Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues

Katheriah

Azorean wrote: »

Also what about achivments? o.O Will they be impossible to complete since I'm still lacking a few

I scrolled through 10 pages to see that ZOS ignored this question so far?

Franchise408

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

VaranisArano

Franchise408 wrote: »

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

PVP was not an addition to the original ESO. Consider that all achievents and titles which require you to complete ALL of the base game include the requirement that you go to PvPvE Cyrodiil. Master Angler, Tamriel Skyshard Hunter, Savior of Nirn, Explorer, and Tamriel Hero...all require you to play the entire base game of which Cyrodiil is an integral part, not some slapped on addition.

I don't understand the PVE players who try to treat PVP as though it's an addition to ESO - as if it's some optional extra that they should be able to avoid and still get all the rewards or worse, that it should be removed entirely.

So of course you have to PVP in Cyrodiil, and later got the options for IC and Battlegrounds, for the skill lines and other rewards that ZOS stuck in those zones. (And yes, of course you have to PVE to get the rewards in PVE zones.)

This is a game that was built to feature both PVE and PVP, and is currently designed for an audience of both types of players. It's not a singleplayer PVE-only game, and it certainly wasn't and never has been designed to be PVE-only.

Franchise408

VaranisArano wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

PVP was not an addition to the original ESO. Consider that all achievents and titles which require you to complete ALL of the base game include the requirement that you go to PvPvE Cyrodiil. Master Angler, Tamriel Skyshard Hunter, Savior of Nirn, Explorer, and Tamriel Hero...all require you to play the entire base game of which Cyrodiil is an integral part, not some slapped on addition.

I don't understand the PVE players who try to treat PVP as though it's an addition to ESO - as if it's some optional extra that they should be able to avoid and still get all the rewards or worse, that it should be removed entirely.

So of course you have to PVP in Cyrodiil, and later got the options for IC and Battlegrounds, for the skill lines and other rewards that ZOS stuck in those zones. (And yes, of course you have to PVE to get the rewards in PVE zones.)

This is a game that was built to feature both PVE and PVP, and is currently designed for an audience of both types of players. It's not a singleplayer PVE-only game, and it certainly wasn't and never has been designed to be PVE-only.

It was never designed to be PVE only, but it is certainly PVE first and foremost.

PVP is not the focus of this game, nor has it ever been.

Just because PVP was in the game from the beginning doesn't mean it's a PVP game.

Call Of Duty has a single-player campaign as well, but that is a PVP centric IP.

ESO is not that and it never has been.

GuildedLilly

1. I DON'T treat BGs as Vet PVE, but the fact remains several PVPers in this thread have made irrational comparisons between the 'difficulties' in random Objective Battlegrounds and the challenge of Vet dungeons and trials. It's also a mistake to think that PVE builds are less varied than PVP builds, or that we don't strive to get an edge in our chosen play style.

2. Objectives BGs were meant to be a fun, casual experience for EVERY player--not just end game PVPers--it was the backbone of their design from the beginning of their battlemodes. That's not an opinion, it's fact. Here's some direct quotes from ZOS:

• we're opening PvP Battlegrounds access to all ESO players
• We want everybody to be able to enjoy the fast-paced action
• We're also introducing new daily PvP Battlegrounds rewards, giving you even more reasons to enjoy the 4v4v4 arenas
• Team Deathmatch is perfect for those who don't want to worry too much about mundane things like “objectives" or “teamwork." Find and destroy enemy player characters with each kill granting your team points
• When participating in a Battlegrounds match, you earn points as you capture, defend, and kill, depending on the game mode.
• In addition to this, you can earn medals for unique deeds that are related to the game type, including:
  
  Dealing damage
  Healing
  Making killing blows
  Earning kill streaks
  Capturing or defending flags
  Taking damage
  Healing flag carriers or defenders
  
• It doesn't matter if you're an objective-minded team player or a lone wolf, you will receive rewards and recognition based on how you want to play.
• We want everybody to enjoy everything Tamriel has to offer in The Elder Scrolls Online, and we believe that these changes best reflect what our players want from the game

