Maintenance for the week of November 25:
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PC/Mac: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 25, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 7:00AM EST (12:00 UTC)
• Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
• PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for maintenance – November 27, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 9:00AM EST (14:00 UTC)
Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues
-
moleculardrugs✭✭✭✭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.
Edit [October 15]
Thanks so much for your participation, patience and feedback while we experimented with only having the Deathmatch game mode available. It was important for us to run this for a few weeks to ensure we had an accurate representation of overall involvement and interest in Battlegrounds during this time.
First, it’s valuable to note the general feedback on this test was quite polarizing. While there were certainly a lot of players that liked only having Deathmatch available, there were just as many that didn’t enjoy it. A frequent complaint we saw, though, was the disappointment that we removed something that is ultimately at the core of our game: the freedom of choice. And in the case of this test, the data appeared to back that up as well. Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.
Starting with the launch of Update 32 (November 1 for PC/Mac/Stadia and November 16 for consoles), we’ll be giving you more choices to decide which game mode to queue into depending on if you are playing solo or with a group. These will include:- Solo Deathmatch
- Solo Random Battleground
- Group Deathmatch
- Group Random Battleground
We’ll continue to monitor the sentiment and participation rates with Battlegrounds once this rolls out next month, and we’ll let you know if we plan for any additional changes. Thanks again for posting all your thoughts during this time!
As long as I get to keep my Relic Runner title…1 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”0 -
Merforum✭✭✭✭✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
Certainly the 'random' queue should be the only queues that get the random queue rewards. And it should even be the same as dungeon queue rewards (cause it's only fair, might keep PVPers from ruining DF by fake-tank/healing). But that has nothing to do with backfilling. Backfilling is taking random queue people and putting them in specific DM queue, which shouldn't happen. Prediction, if random queue is forced to backfill DM Q and doesn't have logic to allow non-DM matches more than 70% of time, we'll be right back here with dead BGs in a couple weeks after new queues.
And as other post says, none of this addresses the DMers ruining non-DM matches when they queue random. But maybe the rewards will make them behave. Actually a better test would be to make the solo random 'non-DM matches ONLY' and not backfill, and see if what happens to the population.2 -
MurderMostFoul✭✭✭✭✭
✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”1 -
Merforum✭✭✭✭✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.1 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.Edited by jaws343 on October 22, 2021 6:24PM2 -
Merforum✭✭✭✭✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.
NO, YOU are ignoring the facts. There was a specific test to see how many people want DM only and it failed in every way. You can make all the excuses you want but the results would be the same at any time. I actually hate chaosball more than DM. But the real problem is not how many people like which mode, it is casual players having to deal with super sweaty players who ruin the game for them. One fix I suggested is if someone blocks someone else they should never have to play with them in BGs or DF, and I think they should even make blocked people NON-interactable in cyro/IC with each other. Or like New World they could implement a turn PVP on or off when going into cyro or IC.
The main problem is the people who are hyper obsessed with KDA and/or DPS who have been catered to by ZOS to the point where the game is in a bad state. There are core things about combat that have always been terrible (or should I say exploits that you either love or hate). The people who love them think it's great but vast majority of players don't like those. But it is really the toxic folks who make the game NOT FUN that is the cause of pop decline. Unlike the people who threaten to leave the game constantly, I think listening to you all has made it so lots of people have REALLY left. My ESO+ ends next month and is cancelled and I only log in once in a while. Congrats you 20-50 dudes will have the game all to yourselves.0 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.
NO, YOU are ignoring the facts. There was a specific test to see how many people want DM only and it failed in every way. You can make all the excuses you want but the results would be the same at any time. I actually hate chaosball more than DM. But the real problem is not how many people like which mode, it is casual players having to deal with super sweaty players who ruin the game for them. One fix I suggested is if someone blocks someone else they should never have to play with them in BGs or DF, and I think they should even make blocked people NON-interactable in cyro/IC with each other. Or like New World they could implement a turn PVP on or off when going into cyro or IC.
The main problem is the people who are hyper obsessed with KDA and/or DPS who have been catered to by ZOS to the point where the game is in a bad state. There are core things about combat that have always been terrible (or should I say exploits that you either love or hate). The people who love them think it's great but vast majority of players don't like those. But it is really the toxic folks who make the game NOT FUN that is the cause of pop decline. Unlike the people who threaten to leave the game constantly, I think listening to you all has made it so lots of people have REALLY left. My ESO+ ends next month and is cancelled and I only log in once in a while. Congrats you 20-50 dudes will have the game all to yourselves.
