Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues

Alchimiste1

I think objective modes in bgs could be fun however , the current implementation of it isn't. If people really wanted to be the most affect in bg game modes, you simply have to let the other two teams do the fighting , while you sneak off and capture a flag or relic. You build a team of tanks and healers and hold the ball all game . In the previous game mode if you had 3 competitive teams building like this it would just come down to whoever managed to get the ball first and the rest of the game would be a snooze fest because no one would die.

I don't mind objective based pvp, in CoD I actually preferred domination (capture the flag) over tdm. The difference is its two teams against each other so you don't have a third part team sneaking off avoiding pvp and winning. I Think the current game modes would have to be redesigned to make it more enticing to players who just end up playing tdm rn.


Idea
I would like to see a bigger sized map, just two teams ( attackers and defenders). Objective could be something like breach the enemy's stronghold and take something from them. You win if you succeed and the defenders win if the time runs out.
Could make it 6 vs 6 , 8 vs 8 or even 12 v 12 if there are side objectives to spread people out. Also increased respawn timers or give father locations.

That would be fun imo and I think it could interest players who only play tdm rn.

Lady_Galadhiel

GuildedLilly wrote: »

I'm finding it rather comical when certain PVPers in this thread are acting like PVErs should have no say in how we're able to level and access skill lines that ZOS chose to lock behind the Alliance War (while allowing BGs to level Alliance war), or that PVErs shouldn't have a say in what happens in PVP zones period--especially considering complaints from the PVP community are CONSTANTLY affecting PVE players in PVE zones.

*Earthgore was nerfed into the ground because of PVP
*Dragonknight Wings were killed because of PVP
*Breath of Life was nerfed because of PVP
*Proximity Detonation was nerfed because of PVP
*Sorc shield/ward skills were nerfed because of PVP

...and that's just off the top of my head.

PVPers upset with how they died, or upset with NOT causing other players to die fast enough for their egos cause no end of grief for PVE players. Instead of giving sets & skills separate or dampened effects in PVP zones like they do with chain, gate, and healing skills, ZOS took the complaints from a few whiny players and gankblades upset that they got killed with their own reflected arrows, and wreck sets & skills that were fabulous in vet dungeons and trials because a few players or guilds were exploiting them in PVP--or they were too effective at countering PVPers who got used to easy kills with no risk. I LOVED popping DK wings to take out stealthed NBs sniping my team from inaccessible areas.

Stop pretending that what happens in PVP doesn't effect PVE, and is none of our business. The day ZOS brings Warhorn, Barrier, Rapid Maneuvers, Major Gallop, Magicka Detonation, and Caltrops (the only readily accessible aoe CC skill available to Templars) out from behind the Alliance War lock, and the moment they stop screwing with set effects and skills that affect PVE to appease PVPers, is the day I will acknowledge you have a point. Until then--everything that happens in PVP affects us. PVErs have no choice but to participate in PVP to some extent. We should have a voice in it, and your opinion is NOT the only one that matters.

You wanted the DM BG queue back? Congrats, you got it.

There is no reason why Objective BG queues needed to be removed.

There is no reason why ZOS continues to cater to greifers when it comes to PVP events requiring IC (not Cyrodil), or the elimination of all objective BG match queues in favor of forcing all players into DM BG matches only....other that for whatever reason, ZOS has decided it likes feeding trolls.

It's just one more insult in a loooooong line of ways in which a small, toxic fraction of the already small PVP community manages to screw over the majority of players with ZOS's full complicity and support.

What happens in battlegrounds surely does not affect pve players in any way.
If people only play battlegrounds to level up alliance skill line they have more options to do so by doing other PvP activities,even now having a little boost with war tortes wich are cheap to buy.
When I started playing and had to get war horn on my healer I did questing in Cyrodiil, back then I would have appreciated to have a little boost.
All skill lines in this game take long to level up and are grindy, why should alliance skill line be any different or quicker?