ALSO KNOWN AS: From the very start of Battlegrounds, they were intended for ALL players. PVErs and casual gamers who focus on match Objectives and manage to win ARE playing PVP in the manner ZOS intended for that match. PVPers who focus on PK during non DM matches are not. PVPers who rack up PK in DM matches are playing as intended by the Devs. In each BG type, players are rewarded for how well they achieved the match objective. If the match wasn't DM, and you treated it as such-- and lost to a squad of casuals or PVErs because we played the objectives instead-- that is not on us, it's on you.

That problem will no longer exist thanks to the removal of 80% of BG content, so that PVPers who couldn't be bothered with anything other than PKs can finally slaughter to their heart's content. PKs were not the only type of PVP in BGs, but now they will be.

PK fans deserved to have their DM Q back, but the other Battlemodes shouldn't have been removed.

3. Monster sets and purple jewelry are available in IC now, Gold jewelry has been available every weekend in Cyrodil for a while, and treasure chests & rewards from Cyrodil can also have purple jewelry. ZOS has made it possible to literally never leave PVP for PVE gear if you don't want to after level 10.

4. PVErs can't prevent you from getting your tickets in PVE events-- in fact, it's frequently the opposite: we HELP visiting PVPers. PVErs can't prevent you from leveling skill lines in PVE areas--for every elitist snot that kicks you from a normal dungeon while you're leveling undaunted, there's several PVErs that will carry you, or speed run with you even if you queued as a fake tank or healer. PVErs can't affect your progression in Psijic, Fighters, or Mages guild at all.

5. By making PVErs go to IC to get endlessly ganked when all we want is event tickets, certain greifing, trolling PVPers are deliberately camping, slaughtering, and teabagging tel-var broke noobs, making a task that might have taken 5min during a non-event day take an hour or more. They can sabotage our efforts even outside PVP--because tickets are used for quarterly rewards, not just event specific ones. We could have gone to Cyrodil and done objectives there instead, but Nooooooo--- ZOS insists we feed the gankers.

6. We may not miss you in PVE events because there's honestly not that many of you-- but PVPers CERTAINLY miss us when we leave IC and Cyrodil after events. For once, your maps were full: fights for districts, Molag Bol center runs for days that turn into bomberpalooza in the sewers, and zergs, death squads, full blown WAR in Cyrodil, and tons of squishy kills for gankers in IC & PKers in Cyrodil. Maybe more of us would have stayed if certain players weren't such toxic teabaggers? As it is, most PVErs can't wait to leave, increasing numbers are staying out of IC entirely-- and your maps get mostly empty again.

7. BGs were a fun and fast way to progress Alliance skill lines IF we placed in the top 2 teams, which many of us can in Objective Battlegrounds--and we sucked it up and did our best in DM, even though we knew that match most likely isn't going to go in our favor. We put up with Toxic teabaggers who couldn't be bothered to do anything but PK regardless of match objectives--because even as they were twerking on our corpse, our teammates just capped another flag or captured their relic. Just like in EVERY PVP event for the past several years, ZOS has announced the toxic players won. We have to feed the gankers in IC. We lost objective battlegrounds because the toxic teabaggers pitched a fit that body counts alone didn't put them at the top of the leader board in non DM matches.

8. PVErs and casuals DID PVP and compete in Objective Battlegrounds-- we just didn't do so the way that you want, because we seldom focus on PK, and prefer to win the match by capturing objectives--which is and always has been a valid tactic and strategy in those battlemodes as designed and stated by ZOS itself. BGs were created with a variety of objectives to cater to different play styles, tactics, and strategies FROM THE BEGINNING. Death Match was only one of them.

The DM BG queue never should have been taken away from you, and I'm glad it's coming back.

Removal of the other battlemodes remains a massive mistake.