Maybe casual players don't belong in a competitive PVP game mode?
But really, there are a lot of variables at player here, and trying to force the conclusion that DM and only DM is the reason people stopped playing the game mode is dishonest at best. There are a lot of factors and there is no way to come to an honest conclusion because of that. You can speculate all you want but you won't be right, you'll just be guessing.
And again, I will mention, if, as you claim, only a few people actually want DM mode, then when the DM queue goes live, you should rarely see DM mode in the random queue because no one will be doing it. I posit that you will be wrong and that, alongside the DC nerfs that are coming in the same patch, DM only will be the most popular queue because most, actual pvpers, don't care for pvping avoiding and poorly designed objective game modes.1 -
nightstrike✭✭✭✭✭And again, I will mention, if, as you claim, only a few people actually want DM mode, then when the DM queue goes live, you should rarely see DM mode in the random queue because no one will be doing it. I posit that you will be wrong and that, alongside the DC nerfs that are coming in the same patch, DM only will be the most popular queue because most, actual pvpers, don't care for pvping avoiding and poorly designed objective game modes.
What if one person in the DM queue forces 11 people in the random queue into DM? And what if that happens frequently?Warning: This signature is tiny!2 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭
[snip], yet rank #100 on the DM Leaderboards has had a high accumulation of medals every week since the test started. Meaning that to get ranked you had to play a lot of matches. Assumptions get smacked by facts.Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
You're ignoring the fact that ZOS, who can look at the actual data, decided it was best to separate DM queue from your PvE Modes. Make up all the numbers you want, that fact will not change. The Leaderboards don't lie either. They're garbage when it comes to ranking players by skill, but they're good at measuring time played.NO, YOU are ignoring the facts. There was a specific test to see how many people want DM only and it failed in every way. You can make all the excuses you want but the results would be the same at any time.
LMAO @ ZOS catering to "the sweaty" players ruining the game. ZOS caters to casuals through and through. It's not the fault of the "sweaty" (read "skilled") players casuals get pitted against them.I actually hate chaosball more than DM. But the real problem is not how many people like which mode, it is casual players having to deal with super sweaty players who ruin the game for them.
Catering to casuals is exactly the reason we don't have a real ranking system that separates players by skill. It's the same reason we don't have built in DPS measuring API anymore. People's feelings might get hurt if they're shown, by the game itself, that they're bad at the game with concrete data such as a DPS meter or a Bronze Ranking.
Your anger is misplaced. You're blaming players better than you for "ruining your matches" instead of blaming ZOS for not implementing a system that separates people based on skill and pits you against people on your own skill level. Trust me, good players are aware and we want that. A carrot to chase, a ladder to climb for bragging rights. Bot clapping gets boring pretty quickly for the majority of people I know in our PvP community. Yes, there's some bad apples that want to clap bots and leave when there's another premade, but that's a few cowards. PvPers love competition and beating people that are near their skill level.
[edited for rude/insulting comment]Edited by ZOS_Icy on October 24, 2021 10:24AM1 -
Franchise408✭✭✭✭✭MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.
PVP simply means "player versus player"
It does not mean "killing" or "deathmatch"
Sports games like Madden or NBA 2K are PVP, because you play against another player.
Just for fun games like Among Us are PVP, because you play against other players.
Even PVP games that are centered around killing each other, i.e. Counterstrike or Call Of Duty, have objectives that award players for achievements outside of killing each other.
So to suggest that objectives =/= PVP is disingenuous. To hold DM players in some higher regard and claim that objectives players just want to avoid others is disingenuous.7 -
jaws343✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Franchise408 wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.
PVP simply means "player versus player"
It does not mean "killing" or "deathmatch"
Sports games like Madden or NBA 2K are PVP, because you play against another player.
Just for fun games like Among Us are PVP, because you play against other players.
Even PVP games that are centered around killing each other, i.e. Counterstrike or Call Of Duty, have objectives that award players for achievements outside of killing each other.
So to suggest that objectives =/= PVP is disingenuous. To hold DM players in some higher regard and claim that objectives players just want to avoid others is disingenuous.