And I think PvP'ers are forced to do much more pve stuff in order to be able to play PvP than vice versa.

Decimus

Franchise408 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Baitless version:

The more PvE oriented players worried about now having to do PvP to earn the skills locked behind PvP might want to look at it from the PvPer perspective: we have had to farm dungeons for 7 years now to get BiS gear for PvP builds, and there is no end in sight.

I would also look at the fact that no new PvP content has been added in years (no, a trebuchet emote doesn't count), while PvErs get 4 dungeons and 1-2 trials/arenas each year.


This is the PvPer point of view.

Having a bit more PvP when queueing for a PvP game mode is a very welcome change, with this point of view in mind.


They can add back the objective game modes when PvP isn't actively discouraged in those.

As a reminder, PVP =/= "killing". It simply means "player versus player". What that "versus" is, can entail many things.

There is no versus anything in walking to empty flags and avoiding the "versus" - that is just a walking simulator.

I'm all for fighting on flags, capturing relics & holding the chaosball - it just shouldn't be conflict free because then you take away the "versus".

Franchise408 wrote: »

This is also a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, with a PVE centric audience, so it only makes sense that PVP'ers would have more of a PVE load to carry than vice versa. It's not outside the norm in the genre either.

You also have your pure killing modes of PVP with Cyrodiil and Imperial City, so removing the only element of PVP diversity in this game remains an invalid decision to make.

I will concede tho that more PVP content would be a positive.

No, it's not outside the norm - but almost every MMO out there has more PvP game modes than ESO does (whether it's open world PvP or competitive arenas, more PvP zones and types of PvP game modes in BGs etc).

And it's not for the lack of PvPers asking for more PvP content. Year after year after year.

And it's why almost every PvPer I've talked to (including myself) is moving on to New World in a couple of weeks.


Doesn't mean they won't come back to ESO some day, but it's very unlikely unless a lot of changes happen in PvP.

Franchise408 wrote: »

But then you have to think, if the game continues to push 4 dungeons and a trial + the numerous overland content year in and year out, with 0 PVP content to match up with it, it's probably due to the fact that this is a PVE centered game where PVE is what is most in demand. This is not Call Of Duty: Tamriel

Yes, hence what I wrote above... and this also is why people are also very defensive when ZOS (for once) tries to promote PvP a little bit.


I sincerely hope we can fight for the objectives some time in the future.

Franchise408

Decimus wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Baitless version:

The more PvE oriented players worried about now having to do PvP to earn the skills locked behind PvP might want to look at it from the PvPer perspective: we have had to farm dungeons for 7 years now to get BiS gear for PvP builds, and there is no end in sight.

I would also look at the fact that no new PvP content has been added in years (no, a trebuchet emote doesn't count), while PvErs get 4 dungeons and 1-2 trials/arenas each year.


This is the PvPer point of view.

Having a bit more PvP when queueing for a PvP game mode is a very welcome change, with this point of view in mind.


They can add back the objective game modes when PvP isn't actively discouraged in those.

As a reminder, PVP =/= "killing". It simply means "player versus player". What that "versus" is, can entail many things.

There is no versus anything in walking to empty flags and avoiding the "versus" - that is just a walking simulator.

I'm all for fighting on flags, capturing relics & holding the chaosball - it just shouldn't be conflict free because then you take away the "versus".

Franchise408 wrote: »

This is also a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, with a PVE centric audience, so it only makes sense that PVP'ers would have more of a PVE load to carry than vice versa. It's not outside the norm in the genre either.

You also have your pure killing modes of PVP with Cyrodiil and Imperial City, so removing the only element of PVP diversity in this game remains an invalid decision to make.

I will concede tho that more PVP content would be a positive.

No, it's not outside the norm - but almost every MMO out there has more PvP game modes than ESO does (whether it's open world PvP or competitive arenas, more PvP zones and types of PvP game modes in BGs etc).

And it's not for the lack of PvPers asking for more PvP content. Year after year after year.