VaranisArano

Franchise408 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

PVP was not an addition to the original ESO. Consider that all achievents and titles which require you to complete ALL of the base game include the requirement that you go to PvPvE Cyrodiil. Master Angler, Tamriel Skyshard Hunter, Savior of Nirn, Explorer, and Tamriel Hero...all require you to play the entire base game of which Cyrodiil is an integral part, not some slapped on addition.

I don't understand the PVE players who try to treat PVP as though it's an addition to ESO - as if it's some optional extra that they should be able to avoid and still get all the rewards or worse, that it should be removed entirely.

So of course you have to PVP in Cyrodiil, and later got the options for IC and Battlegrounds, for the skill lines and other rewards that ZOS stuck in those zones. (And yes, of course you have to PVE to get the rewards in PVE zones.)

This is a game that was built to feature both PVE and PVP, and is currently designed for an audience of both types of players. It's not a singleplayer PVE-only game, and it certainly wasn't and never has been designed to be PVE-only.

It was never designed to be PVE only, but it is certainly PVE first and foremost.

PVP is not the focus of this game, nor has it ever been.

Just because PVP was in the game from the beginning doesn't mean it's a PVP game.

Call Of Duty has a single-player campaign as well, but that is a PVP centric IP.

ESO is not that and it never has been.

ESO is not a PVP-only game. Neither is it a PVE-only game. So please, don't call PVP an addition to the game design, when it was not.


Finally, the whole "PVPers have to PVE to get stuff they want" usually comes up as a reply to the whole complaint that "PVEers have to PVP for certain stuff they want."

Which, logically, duh. ESO features both PVE and PVP, so of course if we want all the stuff, we have to play both PVP and PVE.

Where this takes a turn is that it's the PVE-only players advocating that they shouldn't ever have to PVP for the rewards in PVP. We see this with every single reward that ZOS puts behind a PVP requirement. Thus the PVPer response - a tongue-in-cheek reply that "You have to PVP for the PVP rewards? Well, we have to PVE for all the PVE rewards. If it's unfair for you, then it's unfair for us. Alternatively, quit complaining and do the content if you want the rewards. You know, like we do."

The vast majority of PVP players are fine doing both forms of content. It may not be how they prefer to spend their playtime, but they are plenty capable of it. I know an awful lot of PVPers who run trials, have Master Crafters, or run around with time-intensive PVE titles. *waves while wearing Master Angler* In my experience, it's the PVE-only players who gripe about being "forced" to do PVP and who expend the most effort to avoid PVP.


And so when you say you don't understand why PVPers say that, when you think they should logically expect to play PVE in a game you see as PVE-centric...then I'd encourage you to look at the whole conversation. Because when I see it said, it's almost always in response to PVE players complaining that they are expected to PVP to get the rewards they want from PVP zones.

I think both arguments are silly, because ESO was clearly designed to include both PVP and PVE from the beginning. Logically, PVE-only players should expect to play PVP if they want ALL the rewards from ESO which features both PVP and PVE. And PVP players should do the same with PVE content. If you want ALL the rewards, you have to do ALL the content.

the1andonlyskwex

Franchise408 wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

You know, I don't understand the talking point about PVP'ers having to PVE for gear and sets, nor do I see it as particularly relevant.

This is a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, designed for a PVE centric audience. PVP is an addition to the game design, not the focus. Of course you gave to PVE to get your sets and skills. It's a PVE game, not a PVP game.

PVP was not an addition to the original ESO. Consider that all achievents and titles which require you to complete ALL of the base game include the requirement that you go to PvPvE Cyrodiil. Master Angler, Tamriel Skyshard Hunter, Savior of Nirn, Explorer, and Tamriel Hero...all require you to play the entire base game of which Cyrodiil is an integral part, not some slapped on addition.

I don't understand the PVE players who try to treat PVP as though it's an addition to ESO - as if it's some optional extra that they should be able to avoid and still get all the rewards or worse, that it should be removed entirely.

