled PvP generally plays out in comparison to no-CP, especially when taking coordinated small groups with dedicated healers into account, it's easy to see what I personally think should be sacrificed. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

MurderMostFoul

SimonBelmont wrote: »

"Queue times will get longer!" are not legitimate explanations of anything. They are rhetoric.

What?

This is an entirely legitimate concern. It is also one that ZOS has expressed, providing it as a justification for removing random queue when they reintroduced group queue. Certainly not just "rhetoric."

I think it's also important to acknowledge that they've already experimented with CP enabled battlegrounds and the experiment failed. The quality of the gameplay was considered to be significantly worse and so they reverted to no CP.

Waffennacht

Worst part of CP BGs (and I havent seen it mentioned) is getting paired up with low level CP players.

Getting a CP 160 player on a team is a death sentence for the team.

Its also not particularly fun for them either

UntouchableHunter

I don't understand why some people are against something optional.

If you don't wana CP BG queue for a nocp BG.
It easy and will make everybody happy.

VaranisArano

UntouchableHunter wrote: »

I don't understand why some people are against something optional.

If you don't wana CP BG queue for a nocp BG.
It easy and will make everybody happy.

There's a couple reasons to oppose it even as just an option.

1. ZOS seems unwilling to split the queue more than one way. Solo/premade split OR choose your game mode. If you want the option for CP/No CP, we can assume that ZOS is still unwilling to split the queues, so would that become the only choice we get?

2. We know from Update 16 that CP Battlegrounds has certain builds that are balanced in Cyrodiil but are extremely tanky in a 4v4v4 fight in Battlegrounds. If ZOS re-offers CP Battlegrounds as a permanent option (rather than a "well, we'll try it for an update and see how it goes" type deal), how much are they going to change PVP balance to account for the demands of 4v4v4 fights in CP BGs? They went back to No CP BGs because they wanted a quicker time to kill, so we can assume they'd have to make some changes to CP small scale fights. Ironically, small scale fights in Cyrodiil would probably get hammered in order to bring them down to the level of quicker 4v4v4 fights.

SimonBelmont

FENGRUSH wrote: »

Theres people that play BGs in this thread trying to explain to people who don't play BGs why this idea is bad right now.

wheem_ESO wrote: »

The issue is most likely seen as further splitting up the playerbase, as well as balance being rather bad in CP-enabled PvP when you can't bring a zerg.

Have you ever wondered why ZOS removed the ability to queue for specific game modes, despite the fact that nobody was asking for such a thing, and lots of people exclusively queued for Deathmatch before? At least a few players also specifically queued for other game modes when it was allowed, and will now insta-quit if the game is a Deathmatch.

This move to random-only coincided with the splitting of solo and group queues, which actually has been requested by players for a very long time - basically as long as BGs have been a thing. And while I don't have any polling data, I'd be willing to bet money that the vast majority of people who are actually interested in playing Battlegrounds more than once in a blue moon would much rather bring back the ability to queue for specific game modes, rather than tack on CP-enabled random solo and group queues.

Does anyone really think that ZOS is going to implement simultaneous queue options for:

• No-CP Random solo.
• No-CP Deathmatch solo.
• No-CP Flag Game solo.
• No-CP Land Grab solo.
  
  
  
• No-CP Random group.
• No-CP Deathmatch group.
• No-CP Flag Game group.
• No-CP Land Grab group.
  
  
  
• CP-enabled Random solo.
• CP-enabled Deathmatch solo.
• CP-enabled Flag Game solo.
• CP-enabled Land Grab solo.
  
  
  
• CP-enabled Random group.
• CP-enabled Deathmatch group.
• CP-enabled Flag Game group.
• CP-enabled Land Grab group.

I certainly don't, and given how CP-enabled PvP generally plays out in comparison to no-CP, especially when taking coordinated small groups with dedicated healers into account, it's easy to see what I personally think should be sacrificed. And I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

You turned four options into sixteen. Which I agree would be a bit much. Fortunately, no one is asking for or expecting that.