The difference with those Counterstrike and COD examples is that PVP with objectives is designed to force encounters and not designed with a rogue third opponent who can lazily steal relics or take flags without any conflict. You mention all of these PVP games, but you ignore the one aspect, you actually have to face your opponent in some manor in them. Whether that is playing defense or offense in a game like madden, or out strategizing your opponent in Among Us.
What this game does in BGs with objective modes is the equivalent of having a third team on the football field who just lets the other two teams actually play the mode while they score TDs unopposed.
Now, if the objectives in BGs were two teams against one another for relic, or a single capture point more akin to king of the hill, where encounters and actual fighting over objectives were encouraged, then it would truly be pvp. Instead we get this lazy game mode that encourages lazy gameplay.
The only good objective mode at the moment is Chaos Ball, because it encourages battling over the objective. Crazy king is close to be good, but too many flags at the end game of it makes it another battle avoidance simulator.4 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭
Right? It's like people don't read the whole thread and just skip and reply to the last post. We've been over this. 3 team is anti-competitive. Team B and Team C can just choose to grief and gang up on Team A. There's nothing stopping them from doing it. If Battlegrounds were turned into Head-to-Head arenas with only two teams, Deathmatch players would start enjoying objective modes while current Objective Players would most like stop enjoying them because the competition would heat up. Case in point, we've all seen it the typical "I'm bad at combat, but I can at least contribute in objective modes" forum posts. What those people fail to realize is they're able to contribute because a lot of their opponents literally couldn't care less about the objective. It's boring because the meta is to avoid conflict. Half measures of only avoiding combat if you can afford to give points away is boring.The difference with those Counterstrike and COD examples is that PVP with objectives is designed to force encounters and not designed with a rogue third opponent who can lazily steal relics or take flags without any conflict. You mention all of these PVP games, but you ignore the one aspect, you actually have to face your opponent in some manor in them. Whether that is playing defense or offense in a game like madden, or out strategizing your opponent in Among Us.
What this game does in BGs with objective modes is the equivalent of having a third team on the football field who just lets the other two teams actually play the mode while they score TDs unopposed.
Now, if the objectives in BGs were two teams against one another for relic, or a single capture point more akin to king of the hill, where encounters and actual fighting over objectives were encouraged, then it would truly be pvp. Instead we get this lazy game mode that encourages lazy gameplay.6 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
I'm in a guild of hundreds of players who all prefer dm lolPC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden1 -
gariondavey✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Franchise408 wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.
PVP simply means "player versus player"
It does not mean "killing" or "deathmatch"
Sports games like Madden or NBA 2K are PVP, because you play against another player.
Just for fun games like Among Us are PVP, because you play against other players.
Even PVP games that are centered around killing each other, i.e. Counterstrike or Call Of Duty, have objectives that award players for achievements outside of killing each other.
So to suggest that objectives =/= PVP is disingenuous. To hold DM players in some higher regard and claim that objectives players just want to avoid others is disingenuous.
The difference with those Counterstrike and COD examples is that PVP with objectives is designed to force encounters and not designed with a rogue third opponent who can lazily steal relics or take flags without any conflict. You mention all of these PVP games, but you ignore the one aspect, you actually have to face your opponent in some manor in them. Whether that is playing defense or offense in a game like madden, or out strategizing your opponent in Among Us.
What this game does in BGs with objective modes is the equivalent of having a third team on the football field who just lets the other two teams actually play the mode while they score TDs unopposed.
Now, if the objectives in BGs were two teams against one another for relic, or a single capture point more akin to king of the hill, where encounters and actual fighting over objectives were encouraged, then it would truly be pvp. Instead we get this lazy game mode that encourages lazy gameplay.
The only good objective mode at the moment is Chaos Ball, because it encourages battling over the objective. Crazy king is close to be good, but too many flags at the end game of it makes it another battle avoidance simulator.
CorrectPC NA @gariondavey, BG, IC & Cyrodiil Focused Since October 2017 Stamplar (main), Magplar, Magsorc, Stamsorc, StamDK, MagDK, Stamblade, Magblade, Magden, Stamden3 -
Merforum✭✭✭✭✭Franchise408 wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »MurderMostFoul wrote: »trackdemon5512 wrote: »So looking back at this debacle:
- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.
That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.