So of course you have to PVP in Cyrodiil, and later got the options for IC and Battlegrounds, for the skill lines and other rewards that ZOS stuck in those zones. (And yes, of course you have to PVE to get the rewards in PVE zones.)

This is a game that was built to feature both PVE and PVP, and is currently designed for an audience of both types of players. It's not a singleplayer PVE-only game, and it certainly wasn't and never has been designed to be PVE-only.

It was never designed to be PVE only, but it is certainly PVE first and foremost.

PVP is not the focus of this game, nor has it ever been.

Just because PVP was in the game from the beginning doesn't mean it's a PVP game.

Call Of Duty has a single-player campaign as well, but that is a PVP centric IP.

ESO is not that and it never has been.

Uh, the Alliance War was the primary/only endgame activity at launch, and even the PvE story revolved around it. If that didn't make the game PvP centric (at the time), I don't know what would.

Aldoss

To those thinking there was a comparison being drawn between BGs and Vet Dungeons: there was not.

My statement was regarding the notion that PvErs deserve to be rewarded despite not even trying to better their PvP understanding. That's where I was equivocating the experience to PvPers who need to get a monster helm (let's choose balorgh) and have to find a group of 3 other people. If, in that moment, the PvPer joins the group using a PvP build, with PvP skills, and under performs due to it, I'd be in full agreement that the other 3 should boot them.

If that PvPer then comes to forums and complains that they can't get this gear item very much designed for PvP, but hidden behind PvE, because they're unwilling to try and learn PvE, I'd be just as vocal against their entitlement.

I wonder how many people have just simply whispered someone wailing on them and asked what they were doing? I have at least 5 people on my friends list who whispered me out of the blue and just wanted to know wtf they were doing wrong that was causing them to die in less than 3 hits.

I think this idea that every PvPer is some toxic, t-bagging, elitist is so misrepresented. You'd be amazed at how many people will have a conversation with you and help you learn, because you're right, ZOS doesn't make it easy to learn the basics of PvP.

When I was learning, I'd literally just outright ask, "yo, what am I doing wrong or what are you doing right that causes me to die so fast?" That's how I met Hebah, Mystikkal, Haki, Magio, CombatHammer, and so many more that helped me actually learn how to be a better player.

I won't disagree that sometimes that backfires and you meet a toxic player, but the same can be said about PvErs. I've been ridiculed more than a few times by groups who literally cannot accept that anyone might make one mistake that causes a wipe.

I think I'm done with this thread. I'm sad to see choice being taken away, but I'm even more sad that this misrepresentation of who PvPers are and what their personalities are exists, and I hope it changes. Just because you get 2 shot in a BG doesn't mean they're hostile towards you as a person. They're just playing a game.

GuildedLilly

The perception that comments written by me or other PVErs indicate 'this idea that every PvPer is some toxic, t-bagging, elitist' is a misrepresentation in and of itself. I have stated REPEATEDLY that I have no issues with the PVPers who can melt me in one combo, and that I respect their skills. I am aware a significant portion/most PVPers aren't bullies, they just prefer a different play style-- and that play style means I'm a dead Mer walking if I battle them head to head in DM on a PVE build. I accept that.

As mentioned in some of my previous comments: objective BGs were designed, created, and intended to be fun and enjoyable for ALL PLAYERS, not just end-game PVPers--and that's a fact coming straight from ZOS.

When PVErs play objective BGS and win, it's because we ARE playing PVP in the way that ZOS intended for that match. It doesn't require zero effort or skill, but it's no where NEAR the amount of skill required as in a Vet dungeon, and it's nowhere NEAR the amount of PK insanity, pure-PVP build favored focus as DM-- it was designed that way by ZOS on purpose to give EVERY player, not just elite end gamers, a chance. If PVErs and casual gamers win the match by focusing objectives that the other team failed to pay attention to, WE DESERVE TO WIN AND GET OUR REWARDS. We competed, we did what we were supposed to do for that match, and we won--the other team didn't. Simple as that. No one 'accidentally' winds up scoring in the top two teams--but there are plenty of teams that accidentally wind up scoring last because they didn't play the objectives of the match. That is not the fault of PVErs or Casual Gamers.