This game's player-base has seen a huge swell over the past year. There are plenty of players for queues to draw from...if they would only join the queue. And maybe they'd be more inclined to do so, if a quarter of their characters build wasn't amputated upon entry**. It's annoying... Not only that it can mess with how you play, but now you're more likely to lose to someone whose built their character specifically around not having CP enabled.

So, if you plan your character around a well-rounded vision of end-game, you should be weaker than someone whose specifically ignored most aspects of end-game..? That seems silly.

**(they'd also probably be more inclined to embrace PVP if certain other issues were adressed, as discussed in this thread: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/561184/diminishing-returns It's all a rich tapestry...)

wheem_ESO

SimonBelmont wrote: »

You turned four options into sixteen. Which I agree would be a bit much. Fortunately, no one is asking for or expecting that.

Do you not understand what I was getting at? The point of listing that many options was to show what the queue would look like if we had the ability to choose both game mode and whether or not CP was enabled. That won't happen, but it's possible that ZOS would be willing to enable one or the other. I'm willing to bet that a much larger majority of actual BG-players would rather have the ability to pick specific game modes, rather than the option of playing horribly unbalanced and crutch-laden CP-PvP.

BG regulars have long wanted separate solo and group queues, as well as options for picking the game mode, custom lobbies (to organize all-premade games more easily), and other things of that sort. Essentially none of us have been begging for CP to be reenabled, and there were a *lot* of complaints about CP-BGs when they were around a while back. I don't personally see the CP 2.0 system really changing that very much, especially since there will be an enormous gap between veterans and newer players. Unfair advantages like that should be left in Cyrodiil or Imperial City, and not make their way into Battlegrounds.

sabresandiego_ESO

I agree, we need group CP enabled deathmatch que

and

nocp solo random que

that would leave only two ques and satisfy majority of players

GRXRG

Bgs are really fun to play for me, but competitive aspect doesn't exist, people just cheesy full proc sets and get rewarded and carried even if you are completely garbage.

If you implement CP again, will be another place where stamdens and stamcros flex around tanking 8 people mashing buttons nonstop and never die.

I have a pretty strong build on my stamdk (no procs), but when i hop in imperial city and I see I cannot kill 5vs1 a stamden or stamcro it makes me realize how bad designed the game is.

Don't get me wrong, I survived heavy outnumbers myself as well with my stamdk, again 3-4 people at max and usually all in pve or bad gears and CPs, not everyone cp810 etc. But those guys able to hold 5 people with meta builds it's just ridiculous and bad design, nothing to do with skill.

So yeah, no thanks.

Emma_Overload

wheem_ESO wrote: »

SimonBelmont wrote: »

You turned four options into sixteen. Which I agree would be a bit much. Fortunately, no one is asking for or expecting that.

Do you not understand what I was getting at? The point of listing that many options was to show what the queue would look like if we had the ability to choose both game mode and whether or not CP was enabled. That won't happen, but it's possible that ZOS would be willing to enable one or the other. I'm willing to bet that a much larger majority of actual BG-players would rather have the ability to pick specific game modes, rather than the option of playing horribly unbalanced and crutch-laden CP-PvP.

BG regulars have long wanted separate solo and group queues, as well as options for picking the game mode, custom lobbies (to organize all-premade games more easily), and other things of that sort. Essentially none of us have been begging for CP to be reenabled, and there were a *lot* of complaints about CP-BGs when they were around a while back. I don't personally see the CP 2.0 system really changing that very much, especially since there will be an enormous gap between veterans and newer players. Unfair advantages like that should be left in Cyrodiil or Imperial City, and not make their way into Battlegrounds.

Talk about a self-fullfilling prophecy! The reason "BG regulars" who don't like CP are the only regulars in the first place is BECAUSE players who prefer to play with CP were chased out of Battlegrounds years ago. I refuse to invest time or gold into No-CP builds or No-CP game modes because I know that No-CP is bad for the health and integrity of the game. By supporting No-CP BGs, all you guys are doing is giving the ZOS devs an excuse to delay balancing their game so they have more time to code more loot crates for the crown store. ZOS had an opportunity to fix things for Battlegrounds with CP 2.0, and it sounds like they blew it. That's a crying shame, but it's still not a reason to deprive players of the CHOICE to play with the CP they've spents years earning.