Exactly correct, as many of us said, this was a bad test and will only show exactly what we have said, a super loud 20-30 people who play DMs all day and spam the forums will be the only ones playing DM only and BGs will die in a week. NAILED IT.
And you are also correct, this did NOT address anything regarding the whiners who play all modes as DM, but is actually rewarding them AGAIN. If the random Q is backfilling the DM only with out some kind of logic, random will just be a trick to try to get people to come back while forcing them to play DM only all the time. Random should NOT backfill DM only or have logic to make it only happen 1/5 or 1/3 of the time.
But wouldn't the opposite be true actually?
If it is only a small minority of players, then the DM games will fill up with those DM players, and maybe a few from the random queue, and most of the objective players will have the random queue to themselves most of the time.
The reality is though, as we literally saw before they removed the individual queues in the first place, more people prefer DM game mode than objective mode, which is why we always saw DM game mode in the random queue more often back in the day. Actual pvpers prefer it.
Yeah you 20-30 DMer/posters keep saying that but we found unequivocally from this test, that DM is only popular to 20-30 people not 100-300 who like other games or more options. As I stated 20-30 people playing DM or posting forums 20-30 times a day, is not the same as the 200-300 people who only do it 1 or 2 times a day. 20x20 does not equal 200x2.
But the fact remains if the random queue is automatically going to always backfill DM only then all queues will be DM only, unless 12 people can queue for random before even 1 person queues for DM, how often will that happen. Queues should be separate or make random NON-DM only. Or add logic to make backfilling rare.
BTW they should make the daily random reward for BGs the same as daily dungeons if they wanted to increase the pop.
Not certain how you've arrived at these specific, unequivocal conclusions, but anyways...
I think they should, like before, make the random mode queues the only ones with the daily win bonus attached. That'll help drive casuals/pvers (and some DMers) there and mitigate some issues that backfilling could cause.
Gina wrote, "Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."
Translation 20 dudes playing DM over and over and everyone else not bothering. This test proved what everyone except the 20-30 dudes keep saying over and over, that the DM pop is only them.
What you stated is an assumption, not a translation. It is certainly not "proven" by this test and one could easily equivocate the results. Hyperbolic language is fine for emphasis, but it becomes misleading when used repeatedly.
Hopefully, the system will prioritize matching DM queuers with other DM queuers. That would also help mitigate some issues with backfilling DM games with random queuers.
So the 20 dudes saying DM is the most popular game over and over got ZOS to buy into your nonsense or call your bluff, and gave you all a DM ONLY 'test' for a month, the result POPULATION IN TOILET. They specifically tested what you have been saying and The RESULT is CLEAR, YOU ARE WRONG. But I am done talking about that because at this point you are only lying to yourself.
ZOS must stop listening to this tiny super loud minority group that make suggestions that ruin the game for everyone except their narrow interests.
The problem is, you are ignoring all of the other variables that hit at the exact same time as the BG test, most impactful were the new PVP game that everyone was gushing over, and even more impactful were the overwhelming hatred of Dark Convergence and Hrothgar. So to say that the reason for BG decline was due to DM only is contrived at best.
In fact, the data that ZOS mentioned said that at the beginning of the test, i.e. before the proc sets were fully spread across the game, the population increased. But as DC and Hrothgar became more available, the numbers dropped off.
The point being, the numbers were going to drop off, test or not, because people have not been enjoying small scale BGs with those proc sets.
To add to that, I would argue that the supposed "loud minority" of us who actually want to do pvp things in a pvp mode should in fact be the ones who are listened to for this content rather than the PVE players who want to run around and avoid other players for 10 minutes and gain their AP, XP, Transmutes, once per day and move on.
PVP simply means "player versus player"
It does not mean "killing" or "deathmatch"
Sports games like Madden or NBA 2K are PVP, because you play against another player.
Just for fun games like Among Us are PVP, because you play against other players.
Even PVP games that are centered around killing each other, i.e. Counterstrike or Call Of Duty, have objectives that award players for achievements outside of killing each other.
So to suggest that objectives =/= PVP is disingenuous. To hold DM players in some higher regard and claim that objectives players just want to avoid others is disingenuous.