80% of battleground content is being removed because some PVPers couldn't be bothered to do anything except PK even in non-DM matches, and wouldn't stop whining about not topping the leaderboard based on body counts alone despite the fact that they'd failed to play the ACTUAL match objectives. PVErs were not the ones refusing to deepen their understanding of PVP BGs--it's how we managed to win despite facing off against considerably more powerful opponents in objective matches--it's PK obsessed PVPers who flat out REFUSED to treat any objective match as something other than DM, and whined when they rightfully lost that got us into the current situation.

The fact is: a small, but very toxic minority of PVPers ARE t-bagging, trolling, bullying elitists. Calling them out for that behavior and letting ZOS & the forums know about it is no reflection on the players who are simply lethally effective in PVP, gib their opponents, and move on. I've met some of you in DM, Cyrodil, and IC-- and by the Ebony Blade, you've got some serious skills! It's honestly impressive. There have been times when I've hit death recap because I melted so fast I literally didn't know what hit me. I don't hold it against you, and I don't take it personally. Teabaggers & Greifers though? That's a different story.

I have had conversations with PVPers--I even kinda made friends with a PVP EP tank on my PVP AD tank during the recent Year One celebration--we couldn't kill each other and kept running into each other during the event. We'd laugh, salute, and whisper chat about what we'd been up to (which was hilarious when some random player or two from the other's alliance showed up and tried to kill us, while we just kept chatting while occasionally using block, bash, shields, and heals, as the randoms buzzed around us like an angry flies until we'd either caught up--and then just walked away, or a full zerg of the opposite alliance showed up to take one of us out.) During events, I occasionally run with PVP guilds--Most of the PVPers I've talked with have been pretty chill.

IMO: The PVP population stays low in part because a few PVPers really ARE malicious jerks, ZOS caters to them, and PVErs are constantly running into them in BGs and when we have to go to IC--which doesn't encourage us to stick around. Most PVPers are pretty cool--but the trolls ruin things for everyone. The PVP population also stays low due to lack of content, and removing 80% of BGs doesn't help with that. DM only BG Queue is rightfully being restored, Objective Battlegrounds shouldn't have been removed in the process, and PVErs and Casual Gamers who won those objective matches by focusing on match mechanics were PVPing in that match as intended by the devs, and deserved to be rewarded for it.

IndigoDreams

Really displeased with this move.
So, for however long this goes on, I get to miss out on all that bonus experience and rewards.
Awesome, great.

Was it really impossible to create a more detailed que system?
This is a bad deal for myself and many other players.

MurderMostFoul

IndigoDreams wrote: »

Really displeased with this move.
So, for however long this goes on, I get to miss out on all that bonus experience and rewards.
Awesome, great.

Was it really impossible to create a more detailed que system?
This is a bad deal for myself and many other players.

I'm sure there will still be a daily XP bonus for queuing for death match. I suppose you can just choose not to take advantage of it, but that's true now also.

Beardimus

Long thread since I lasted looked.

Any Offical updates on this and how long the DM only test will be on?

Greasytengu

Beardimus wrote: »

Long thread since I lasted looked.

Any Offical updates on this and how long the DM only test will be on?

at this point, even if they set a timeframe I wouldn't trust it.

The no-proc test was only supposed to be a few weeks but got extended to 6 months on a whim (it was later changed to 3 months but still)

Bashev

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

@Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

the1andonlyskwex

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

@Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

It looks to me like 3 storm lords played the objectives and everybody else treated the game like deathmatch. Most likely, if the other 9 players actually played the objectives, winning would have required more combat.

VaranisArano

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

SimonThesis

This move will certainly stop me from Queueing for battlegrounds and I am a pvper and I only enjoy Chaosball and Capture the Relic. If I wanted to kill people I'd just go to cyrodiil.

