Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues

metabLast3r

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.

I agree. Remove PvP, it would be better without the mode in the game. It would clean up a lot of issues with the game in it's current state. The whole balancing with sets, lag, etc. Let it be full PvE I think, since both sides can't see eye to eye and PvE'rs hold a majority of the voices in this game.

Rishikesa108

What do you think "RANDOM" means ? If I can get just DM, it is not a random BG.
IMHO this choice favors children who just like to play kill-all war ...
Personally, I prefer Domination and King Matches.
Best is: a real random.

Raijindono

I'm probably not going say much that hasn't already been said. I rarely chime in on threads like this, but I feel especially affected by this change.

I look at this Deathmatch-only update as completely against ESO's brand ethos which has always been "play how you want with a variety of options at your disposal." Changes to the game for ALL activities: PvE, PvP, Housing, RP, etc. has always been in the spirit of variety of options. Removing the other game modes does not seem to be the right solution. However, I also understand the need for this to be a data-driven decision. So science away!

I'm looking at this from a UX perspective. Here's my user story:

I love my main character so much. I enjoy the challenge of PvE trifectas (speed, HM, no-death) in dungeons and trials. I practice my rotation and get the best gear to be able to attain those trifecta titles. I'm also a huge achievement hunter. Anyone who knows me in this game, knows that I call them "acheesements" and will work hard to attain them. I also enjoy PvP. I've played in Cyrodiil in both veins as a solo and group player. I see the advantages of play from both sides and can enjoy either. I love queuing for BGs in all of the game modes. I've played as a DPS and lately as a healer. I've gotten one-shot from super skilled players and I've done the same. It's all in good fun in my opinion. I also am a collector. I like to get all of the furnishing recipes and motif pages because it's nice to be able to craft whatever I need. I'm probably one of the diverse players.

With BGs you have the following users that I've seen:

1. The solo PvPer: These are the solo players who build to glass canon and will practically one-shot you from stealth. They sometimes queue together, but typically they're stealthy, solo players.
2. The group-play PvPer: These are the people who optimize their group similar to how PvEers optimize their raid team. They're hard to beat and they have the advantage of being in comms to make calls to focus players.
3. The casual PvPer: They come and go in game and play PvP maybe with friends. They care about the sport of the game, but maybe not as hardcore as others.
4. The achievement hunters: They might love PvP; they might not. They do love seeing progress bars filled and as soon as you have an area of the game where points can be gained, these players will be there.
5. The collectors: Similar to the achievement hunters and may be the same people. There are motif pages to be gained, they will do that activity to attain them.
6. The PvEer: PvEers can benefit from PvP because of the dynamic nature of fighting a player vs fighting bosses. There's tactics of roll-dodging and being quick to react. These skills can be helpful in PvE when reacting to mechanics. It's also nice to take a break from PvE content and queue for BGs.

When the queue was made solo-only, that hurt all of the users because they couldn't queue with friends or group up for those sweaty matches. Undoing this change was the right approach.

When the queue was changed to random-only, that especially hurt the group-play PvPers because they're in it for the small scale PvP that you can't really get in Cyro. They found ways to subvert this system by pretending the other game matches were Deathmatch. This hurt the achievement hunters because they had to wait to get the right match in order to make progress towards the achievement. Some players would drop group immediately if they didn't get the right game mode which leaves a gap in that team. This also might be true for the collectors.

Now for this change, you're hurting everyone but the group PvPers. What if you made a Deathmatch bracket/leaderboard for teams? That would encourage the group-play and add a bit more competition/recognition for those folks. Then have the solo queue for all of the other options including Deathmatch. I think that would appease all users and be more aligned to the ESO brand.

VaranisArano

metabLast3r 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.

I agree. Remove PvP, it would be better without the mode in the game. It would clean up a lot of issues with the game in it's current state. The whole balancing with sets, lag, etc. Let it be full PvE I think, since both sides can't see eye to eye and PvE'rs hold a majority of the voices in this game.

And stuff like this is precisely why I push back so hard on people saying that PVP is an "addition" to ESO.

It's not, and misrepresenting like it is only encourages the people who want it removed entirely, as though PVE-only players are the only legitimate players ZOS should listen to.


You'd be in for a rude awakening if ZOS ever did remove PVP, because the balance changes wouldn't stop. Look at the Crit damage changes - ZOS explicitly says its because of PVE power creep. Those balance changes wouldn't stop if you remove PVP because it's not about PVP vs PVE. It's about ZOS needing to shake up the Mets to prevent players from getting bored and moving to other games.

