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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate 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.
MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate 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.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »When Battlegrounds first launched, we initially saw some data and feedback showing a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.
MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate 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.
MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate 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.
ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »...a preference specifically towards the Deathmatch game mode.
MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate 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.
MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »VaranisArano wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »CameraBeardThePirate 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 wrote: »Results are in. People quitting BGs. I guess ball runners will have to respec and get new gear.
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.
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.
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.