You are right, these 20-30 dudes who do nothing but insult everyone who doesn't like playing the game the way they do [snip], think saying the same thing over and over will make it true. Unfortunately ZOS has been listening to them and trying to appease them for a couple of years and it has had terrible consequences. They actually believe people don't want to play against/with them because they are TOO GOOD but it is that they make the game totally UNFUN. I am mostly done with the game but one simple change that would be great would be that if you block someone, you should never be put in a BG or DF group with them.
[edited for baiting]Edited by ZOS_Icy on October 24, 2021 10:30AM0 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭
Ironic coming from you. You keep saying 20-30 people over and over when you can just look at the DM Leaderboards to know it's not true.You are right, these 20-30 dudes who do nothing but insult everyone who doesn't like playing the game the way they do [snip], think saying the same thing over and over will make it true.
Definitely. The constant neglect of Cyrodiil leaving it an unplayable mess and Companions of all things being the main feature of the most recent expansion for an MMO truly speaks to the fact that ZOS does nothing but cater to the sweaty PvP crowd. Lmao, listen to yourself.Unfortunately ZOS has been listening to them and trying to appease them for a couple of years and it has had terrible consequences.
How or why do certain people make the game unfun? Care to Elaborate?They actually believe people don't want to play against/with them because they are TOO GOOD but it is that they make the game totally UNFUN.
Yeah, because that would totally not get abused at all. Jfc, that's a really bad idea.I am mostly done with the game but one simple change that would be great would be that if you block someone, you should never be put in a BG or DF group with them.
[edited to remove quote]Edited by ZOS_Icy on October 24, 2021 10:29AM3 -
Franchise408✭✭✭✭✭I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again about how objective based BG's are designed in a way to encourage a lack of player confrontation, but I disagree.
In all my time doing BG's, I've never been in a BG where I don't engage with enemy combatants. Whether I am defending a flag, or trying to take a relic, or whatever the case may be, there is always engagement. And if I am not prepared, and if I do not play skillfully, I will be defeated and my team can be in danger of losing.
So I simply disagree with the claim being made that objective BG's discourage player v. player combat.
I also disagree with the claim that combat is the only valid form of PVP strategy. You even mention in your response to my Among Us claim that the strategy comes from out-smarting your opponent. Why is out-smarting your opponent a valid strategy in Among Us, but not in ESO BG's?4 -
the1andonlyskwex✭✭✭✭✭
✭Franchise408 wrote: »I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again about how objective based BG's are designed in a way to encourage a lack of player confrontation, but I disagree.
In all my time doing BG's, I've never been in a BG where I don't engage with enemy combatants. Whether I am defending a flag, or trying to take a relic, or whatever the case may be, there is always engagement. And if I am not prepared, and if I do not play skillfully, I will be defeated and my team can be in danger of losing.
So I simply disagree with the claim being made that objective BG's discourage player v. player combat.
I also disagree with the claim that combat is the only valid form of PVP strategy. You even mention in your response to my Among Us claim that the strategy comes from out-smarting your opponent. Why is out-smarting your opponent a valid strategy in Among Us, but not in ESO BG's?
The only case where totally avoiding combat is the best strategy is when the majority of the players in the game get tunnel vision and focus on killing other players instead of playing the objectives.
Sadly, the deathmatchers who complain about objective modes see this situation disproportionately because they and their teams are usually the ones getting tunnel vision.
If you decide to spend your time spawn camping or fighting in the middle of the map, you really shouldn't complain when one of the other teams manages to run around capturing objectives without any opposition.3 -
Merforum✭✭✭✭✭the1andonlyskwex wrote: »Franchise408 wrote: »I keep hearing the same arguments over and over again about how objective based BG's are designed in a way to encourage a lack of player confrontation, but I disagree.
In all my time doing BG's, I've never been in a BG where I don't engage with enemy combatants. Whether I am defending a flag, or trying to take a relic, or whatever the case may be, there is always engagement. And if I am not prepared, and if I do not play skillfully, I will be defeated and my team can be in danger of losing.
So I simply disagree with the claim being made that objective BG's discourage player v. player combat.
I also disagree with the claim that combat is the only valid form of PVP strategy. You even mention in your response to my Among Us claim that the strategy comes from out-smarting your opponent. Why is out-smarting your opponent a valid strategy in Among Us, but not in ESO BG's?
The only case where totally avoiding combat is the best strategy is when the majority of the players in the game get tunnel vision and focus on killing other players instead of playing the objectives.