Merforum

VaranisArano wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

I've seen 500+ hours of ESO vids including lots of PVP. I've seen dudes run around rocks and trees and towers for hours and people call them great players, yet someone who stays alive while winning an objective game is somehow doing PVP wrong. And check out the red team, who are obviously getting killed a lot by losing green team, so what exactly is the point of this pic.

Bashev

The point is, if you want to win in a domination game the best option is if you avoid PvP. This is the best option. Anyway I am glad that DM queue is finally back and ppl can play what they want.

Merforum

Bashev wrote: »

The point is, if you want to win in a domination game the best option is if you avoid PvP. This is the best option. Anyway I am glad that DM queue is finally back and ppl can play what they want.

You mean 10-20% of the people will get to play what they want. BTW why is running and hiding and avoiding getting killed in all PVP areas smart play but in BGs it is 'avoiding PVP'. In that pic it looks more like 2 teams were avoiding PVP objectives and rightfully lost. One question is how did the team that died the most get 2nd place.

MurderMostFoul

Merforum wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

I've seen 500+ hours of ESO vids including lots of PVP. I've seen dudes run around rocks and trees and towers for hours and people call them great players, yet someone who stays alive while winning an objective game is somehow doing PVP wrong. And check out the red team, who are obviously getting killed a lot by losing green team, so what exactly is the point of this pic.

It illustrates the problem with BG objective of modes: they de-emphasize PvP combat.

People who prefer DM prefer BGs where succeeding in PvP combat is essential to victory.

Merforum

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

I've seen 500+ hours of ESO vids including lots of PVP. I've seen dudes run around rocks and trees and towers for hours and people call them great players, yet someone who stays alive while winning an objective game is somehow doing PVP wrong. And check out the red team, who are obviously getting killed a lot by losing green team, so what exactly is the point of this pic.

It illustrates the problem with BG objective of modes: they de-emphasize PvP combat.

People who prefer DM prefer BGs where succeeding in PvP combat is essential to victory.

Yes but just because maybe 100 people out of thousands that play PVP type games, think KILLING other players is the primary goal of those games, doesn't make it true. Every game has OBJECTIVES other than just killing players for a reason, just like those BGs. It's not a mistake that only 1 out of 5 modes is about killing other players.

I give this test 1 week when the same 30 people play over and over with unkillable meta builds then get sick of it and start complaining, while the vast majority of people who prefer PVP with objectives stop playing.

Bashev

Merforum wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

The point is, if you want to win in a domination game the best option is if you avoid PvP. This is the best option. Anyway I am glad that DM queue is finally back and ppl can play what they want.

You mean 10-20% of the people will get to play what they want. BTW why is running and hiding and avoiding getting killed in all PVP areas smart play but in BGs it is 'avoiding PVP'. In that pic it looks more like 2 teams were avoiding PVP objectives and rightfully lost. One question is how did the team that died the most get 2nd place.

Holly [snip], I just re-read Gina's comment and they remove the other options and make all only DM. ZoS you cannot stop surprise me. Why dont you just add the option that people can queue for random and then for DM only if they want.

Now on your question, the team that died most and were second was constantly fighting with the team that was 3rd. As you can see the team that was 3rd was better and did more kills but still they did not win. It is clear that all teams played objectives as they had points. The issue is that 2 teams were fighting on a flag to take it while the other team just flipped the other flags. They always run away. Yes many of you can consider this PvP but it is boring. If this mode is 2 teams only then they cannot run away and expect that the other teams will be busy killing each other.

[edited for profanity bypass]

Merforum

Bashev wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

The point is, if you want to win in a domination game the best option is if you avoid PvP. This is the best option. Anyway I am glad that DM queue is finally back and ppl can play what they want.

You mean 10-20% of the people will get to play what they want. BTW why is running and hiding and avoiding getting killed in all PVP areas smart play but in BGs it is 'avoiding PVP'. In that pic it looks more like 2 teams were avoiding PVP objectives and rightfully lost. One question is how did the team that died the most get 2nd place.