UntouchableHunter

VaranisArano wrote: »

UntouchableHunter wrote: »

I don't understand why some people are against something optional.

If you don't wana CP BG queue for a nocp BG.
It easy and will make everybody happy.

There's a couple reasons to oppose it even as just an option.

1. ZOS seems unwilling to split the queue more than one way. Solo/premade split OR choose your game mode. If you want the option for CP/No CP, we can assume that ZOS is still unwilling to split the queues, so would that become the only choice we get?

2. We know from Update 16 that CP Battlegrounds has certain builds that are balanced in Cyrodiil but are extremely tanky in a 4v4v4 fight in Battlegrounds. If ZOS re-offers CP Battlegrounds as a permanent option (rather than a "well, we'll try it for an update and see how it goes" type deal), how much are they going to change PVP balance to account for the demands of 4v4v4 fights in CP BGs? They went back to No CP BGs because they wanted a quicker time to kill, so we can assume they'd have to make some changes to CP small scale fights. Ironically, small scale fights in Cyrodiil would probably get hammered in order to bring them down to the level of quicker 4v4v4 fights.

When I queue with my group I fight another groups with healers and everybody turn into Immortal. I had a lot of bg that nobody dies because the healer, so we already have this situation.

Maybe we could make a test and have only two options.

NO CP BG
CP BG

And I we can have more players come to BG if we have the CP option.

We most open the door, the windows and the gates to make pvp more accessible to new players and to pve players. We need to make our base bigger and we will stop to worry about to split.

I you guys thinks we need to have pre-made groups we could have

No CP bg
- Group
- Solo

CP BG
-Group
-Solo

But I'm sure we will have more players coming to bg with a CP option, if you think that the CP BG will be a trash, go NO CP and be happy, but let how wana a CP BG be also happy

MurderMostFoul

Emma_Overload wrote: »

wheem_ESO wrote: »

SimonBelmont wrote: »

You turned four options into sixteen. Which I agree would be a bit much. Fortunately, no one is asking for or expecting that.

Do you not understand what I was getting at? The point of listing that many options was to show what the queue would look like if we had the ability to choose both game mode and whether or not CP was enabled. That won't happen, but it's possible that ZOS would be willing to enable one or the other. I'm willing to bet that a much larger majority of actual BG-players would rather have the ability to pick specific game modes, rather than the option of playing horribly unbalanced and crutch-laden CP-PvP.

BG regulars have long wanted separate solo and group queues, as well as options for picking the game mode, custom lobbies (to organize all-premade games more easily), and other things of that sort. Essentially none of us have been begging for CP to be reenabled, and there were a *lot* of complaints about CP-BGs when they were around a while back. I don't personally see the CP 2.0 system really changing that very much, especially since there will be an enormous gap between veterans and newer players. Unfair advantages like that should be left in Cyrodiil or Imperial City, and not make their way into Battlegrounds.

Talk about a self-fullfilling prophecy! The reason "BG regulars" who don't like CP are the only regulars in the first place is BECAUSE players who prefer to play with CP were chased out of Battlegrounds years ago. I refuse to invest time or gold into No-CP builds or No-CP game modes because I know that No-CP is bad for the health and integrity of the game. By supporting No-CP BGs, all you guys are doing is giving the ZOS devs an excuse to delay balancing their game so they have more time to code more loot crates for the crown store. ZOS had an opportunity to fix things for Battlegrounds with CP 2.0, and it sounds like they blew it. That's a crying shame, but it's still not a reason to deprive players of the CHOICE to play with the CP they've spents years earning.

One of the primary problems with CP PVP is that it is inherently unbalanced. More CP means more power, imbalance is built into the system. The health of BGs relies upon some baseline of power equity between the 12 participants in each match. With CP enabled BGs, that will never happen.

If ZOS wants to temporarily add a CP enabled BG queue as a test, so be it. But apart from the problem of splitting the player base somewhat, the quality of the gameplay would likely turn people away, and I anticipate that the test would end in failure, just like last time.