Sadly, the deathmatchers who complain about objective modes see this situation disproportionately because they and their teams are usually the ones getting tunnel vision.
If you decide to spend your time spawn camping or fighting in the middle of the map, you really shouldn't complain when one of the other teams manages to run around capturing objectives without any opposition.
You hit the nail on the head. [snip]
When I first started playing BGs it was a bit hard, because I was learning fighting players at the same time as learning BG objectives but was fun and exciting. At about 100 matches, I was good enough at everything to really contribute to the team. And there was EQUAL amount of fighting and objectives, very well balanced and super fun. Then when I got to HIGH MMR (which is just # of matches and nothing else) things started to change.
First I started noticing the KDA folks who ONLY were in it for cheap easy kills (NOT competitive fights at all, just either sneaking and backstab, spam poison injection or fury from distance or watch other people fight and jump in for final killing blow) and never to help the team just for their OWN PERSONAL KDA, not even their personal BG score. ZOS should eliminate the KDA #s from non-DM. You can even watch streamers who pop up the numbers over and over to talk about what their KDA is continuously, they are obsessed with it, like PVEer are obsessed with DPS #s.
Initially there was only usually 2 of these dudes each match and the 3rd team without them was usually winning, I loved being on the team without them. Then as these dudes got more and more annoying camping spawns or relentlessly targetting someone, and the pop started going down, I notice more matches with these dudes. When ZOS made queues all random it got really bad, eventually the pop got so low there were 4-5 of these dudes in each match, and the only time they didn't ruin the game was when all of them were on the same team and focused on the other team, you could win easily but that wasn't even fun. But if you had 2-3 on your team, no point even trying, even though I did over and over but we'd lose anyway.
These dudes are THE problem, they are the same ones ruining Dungeon finder, until ZOS stops catering to them nothing will get better. A simple fix would be to allow people to block them, no one should be forced to play a game with anyone who aggressively ignores the objectives and insults/belittles and harasses others 'for fun'. It would be like playing on a football team where a couple dudes just start fights with others all the time, and the coach instead of punishing/removing them told the rest of the team beating up people was the actual objective of the game.
BTW the 20-30 I keep talking about is yes from the BG leaderboard (same people with alts, but not all are bad apples) and the forums and streamers (everyone knows who you are even you do). I give them credit that they are so loud they make themselves seem like a lot more people but it is actually only 20-30.
[edited for baiting]Edited by ZOS_Icy on October 24, 2021 10:33AM1 -
DavGlen✭✭✭What this game does in BGs with objective modes is the equivalent of having a third team on the football field who just lets the other two teams actually play the mode while they score TDs unopposed.
Oh trust me, if those both teams you mention were actually "playing the mode", the third team wouldn't stand a chance.
I'm sorry but if a team is winning a BG without fighting, it's not because of ZOS or because they are great players. [snip]
[edited for baiting]Edited by ZOS_Icy on October 24, 2021 12:17PM3 -
I detest most of the PVP in this game and could only tolerate the non-deathmatch mode options so that I could get war horn, barrier, and a few other PVE skills that are useful. I have absolutely zero interest in deathmatch.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if the losing team wasn't totally messed over in gaining Alliance skill experience. The fact of the matter is, people like me who hate PVP and particularly hate deathmatch, now have even fewer options to try to gain those skill lines.
Advice:
- Make the experience gain for your first random battle ground equal whether you win or lose (keep the equipment rewards the same for those who score highest to still provide an incentive for players who focus on this game aspect)
- Return an option to randomly queue for any mode
- Allow players to gain Alliance skill experience (Assault, Support) by doing quests in Cyrodiil so we're not 100% reliant on battlegrounds to try and gain the necessary PVE skills for trials0 -
Skoomah✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Asriel_Brightborn wrote: »I detest most of the PVP in this game and could only tolerate the non-deathmatch mode options so that I could get war horn, barrier, and a few other PVE skills that are useful. I have absolutely zero interest in deathmatch.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if the losing team wasn't totally messed over in gaining Alliance skill experience. The fact of the matter is, people like me who hate PVP and particularly hate deathmatch, now have even fewer options to try to gain those skill lines.