Holly [snip], I just re-read Gina's comment and they remove the other options and make all only DM. ZoS you cannot stop surprise me. Why dont you just add the option that people can queue for random and then for DM only if they want.

Now on your question, the team that died most and were second was constantly fighting with the team that was 3rd. As you can see the team that was 3rd was better and did more kills but still they did not win. It is clear that all teams played objectives as they had points. The issue is that 2 teams were fighting on a flag to take it while the other team just flipped the other flags. They always run away. Yes many of you can consider this PvP but it is boring. If this mode is 2 teams only then they cannot run away and expect that the other teams will be busy killing each other.

Yup, it's going to be deathmatch ONLY, the dumbest thing since proc set scaling. I won't be playing unless I go in as healer because EVEN IN DEATHMATCH the team with best healer wins against teams just trying to kill others. I wonder is healing considered 'doing PVP' or 'avoiding PVP'.

[edited to remove quote]

GuildedLilly

One question is how did the team that died the most get 2nd place.

They held the flags longer than the green team. Considering the amount of deaths-- it looks like they realized they were outmatched, but moved combat far enough away from the flags when they saw the green team coming that they didn't auto-flip during the slaughter. In short: they used themselves as bait, and the green team fell for it---letting the red team hold those flags just a few seconds longer even in death.

Looking at the assists, at least 2 stormlords were occasionally harrying the other teams during their battle royale to keep them distracted & help keep some enemies players on respawn timers while their teammates captured flags.

Stormlords out maneuvered their opponents, and fire lords took second using poison pill tactics--they died, but in the process denied pit demons the flags long enough to eke out silver.

VixxVexx

The game modes are just poorly designed IMO. 4/5 reward you for running away.

• Deathmatch is fine, maybe sometimes only make it 2 teams.
• Domination should be a King of the Hill mode with a center flag.
• Crazy King can just be a mobile version of King of the Hill.
• Capture the relic should be a Touchdown mode with a relic in the middle and bringing it over to the opposite side's goal.
• Chaosball should be a 1v11 where the person with the ball gets buffed (like volendrung) and chases the others for a short duration or until he dies.
• Also give us a 12 man Battle Royal.

Beardimus

SimonThesis wrote: »

This move will certainly stop me from Queueing for battlegrounds and I am a pvper and I only enjoy Chaosball and Capture the Relic. If I wanted to kill people I'd just go to cyrodiil.

Agreed.
This kills it.

maboleth

Just one observation from a longtime fellow BG player (since Morrowind was released).

There are two modes I cannot stand: DM and Chaosball

DeathMatch is interesting in small amounts, but requires zero strategy skills and is mostly a clash on mode, so who has a better healer will win. For me, a DM to be interesting is to have equally good/bad teams. Usually that's not the case.

Chaosball could be interesting by itself. However, the current penalties make it abusable by minorities, by either hiding themselves or having tough healers and heavy armour players with no game left for others. It's quite normal to see 500-0-0 result in this mode. Other teams eventually quit and play DM.

As for the recent change, well, I will stay clear from BGs until all games become available again, as this would be a torture mode.

Bashev

maboleth wrote: »

Just one observation from a longtime fellow BG player (since Morrowind was released).

There are two modes I cannot stand: DM and Chaosball

DeathMatch is interesting in small amounts, but requires zero strategy skills and is mostly a clash on mode, so who has a better healer will win. For me, a DM to be interesting is to have equally good/bad teams. Usually that's not the case.

Chaosball could be interesting by itself. However, the current penalties make it abusable by minorities, by either hiding themselves or having tough healers and heavy armour players with no game left for others. It's quite normal to see 500-0-0 result in this mode. Other teams eventually quit and play DM.

As for the recent change, well, I will stay clear from BGs until all games become available again, as this would be a torture mode.