Remove PVP and ZOS will still nerf PVE power creep. They have to - they can't have "challenging" PVE content become obsolete.

Remove PVP and ZOS will still need to shake up the PVE meta to keep players from getting bored. PVErs will still be chasing the new BIS Mythic items, grinding for the new gear, and swapping to whatever race now does the highest DPS. PvEers will still be complaining when your class is the last one chosen on the trial team. PvEers still be complaining that every time ZOS tries to raise the floor, they blow the roof off the top tier DPS and then hastily try to lower the ceiling once more.

Remove PVP, and the only thing you'll really change about the constant cycle of balancing nerfs and buffs is losing the ability to blame PVP complaints for it.

Oh, and in the process, you'll have driven out the players who enjoy ESO's PVP, turned away a number of players who want an MMO with both game modes, and embarrassed ESO as the MMO that had to kill its own PVP. And what have you gained for it - a handful of skyshards and fish with no risk of PVP? Because, sorry, but the Devs are not going to stop rebalancing PVE just because PVP is gone.

It's a hard pill to swallow, but ZOS is gonna keep shaking up the PVE meta for PVE reasons, because the last thing they want is PVE players getting stagnant, then bored, and heading off to other games. Constant change is real good for staving off stagnation, and change fatigue takes longer to set in than boredom. Horizontal Progression will co

That'll be even more true when you take away PVP, and the whole playerbase is PVE-only. Gotta keep those players engaged by hook or by crook, or else you risk losing all your players. Ironically, you'd wind up making the problem you want to fix even worse...


So maybe let the PVPers - and I include PVE players who are playing BGs in that number - work out how the Battlegrounds queue works by voting with their feet whether to play Deathmatches or not.

Jumping straight to "Remove all PVP" is not actually a solution to the current problem, and its not even going to accomplish what you hope it will in terms of balance.


- I enjoy both PVE and PVP. My MagDK has been nerfed more for PVE reasons over the years than for PVP. It's not about blame. It's about the Devs needing to shake things up so that no one class or build becomes stagnant and boring.

VaranisArano

@ZOS_GinaBruno

Did you mean to link this thread to the Patch Notes post? If so, the link isn't there.

"We have also made a temporary change affecting Battlegrounds so that Solo and Group queues will only offer the Deathmatch game mode for a period of time. For more information on this change, please visit this forum post."

Raijindono

VaranisArano wrote: »

- I enjoy both PVE and PVP. My MagDK has been nerfed more for PVE reasons over the years than for PVP. It's not about blame. It's about the Devs needing to shake things up so that no one class or build becomes stagnant and boring.

My main is also a magDK. I think the opposite is true about nerfs. I think DKs have been nerfed more for PvP reasons because they can be so tanky and have regen built into their passives. This makes them more dangerous in PvP.

DKs need some love!

Giraffon

So do they want us to quit doing BGs during the test if we don't prefer Deathmatch? I feel like I'm being punished.

VaranisArano

Raijindono wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

- I enjoy both PVE and PVP. My MagDK has been nerfed more for PVE reasons over the years than for PVP. It's not about blame. It's about the Devs needing to shake things up so that no one class or build becomes stagnant and boring.

My main is also a magDK. I think the opposite is true about nerfs. I think DKs have been nerfed more for PvP reasons because they can be so tanky and have regen built into their passives. This makes them more dangerous in PvP.

DKs need some love!

And I see it more from PVE. MagDK DPS and healing has been held back for so long because ZOS doesn't want to make DKs the one and only tank class. It doesn't help that DK tanks have had to compete with paid Wardens and Necros for the role. Yeah, Templar got plundered hard to make Warden look good, but DK got their toolkit nerfed to make wardens better tanks too.

Anyways, I guess it goes to show that ZOS has plenty of reasons to change up classes whether it's PVP or PVE.

Raijindono

VaranisArano wrote: »

And I see it more from PVE. MagDK DPS and healing has been held back for so long because ZOS doesn't want to make DKs the one and only tank class. It doesn't help that DK tanks have had to compete with paid Wardens and Necros for the role. Yeah, Templar got plundered hard to make Warden look good, but DK got their toolkit nerfed to make wardens better tanks too.

Anyways, I guess it goes to show that ZOS has plenty of reasons to change up classes whether it's PVP or PVE.