And it's why almost every PvPer I've talked to (including myself) is moving on to New World in a couple of weeks.


Doesn't mean they won't come back to ESO some day, but it's very unlikely unless a lot of changes happen in PvP.

Franchise408 wrote: »

But then you have to think, if the game continues to push 4 dungeons and a trial + the numerous overland content year in and year out, with 0 PVP content to match up with it, it's probably due to the fact that this is a PVE centered game where PVE is what is most in demand. This is not Call Of Duty: Tamriel

Yes, hence what I wrote above... and this also is why people are also very defensive when ZOS (for once) tries to promote PvP a little bit.


I sincerely hope we can fight for the objectives some time in the future.

What you call a "walking simulator" has been a staple of objective based PVP for as long as there have been objective based PVP.

It has been going on in games like CounterStrike, Battlefield, even Call of Duty, all sorts of these types of games. Teams going where the enemy isn't, taking objectives that are undefended, and know when to fight or retreat. That's why a game like CounterStrike has multiple bomb plant locations. I can log into the most recent Call Of Duty right now, log into a match, and an organized and coordinated team will be implementing tactics like this.

It happens in this very game in the alternate PVP modes. In Cyrodiil, I can't tell you how many times I've been a part of a coordinated group that attacks the other faction keeps where they aren't at and are undefended. Or attacking district flags in IC while the groups are busy and occupied in other districts, leaving flags open and undefended.

There is no strategic advantage to just crashing into the enemy and fighting just for the sake of fighting. The strategic advantage comes in attacking weaknesses in your opponent and attacking where you can do the most damage while taking the least amount of damage back.

For all this "walking simulator" talk, I can assure you I have never once been in an objective based battleground where there was 0 fighting amongst each other.

I feel like there's this false narrative being drawn up in an attempt to demonize people who don't prefer DM, to put them down as gamers to discredit their views, rather than making an argument against their points.

The *point* is, content was removed, and people now no longer have an option to partake in certain parts of the game. A deathmatch queue 100% should have been implemented (or more accurately, never should have been removed in the first place), but the option to play other battleground types should not have been removed.

Whether you actually like their style of play or not has nothing to do with the fact that it has been removed.

Decimus

Franchise408 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Baitless version:

The more PvE oriented players worried about now having to do PvP to earn the skills locked behind PvP might want to look at it from the PvPer perspective: we have had to farm dungeons for 7 years now to get BiS gear for PvP builds, and there is no end in sight.

I would also look at the fact that no new PvP content has been added in years (no, a trebuchet emote doesn't count), while PvErs get 4 dungeons and 1-2 trials/arenas each year.


This is the PvPer point of view.

Having a bit more PvP when queueing for a PvP game mode is a very welcome change, with this point of view in mind.


They can add back the objective game modes when PvP isn't actively discouraged in those.

As a reminder, PVP =/= "killing". It simply means "player versus player". What that "versus" is, can entail many things.

There is no versus anything in walking to empty flags and avoiding the "versus" - that is just a walking simulator.

I'm all for fighting on flags, capturing relics & holding the chaosball - it just shouldn't be conflict free because then you take away the "versus".

Franchise408 wrote: »

This is also a PVE centric game, in a PVE centric IP, with a PVE centric audience, so it only makes sense that PVP'ers would have more of a PVE load to carry than vice versa. It's not outside the norm in the genre either.

You also have your pure killing modes of PVP with Cyrodiil and Imperial City, so removing the only element of PVP diversity in this game remains an invalid decision to make.

I will concede tho that more PVP content would be a positive.

No, it's not outside the norm - but almost every MMO out there has more PvP game modes than ESO does (whether it's open world PvP or competitive arenas, more PvP zones and types of PvP game modes in BGs etc).

And it's not for the lack of PvPers asking for more PvP content. Year after year after year.

And it's why almost every PvPer I've talked to (including myself) is moving on to New World in a couple of weeks.