I dont agree about the healer. In bad teams it could be a big difference but sometimes it is better to be 4 dps with cross healing than 3 dps and a healer. Sometimes there are 2 teams with 2m+ healers and they cannot win because they cannot secure kills.

The question is now with that *** pull set how DMs will be. I guess terrible as all ppl will be forsed to use it. Maybe that is why ZoS gave the option for DM now as ppl will be turned off from BGs and they can say, you see DM is not what you want.

MurderMostFoul

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Bashev wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

If you *really* wanted to win most of the objective modes, you would just make full 100% tank characters. You could have a team of 4 of them, and you'd be widely successful in every game mode. You can do no damage, pay no attention to whats coming, and just tank and heal yourself and walk towards the objective.

Now explain to me how that should actually work. You got 2 or 3 teams of 4 on the flag, nobody can capture it, but since nobody can kill each other without doing damage, it won't change too.
As long as the teams know how to interrupt and at least one person stays behind, nobody would be able to pick up a relic as well.
Chaos Ball might work, since one player will be the first to get the ball and if they can keep it long enough in their team after that, they'll obviously win.
For the other modes though, I don't think that 100% builds would do anything but cause a stand still.

That's the thing though, if you're smart, you exploit the fact that you can just run to an unguarded flag. There's 4 flags and three teams; there will always be an extra unguarded flag, or at least a flag that has fewer people on it than your team. You can win flag games without ever having to kill anyone, which should not be the case in a player versus player environment. You should be encouraged to play smarter not harder, but the extent to which the objective battlegrounds promote this kind of play is too far.

You keep saying this, but I have never been a part of a capture or flag game that was won without anybody fighting anyone else and nobody getting killed.

I really think this is all a theoretical "IT COULD HAPPEN" that actually doesn't play out in reality all that often, if at all, but is being made the poster boy to demonize alternate styles of play.

The question then becomes: why are you so against having various options of gameplay which - if ZOS did things how they SHOULD and just make separate queues for the different match types, like they used to have - you'd never even have to play?

Franchise408 I bet you dont play a lot of BGs. I did a break because of the low chance for DM and now when I read the news I came back. Today I had a few games just to warm up for tomorrow and check this one. Is this PvP? How many kills have the winners?

Even your example doesn't show the winners making it without fighting anyone and nobody getting killed.

It seems like the winner Storm Lord's fought, and largely lost those fights. Of course, being that this isn't a Deathmatch, that's fine as long as they held the objectives.

However, I note that they have less deaths than the Fire Lord's, which suggests that the winning team was either better at stalemating or otherwise escaping bad fights to focus on objectives (those are fine PVP skills), or that the other teams ignored the objectives where the winning team was.

So to be blunt, yes, it's PVP. It's objective-based PVP. Deathmatch is not the only form of PVP, distilled down into the purest of the pure kill/death ratios. And if the Pit Demons of your match haven't figured that out, then they deserved to come in 3rd Place in a non-Deathmatch mode.

I've seen 500+ hours of ESO vids including lots of PVP. I've seen dudes run around rocks and trees and towers for hours and people call them great players, yet someone who stays alive while winning an objective game is somehow doing PVP wrong. And check out the red team, who are obviously getting killed a lot by losing green team, so what exactly is the point of this pic.

It illustrates the problem with BG objective of modes: they de-emphasize PvP combat.

People who prefer DM prefer BGs where succeeding in PvP combat is essential to victory.

Yes but just because maybe 100 people out of thousands that play PVP type games, think KILLING other players is the primary goal of those games, doesn't make it true. Every game has OBJECTIVES other than just killing players for a reason, just like those BGs. It's not a mistake that only 1 out of 5 modes is about killing other players.

I give this test 1 week when the same 30 people play over and over with unkillable meta builds then get sick of it and start complaining, while the vast majority of people who prefer PVP with objectives stop playing.

You can pull numbers out of the air as much as you want, but for BGs, ZOS confirmed what we expected based on information from queue times and leaderboard scores: Deathmatch was the most popular mode when you could select game types.