Check this out!

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/586882/pts-patch-notes-v7-2-0

VaranisArano

Raijindono wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

And I see it more from PVE. MagDK DPS and healing has been held back for so long because ZOS doesn't want to make DKs the one and only tank class. It doesn't help that DK tanks have had to compete with paid Wardens and Necros for the role. Yeah, Templar got plundered hard to make Warden look good, but DK got their toolkit nerfed to make wardens better tanks too.

Anyways, I guess it goes to show that ZOS has plenty of reasons to change up classes whether it's PVP or PVE.

Check this out!

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/586882/pts-patch-notes-v7-2-0

Yeah! Tentatively, it looks good! I'm not going to count my chickens before this goes Live, but it's nice to see ZOS looking at the issues of MagDK DPS and sustain.

Merforum

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

That is absolutely not the facts. Most people were happy to do random BGs and yes since most people who CHOSE only wanted deathmatch, the random was backfilling that queue and skewing the numbers. The only real test is to have DEATHMATCH ONLY Q and a separate Q without deathmatch (it can be random or specific) and see the populations.

BTW 20 people doing BGs 20 times a day is not the same as 200 people doing BGs 2 times a day, both add up to 400 matches but 200 is way bigger than 20. And as you say looking at the leaderboards you will see the exact same 20-30 people on 1 or more toons because it just goes by accumulated points, instead of using an average score or something more appropriate. If I do 50 BGs at 1000 pnt, I get 50000, and you do 10 BG at 4000 pnt, 40K, you are way better but below me on leaderboard, it's just stupid.

MurderMostFoul

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

That is absolutely not the facts. Most people were happy to do random BGs and yes since most people who CHOSE only wanted deathmatch, the random was backfilling that queue and skewing the numbers. The only real test is to have DEATHMATCH ONLY Q and a separate Q without deathmatch (it can be random or specific) and see the populations.

BTW 20 people doing BGs 20 times a day is not the same as 200 people doing BGs 2 times a day, both add up to 400 matches but 200 is way bigger than 20. And as you say looking at the leaderboards you will see the exact same 20-30 people on 1 or more toons because it just goes by accumulated points, instead of using an average score or something more appropriate. If I do 50 BGs at 1000 pnt, I get 50000, and you do 10 BG at 4000 pnt, 40K, you are way better but below me on leaderboard, it's just stupid.

How do you know that most people were choosing random? ZOS stated:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

It's quite possible that most people were choosing deathmatch. And even if the majority were choosing random, if death match was the most popular specific mode chosen, that still indicates that it is the most preferred mode.

Merforum

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

That is absolutely not the facts. Most people were happy to do random BGs and yes since most people who CHOSE only wanted deathmatch, the random was backfilling that queue and skewing the numbers. The only real test is to have DEATHMATCH ONLY Q and a separate Q without deathmatch (it can be random or specific) and see the populations.

BTW 20 people doing BGs 20 times a day is not the same as 200 people doing BGs 2 times a day, both add up to 400 matches but 200 is way bigger than 20. And as you say looking at the leaderboards you will see the exact same 20-30 people on 1 or more toons because it just goes by accumulated points, instead of using an average score or something more appropriate. If I do 50 BGs at 1000 pnt, I get 50000, and you do 10 BG at 4000 pnt, 40K, you are way better but below me on leaderboard, it's just stupid.

How do you know that most people were choosing random? ZOS stated:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

It's quite possible that most people were choosing deathmatch. And even if the majority were choosing random, if death match was the most popular specific mode chosen, that still indicates that it is the most preferred mode.

I think you are purposely pretending not to understand.
1. the random Q will always have the most people who are trying to do the dailies and they are by far the majority who do maybe 1 or 2 matches then go on to other things
2. the SPECIFIC Q probably was mostly deathmatch because people who care about that (tiny minority) only like that mode, and it backfills from the much more populous random Q
3. also the fact that it is the EXACT SAME 20-30 dudes playing OVER AND OVER, like I said you are saying 'oh look there were 400 deathmatchs and only 200 other matches so obviously deathmatch is more popular', but you are conveniently trying to obscure the fact that the 400 deathmatchs was 20 people doing them 20 times, and the other matches was 100-200 people doing them 1-2 times.

You can make an argument that those 20-30 people who play over and over deserve special treatment as they constantly get it seems but you can't say they are the majority. We need 2 separate queues and count each person only once to know which modes are the most popular.