Advice:
- Make the experience gain for your first random battle ground equal whether you win or lose (keep the equipment rewards the same for those who score highest to still provide an incentive for players who focus on this game aspect)
- Return an option to randomly queue for any mode
- Allow players to gain Alliance skill experience (Assault, Support) by doing quests in Cyrodiil so we're not 100% reliant on battlegrounds to try and gain the necessary PVE skills for trials
Why don’t you go into cyrodiil and level up your PvP skill lines 10x faster? Zerg surfing is way faster than sitting through BG matches.0 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭I love how circular this thread has become. The new posters clearly haven't read to catch up.
We've been over the whole "what about these other games" argument. Those other games are 1v1 or team vs team. We all agree with you, if ESO BGs were team vs team, objectives would absolutely be more fun to play.
However, as has also been pointed out, it seems highly likely that if ZOS were to do that, no one posting in favor of the old objective style BGs would enjoy it because they'd finally be forced to deal with combat. This is like arguing that tackling isn't important to the game of football and the game shouldn't be designed around it.
It doesn't matter if an objective player says that they engage the other team during a Domination mode. That's literally admitting to being a poor team player because if the goal is winning the game, the best winning strategy is to avoid conflict at all costs and find an uncontested flag or one that they can, as a group, outnumber.Asriel_Brightborn wrote: »I detest most of the PVP in this game and could only tolerate the non-deathmatch mode options so that I could get war horn, barrier, and a few other PVE skills that are useful. I have absolutely zero interest in deathmatch.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if the losing team wasn't totally messed over in gaining Alliance skill experience. The fact of the matter is, people like me who hate PVP and particularly hate deathmatch, now have even fewer options to try to gain those skill lines.
Advice:
- Make the experience gain for your first random battle ground equal whether you win or lose (keep the equipment rewards the same for those who score highest to still provide an incentive for players who focus on this game aspect)
- Return an option to randomly queue for any mode
- Allow players to gain Alliance skill experience (Assault, Support) by doing quests in Cyrodiil so we're not 100% reliant on battlegrounds to try and gain the necessary PVE skills for trials
Here's my issue with this post: it doesn't pass the turn around test.
"I detest most of the PvE in this game and could only tolerate the 4-man dungeons. I have zero interest in normal or vet trials.
It probably wouldn't be so bad if non-geared pugs were allowed to participate in trials and still get drops, even if we didn't succeed in killing the boss. The fact of the matter is, people like me who hate PvE and particularly trials now have fewer options to run in sweaty BGs, especially if you're a magplar looking to run Olo for your BG team.
Advice:
- Make it so all players get a random gear piece from the trial each day, regardless if a boss was killed
- Allow for vet trial gear to drop from random 4-man dungeons
- Allow players to rank up Psijic skill line by completing Battlemaster quests so we're not 100% required to PvE in order to have it benefit our preferred play style"
These arguments are so one-directional. The fact of the matter is that every good, self-identified PvPer has done and continues to do PvE content for things that directly contribute to their success in PvP and none of them go to the forums to ask ZOS to nerf PvE content to make it so they can treat PvE like it's PvP and still reap the rewards. It doesn't happen.
I don't necessarily like tanking, but I do it because I'm a terrible dpser and find it horribly tedious and monotonous and I can at least sort of enjoy tanking. A vast majority of PvPers have PvE titles such as Apex Predator.
I guess I'm still confused as to why people feel like ZOS needs to completely cater to PvErs, as opposed to the "almost exclusively catering to PvErs" position they've maintained for almost the entirety of this game.
If my PvP magplar is rocking perfected Olo, it's because I decided to spend time doing something I didn't find as enjoyable as PvP, to benefit from something that would boost my preferred play style.
Also, as Skoomah mentioned, you can zerg surf to rank 10 assault/support in only a few hours and literally all you have to do is light attack, throw some heals, or use a siege or two. This is pretty akin to what normal trials are, except your ults are just as effective as a skilled PvPers whereas someone looking for Olo loses a line of mag.
2 -
McTaterskins✭✭✭✭While I'm happy to see the other modes come back. Since I random queue and there will be a DM queue that hits the random... I'll probably enjoy the ratio and the break up here in there in the monotony as I assume I'll see more DM in the mix...
I think it's pretty important to point out that the testing is skewed for one reason more than any others:
Dark Convergence.
Depending on the platform, it took about 2 weeks to really start hitting Cyro and BGs. At 3 weeks or so, it rolled into critical mass. This coincides with the information summary shared.