MurderMostFoul

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

That is absolutely not the facts. Most people were happy to do random BGs and yes since most people who CHOSE only wanted deathmatch, the random was backfilling that queue and skewing the numbers. The only real test is to have DEATHMATCH ONLY Q and a separate Q without deathmatch (it can be random or specific) and see the populations.

BTW 20 people doing BGs 20 times a day is not the same as 200 people doing BGs 2 times a day, both add up to 400 matches but 200 is way bigger than 20. And as you say looking at the leaderboards you will see the exact same 20-30 people on 1 or more toons because it just goes by accumulated points, instead of using an average score or something more appropriate. If I do 50 BGs at 1000 pnt, I get 50000, and you do 10 BG at 4000 pnt, 40K, you are way better but below me on leaderboard, it's just stupid.

How do you know that most people were choosing random? ZOS stated:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

It's quite possible that most people were choosing deathmatch. And even if the majority were choosing random, if death match was the most popular specific mode chosen, that still indicates that it is the most preferred mode.

I think you are purposely pretending not to understand.
1. the random Q will always have the most people who are trying to do the dailies and they are by far the majority who do maybe 1 or 2 matches then go on to other things
2. the SPECIFIC Q probably was mostly deathmatch because people who care about that (tiny minority) only like that mode, and it backfills from the much more populous random Q
3. also the fact that it is the EXACT SAME 20-30 dudes playing OVER AND OVER, like I said you are saying 'oh look there were 400 deathmatchs and only 200 other matches so obviously deathmatch is more popular', but you are conveniently trying to obscure the fact that the 400 deathmatchs was 20 people doing them 20 times, and the other matches was 100-200 people doing them 1-2 times.

You can make an argument that those 20-30 people who play over and over deserve special treatment as they constantly get it seems but you can't say they are the majority. We need 2 separate queues and count each person only once to know which modes are the most popular.

I understand perfectly, but am pointing out that you have no actual data to back up your assumptions. All we know is that ZOS has data which showed:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

bathynomusESO

Results are in. People quitting BGs. I guess ball runners will have to respec and get new gear.

Kusto

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

That is absolutely not the facts. Most people were happy to do random BGs and yes since most people who CHOSE only wanted deathmatch, the random was backfilling that queue and skewing the numbers. The only real test is to have DEATHMATCH ONLY Q and a separate Q without deathmatch (it can be random or specific) and see the populations.

BTW 20 people doing BGs 20 times a day is not the same as 200 people doing BGs 2 times a day, both add up to 400 matches but 200 is way bigger than 20. And as you say looking at the leaderboards you will see the exact same 20-30 people on 1 or more toons because it just goes by accumulated points, instead of using an average score or something more appropriate. If I do 50 BGs at 1000 pnt, I get 50000, and you do 10 BG at 4000 pnt, 40K, you are way better but below me on leaderboard, it's just stupid.

How do you know that most people were choosing random? ZOS stated:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

It's quite possible that most people were choosing deathmatch. And even if the majority were choosing random, if death match was the most popular specific mode chosen, that still indicates that it is the most preferred mode.

I think you are purposely pretending not to understand.
1. the random Q will always have the most people who are trying to do the dailies and they are by far the majority who do maybe 1 or 2 matches then go on to other things
2. the SPECIFIC Q probably was mostly deathmatch because people who care about that (tiny minority) only like that mode, and it backfills from the much more populous random Q
3. also the fact that it is the EXACT SAME 20-30 dudes playing OVER AND OVER, like I said you are saying 'oh look there were 400 deathmatchs and only 200 other matches so obviously deathmatch is more popular', but you are conveniently trying to obscure the fact that the 400 deathmatchs was 20 people doing them 20 times, and the other matches was 100-200 people doing them 1-2 times.

You can make an argument that those 20-30 people who play over and over deserve special treatment as they constantly get it seems but you can't say they are the majority. We need 2 separate queues and count each person only once to know which modes are the most popular.

I understand perfectly, but am pointing out that you have no actual data to back up your assumptions. All we know is that ZOS has data which showed:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

Zos may have the data but how does it show what I like? No matter what mode I got I stayed and played. I like dm the least. Now I wont play them at all. And I know many people who only did battlegrounds for flags, relics and ball.
Also there are other roles besides dps. When I make new pve tank or healer, I NEED the alliance skills. So wtf I'm supposed to do in battlegrounds dm with a tank? At least before I was able to contribute by holding flags and ball, stealing relics.

Thanks for removing battlegrounds from the game Zos.

Merforum

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

Merforum wrote: »

MurderMostFoul wrote: »

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.

That is absolutely not the facts. Most people were happy to do random BGs and yes since most people who CHOSE only wanted deathmatch, the random was backfilling that queue and skewing the numbers. The only real test is to have DEATHMATCH ONLY Q and a separate Q without deathmatch (it can be random or specific) and see the populations.

BTW 20 people doing BGs 20 times a day is not the same as 200 people doing BGs 2 times a day, both add up to 400 matches but 200 is way bigger than 20. And as you say looking at the leaderboards you will see the exact same 20-30 people on 1 or more toons because it just goes by accumulated points, instead of using an average score or something more appropriate. If I do 50 BGs at 1000 pnt, I get 50000, and you do 10 BG at 4000 pnt, 40K, you are way better but below me on leaderboard, it's just stupid.

How do you know that most people were choosing random? ZOS stated:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

It's quite possible that most people were choosing deathmatch. And even if the majority were choosing random, if death match was the most popular specific mode chosen, that still indicates that it is the most preferred mode.

I think you are purposely pretending not to understand.
1. the random Q will always have the most people who are trying to do the dailies and they are by far the majority who do maybe 1 or 2 matches then go on to other things
2. the SPECIFIC Q probably was mostly deathmatch because people who care about that (tiny minority) only like that mode, and it backfills from the much more populous random Q
3. also the fact that it is the EXACT SAME 20-30 dudes playing OVER AND OVER, like I said you are saying 'oh look there were 400 deathmatchs and only 200 other matches so obviously deathmatch is more popular', but you are conveniently trying to obscure the fact that the 400 deathmatchs was 20 people doing them 20 times, and the other matches was 100-200 people doing them 1-2 times.

You can make an argument that those 20-30 people who play over and over deserve special treatment as they constantly get it seems but you can't say they are the majority. We need 2 separate queues and count each person only once to know which modes are the most popular.

I understand perfectly, but am pointing out that you have no actual data to back up your assumptions. All we know is that ZOS has data which showed:

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

...a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.

Where is this data you are talking about? I don't want to see the # of matches that the same 20 people do over and over, I want to see the number of UNIQUE people doing BGs and their preference. But this is actually a distraction because it doesn't matter what you or I think, all that matters is, are there enough players to justify even keeping BGs or PVP. And unless ZOS separates out the super sweatlords from the casual players I don't think the population is there or will come back. I give this test 1 week before that same 20 people playing the same deathmatch over and over get sick of it. While the vast majority of people who play BGs for FUN, don't come back.

I actually don't see any way this can be a valid test, so I think even ZOS is doing this as a middle finger to the whiners, like when they removed all but 15 sets from cyro. They're probably having a good laugh.

Merforum

bathynomusESO wrote: »

Results are in. People quitting BGs. I guess ball runners will have to respec and get new gear.

What are you saying tons of people are not pouring back to play the best/most popular game mode in the world. Say it isn't so.

Darcwolf

Deathmatch is literally my least favorite type and now you have gotten rid of all the others? wtf. Guess I'm done with BG.

nightstrike

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hello all!

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode. With the recent removal of the option to choose a game mode when queuing for a Battleground, we’ve now seen an uptick in players choosing to treat any game mode as Deathmatch. In an effort to increase Battleground population and interest, the Solo and Group queues will only offer the Deathmatch game mode for a period of time. This change will occur during next week's maintenances, on September 20 for PC/Mac/Stadia and September 22 on consoles.

After we have a chance to digest some of the feedback and data from this experiment, we’ll decide on what the next steps should be for Battleground queue options and consider the best way to add the other Battleground game modes back in.

Thanks for your continued interest and support! We’re excited to hear what you think.

TL;DR: Please undo this change and study data science.

Ideas like this (stripping BG of all of its nuance and charm) are astoundingly short sighted. Let's talk about why.

You claim that "data" shows that people just want Deathmatch. First, as a data scientist, I will posit that ZOS has a rather poor track record of determining what data to collect and interpreting that data correctly. When teaching people how to do V&V for large scale projects (100m and up), we often like to ask two questions that are relevant also to data analysis: 1) Are we building the right thing? 2) Are we building the thing right? You can adapt these to data science pretty easily:

1) Are we looking at the right data?
2) Are we looking at the data right?