Do you know how many in process games I get due to people leaving because of some DC ball setup? Do you know how many times I've seen a match start, people clash, and 1-2 people on my team leave as soon as they see more than 1 DC on the ground?
This isn't just some opinion. My opinion about the set doesn't really matter. This is a reality. While I'm sure the set operates as intended and accomplishes the targeted reason for use... It has had many other negative impacts. Especially when trying to get new players or casual players to stick around.2 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭ZOS unleashing DC when they did was a mistake during the most pivotal time in the last couple years.
Of all times to not make a mistake, last month was it.
They made their choice and then doubled down on that choice by not immediately correcting the mistake.
Tying the DC changes to a patch update 6 weeks into the future only served to reaffirm the decision to leave for other games, for anyone who did.
Anything short of Cyrodiil suddenly not lagging and delivering flawlessly on their vision of epic 100v100 battles will be too little too late. I play BGs mostly because Cyro lag is unbearable and the frustration it causes me is unhealthy.
I think those players are gone.3 -
M0ntie✭✭✭✭✭Thank you ZoS for reverting this! I like to do some random BGs but DM is my least favourite so I haven't been doing any BGs while that was the only type.0
-
auz✭✭✭✭People are actually competing that ZOS only caters to pvpers? I must have missed that patch. Are they talking about the trebuchet emote? Is that the problem? 2 new zones, 4 new dungeons a new trial and companions were not enough?
The loudest voices in here are definitely the "20 to 30" people complaining they can't rush empty flags anymore. And for the people calling it 'strategy '... that is the most brain dead anti pvp strategy ever in the history of gaming and a clear indication of the problems with the objectives in the game.
I have been enjoying all DM, even with DC, and have not had a problem getting a game at all. That is during Australian prime time too, so when the americans are asleep.
Thanks for making me laugh. This thread has been fun.2 -
Magio_✭✭✭✭
The fact that a pure PvE player that detests PvP could stomach objective modes but not DM truly speaks to the fact how DM is actual PvP and obj modes aren't because of the 3 team system this game has.Asriel_Brightborn wrote: »I detest most of the PVP in this game and could only tolerate the non-deathmatch mode options so that I could get war horn, barrier, and a few other PVE skills that are useful. I have absolutely zero interest in deathmatch.
Make BGs into 6v6 Head-to-Head arenas like the other games these objective mode lovers keep bringing up and see how many of them keep enjoying Objective Modes.3 -
Franchise408✭✭✭✭✭
The fact that a pure PvE player that detests PvP could stomach objective modes but not DM truly speaks to the fact how DM is actual PvP and obj modes aren't because of the 3 team system this game has.Asriel_Brightborn wrote: »I detest most of the PVP in this game and could only tolerate the non-deathmatch mode options so that I could get war horn, barrier, and a few other PVE skills that are useful. I have absolutely zero interest in deathmatch.
Make BGs into 6v6 Head-to-Head arenas like the other games these objective mode lovers keep bringing up and see how many of them keep enjoying Objective Modes.
Hmmm... so much assumption in one thread to serve a self built narrative.
Am I a "pure PVE player"? I prefer playing sports games against human opponents where I can't just memorize the AI and exploit it with plays that I know will work, and I used to run an online Madden league with 32 people total, all teams controlled by human opponents.
Some of my favorite all time games have been online shooters like Counterstrike and Battlefield where I am playing against other people - and appropriately enough, those games appealed more to me in large part due to the strategic element of having objectives to play for rather than just mindlessly killing each other.
While I don't know where it would rank on my all time MMO's, one of the most defining MMO experiences for me was Warhammer Online, which being a PVP based game changed my perspective on how I wanted to play and enjoy MMO's.
One of the original draws to me in the first place in ESO was the PVP in this game and going into Cyrodiil and taking part in the fighting there.
Count me among the people who much prefer the objective based battlegrounds over deathmatch. Deathmatch doesn't take strategy, it's just a bunch of people running around seeing who has the highest proc burst. If ESO PVP was more based around skill rather than sets, then perhaps deathmatch would be a funner mode, but as it stands, the objective based BG's which take strategy and planning to succeed in are far superior to me than deathmatch can ever hope to be.
This whole narrative that "deathmatch is rEaL pVp" needs to stop.7