I would strongly encourage you to think critically about those two questions and reevaluate how you are approaching modifications to Battlegrounds. You've basically disabled any choice in how to play with this feature, because you think that people aren't playing the way you would like them to. What you could have done was somehow penalize or otherwise discourage deathmatching in non-deathmatch games. You could have changed how queues work to a degree. You could have changed how points are scored. You could have done any number of things. Instead, you just deleted all choice. As previous posters have pointed out, this seems to be based on data that's heavily monopolized by 20-30 people.

Please undo this change.


Further commentary:

There has been a trend over the past few years to simplify every aspect of the game. In some cases, it's been turned into basically an autopilot idle game, and in other cases, the nuances that made ESO its own game have been removed. This change is an example of the latter.

I think you need to remind your current crop of game designers exactly what "Elder Scrolls" is. There's a reason that it became the most successful RPG franchise of all time. That largely has to do with it having roots in the virtually unlimited potential of traditional D&D, providing much more of a game *framework* than a game itself.

Fire up TES3, install the EXE mods and graphics overhauls, roll a new character, and what's the first thing you're going to do when you get off the boat in Seyda Neen? You're going to throw away the main quest and head off into the wilderness, maybe to go claim for yourself a random house in Balmora. Or maybe kill a key character and live in the doomed world you created, *because you want to*. That right there is the essence of Elder Scrolls: you're given a game world and some tools and that's it. The rest is up to you to do with whatever you want. If you are going to put that name on a game, you *MUST* keep that spirit in focus at all times.

You have been systematically reducing the variety of user experiences to try to fit them into molds that poorly acquired "data" implies are popular. That is not how you make an Elder Scrolls game. That is not how you *made* ESO.

DavGlen

Darcwolf wrote: »

Deathmatch is literally my least favorite type and now you have gotten rid of all the others? wtf. Guess I'm done with BG.

Seconded.

maboleth

nightstrike wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hello all!

When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode. With the recent removal of the option to choose a game mode when queuing for a Battleground, we’ve now seen an uptick in players choosing to treat any game mode as Deathmatch. In an effort to increase Battleground population and interest, the Solo and Group queues will only offer the Deathmatch game mode for a period of time. This change will occur during next week's maintenances, on September 20 for PC/Mac/Stadia and September 22 on consoles.

After we have a chance to digest some of the feedback and data from this experiment, we’ll decide on what the next steps should be for Battleground queue options and consider the best way to add the other Battleground game modes back in.

Thanks for your continued interest and support! We’re excited to hear what you think.

TL;DR: Please undo this change and study data science.

Ideas like this (stripping BG of all of its nuance and charm) are astoundingly short sighted. Let's talk about why.

You claim that "data" shows that people just want Deathmatch. First, as a data scientist, I will posit that ZOS has a rather poor track record of determining what data to collect and interpreting that data correctly. When teaching people how to do V&V for large scale projects (100m and up), we often like to ask two questions that are relevant also to data analysis: 1) Are we building the right thing? 2) Are we building the thing right? You can adapt these to data science pretty easily:

1) Are we looking at the right data?
2) Are we looking at the data right?

I would strongly encourage you to think critically about those two questions and reevaluate how you are approaching modifications to Battlegrounds. You've basically disabled any choice in how to play with this feature, because you think that people aren't playing the way you would like them to. What you could have done was somehow penalize or otherwise discourage deathmatching in non-deathmatch games. You could have changed how queues work to a degree. You could have changed how points are scored. You could have done any number of things. Instead, you just deleted all choice. As previous posters have pointed out, this seems to be based on data that's heavily monopolized by 20-30 people.

Please undo this change.


Further commentary:

There has been a trend over the past few years to simplify every aspect of the game. In some cases, it's been turned into basically an autopilot idle game, and in other cases, the nuances that made ESO its own game have been removed. This change is an example of the latter.

I think you need to remind your current crop of game designers exactly what "Elder Scrolls" is. There's a reason that it became the most successful RPG franchise of all time. That largely has to do with it having roots in the virtually unlimited potential of traditional D&D, providing much more of a game *framework* than a game itself.

Fire up TES3, install the EXE mods and graphics overhauls, roll a new character, and what's the first thing you're going to do when you get off the boat in Seyda Neen? You're going to throw away the main quest and head off into the wilderness, maybe to go claim for yourself a random house in Balmora. Or maybe kill a key character and live in the doomed world you created, *because you want to*. That right there is the essence of Elder Scrolls: you're given a game world and some tools and that's it. The rest is up to you to do with whatever you want. If you are going to put that name on a game, you *MUST* keep that spirit in focus at all times.

You have been systematically reducing the variety of user experiences to try to fit them into molds that poorly acquired "data" implies are popular. That is not how you make an Elder Scrolls game. That is not how you *made* ESO.

Amen brother.

DaisyRay

I was wondering why I kept getting deathmatch, not even realizing this was the reason. I honestly hate it, this is the one I usually try to avoid lol. I hope it does not stick, this used to be a great way to level up my chars. I just can't keep up with everyone in death match.

LadyMystica

Even though I love Deathmatch, I am already getting bored. Variety is the spice of life and all of that.

amir412

Add CP BGs.

The_Graeh

This was a terrible decision that makes eso less enjoyable.

HammerWTEK

I've already been upset that I can't queue for the flag or relic games specifically. I like playing for objectives, but hate the Deathmatch style. If I want to die repeatedly I would head to Cyrodiil lol. This seems like a ridiculous "temporary fix." Why not do one queue for Deathmatch and another that cycles through the objective games?

NUZGH

I don’t have the time right now to read all of the comments, so I apologize in advance if my statements are repetitive. BG’s has been a sore spot for me for some time. I personally enjoy deathmatch, and absolutely, hardly ever get a chance to play it in my randoms. I’m not a hardcore pvp player - I just adjust my pve toons a little bit with some skills and gear, and have at it. I have some fun. However I feel that to consistently excel at any of the 4 modes of BG’s gameplay, it’s best to equip/spec your toon accordingly. And not knowing what type of game you’re going to play makes this difficult unless you lug a bunch of sets with you, and don’t care what skills you have equipped. This is one of the only games I’ve played that has small team pvp rounds where you can not choose the type of game you wish to play. I don’t enjoy being forced to play land grabs, relic catching etc, as much as I enjoy the competition of deathmatch. But I completely understand and respect those that do. I feel that if we all could choose exactly what we wanted to play, the argument is gone. I can’t imagine that there would be so few people playing certain BG modes that they would never queue. In fact after reading the comments that I have quickly browsed, it seems that more players might play regularly if they could play the modes they liked.

wolfie1.0.

NUZGH wrote: »

I don’t have the time right now to read all of the comments, so I apologize in advance if my statements are repetitive. BG’s has been a sore spot for me for some time. I personally enjoy deathmatch, and absolutely, hardly ever get a chance to play it in my randoms. I’m not a hardcore pvp player - I just adjust my pve toons a little bit with some skills and gear, and have at it. I have some fun. However I feel that to consistently excel at any of the 4 modes of BG’s gameplay, it’s best to equip/spec your toon accordingly. And not knowing what type of game you’re going to play makes this difficult unless you lug a bunch of sets with you, and don’t care what skills you have equipped. This is one of the only games I’ve played that has small team pvp rounds where you can not choose the type of game you wish to play. I don’t enjoy being forced to play land grabs, relic catching etc, as much as I enjoy the competition of deathmatch. But I completely understand and respect those that do. I feel that if we all could choose exactly what we wanted to play, the argument is gone. I can’t imagine that there would be so few people playing certain BG modes that they would never queue. In fact after reading the comments that I have quickly browsed, it seems that more players might play regularly if they could play the modes they liked.

TBh if ZOS wanted a true test, this is what they would have done. Allowed for game mode selection

_adhyffbjjjf12

To be clear, i like many pay a yearly sub plus purchases and I enjoy BG (and all ESO content) and enjoy the variety. Now you take away all the variety from me as a paying customer as an experiment??? So when I have 1-2 hour sessions, instead of rotating you think i will enjoy deathmatch over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over............ -really?

So now, if I play it 'indicates' I prefer it??! Actually no, so now I wont play at all just in case you misinterpret with your rather dodgy 'experimenting'

If you really want to test this do 1 thing, when we select a BG ask what our preference is. Honestly i've been developing software since the 80's including huge critical public facing systems and I have never seen such amateur nonsense.

Here's a thought experiment, if you took away the ability to have alts, would more people play mains - get it?

very annoyed as you can guess, you have taken away content I enjoy and pay for.