Doesn't mean they won't come back to ESO some day, but it's very unlikely unless a lot of changes happen in PvP.

Franchise408 wrote: »

But then you have to think, if the game continues to push 4 dungeons and a trial + the numerous overland content year in and year out, with 0 PVP content to match up with it, it's probably due to the fact that this is a PVE centered game where PVE is what is most in demand. This is not Call Of Duty: Tamriel

Yes, hence what I wrote above... and this also is why people are also very defensive when ZOS (for once) tries to promote PvP a little bit.


I sincerely hope we can fight for the objectives some time in the future.

What you call a "walking simulator" has been a staple of objective based PVP for as long as there have been objective based PVP.

It has been going on in games like CounterStrike, Battlefield, even Call of Duty, all sorts of these types of games. Teams going where the enemy isn't, taking objectives that are undefended, and know when to fight or retreat. That's why a game like CounterStrike has multiple bomb plant locations. I can log into the most recent Call Of Duty right now, log into a match, and an organized and coordinated team will be implementing tactics like this.

It happens in this very game in the alternate PVP modes. In Cyrodiil, I can't tell you how many times I've been a part of a coordinated group that attacks the other faction keeps where they aren't at and are undefended. Or attacking district flags in IC while the groups are busy and occupied in other districts, leaving flags open and undefended.

There is no strategic advantage to just crashing into the enemy and fighting just for the sake of fighting. The strategic advantage comes in attacking weaknesses in your opponent and attacking where you can do the most damage while taking the least amount of damage back.

For all this "walking simulator" talk, I can assure you I have never once been in an objective based battleground where there was 0 fighting amongst each other.

I feel like there's this false narrative being drawn up in an attempt to demonize people who don't prefer DM, to put them down as gamers to discredit their views, rather than making an argument against their points.

The *point* is, content was removed, and people now no longer have an option to partake in certain parts of the game. A deathmatch queue 100% should have been implemented (or more accurately, never should have been removed in the first place), but the option to play other battleground types should not have been removed.

Whether you actually like their style of play or not has nothing to do with the fact that it has been removed.

The difference is that in those games you mentioned, dying is actually penalized in objective modes.

In ESO you can run to empty flags, stand there without blocking or fighting back even, die and run to the next empty flag. And win.

Attacking empty keeps in Cyrodiil... I believe that is called PvD (Player vs. Door), not PvP where you fight against other players. Very similar to the problem faced in BGs, but different cause.


By removing the flawed objective modes ZOS can focus on making them better, more similar to those games you mentioned (all of which have better PvP formats than ESO's BGs), so that the majority of PvPers have more options than just deathmatch when it comes to having fun in BGs.

metabLast3r

Franchise408 wrote: »

There is no strategic advantage to just crashing into the enemy and fighting just for the sake of fighting. The strategic advantage comes in attacking weaknesses in your opponent and attacking where you can do the most damage while taking the least amount of damage back.

So you're telling me that strategically pinpointing specific opponents, causing them to be on death cooldown to cause a flag capture not a play? Focusing Chaosball carriers teammate's leaving the carrier wide open? Having the battle sense on your team to figure out which team is the weakest to force points? From your build makeup, down to how good you are with making quick decisions to what skills you have on your bar to include movement. Its ALL strategic. The RNG of your team with little to no experience to ending up in high MMR games, makes the game mode. You can't just run into any PvP mode thinking you can just faceroll the keyboard and win something.

Hell I stopped trying for end game trials a long time ago because of the rotation requirement and repetition. End game PvP is dynamic, every outcome is different. This game will just end up making the skill cap lower and lower.

GuildedLilly

Aldoss--I'm not sure if you were talking about my comment. Greifers was specifically a reference to the behaviors of certain individuals in IC when it comes to PVPers camping quest givers and objectives to slaughter PVErs who are ONLY there for event tickets.

The players I call toxic and trolls are NOT the ones who successfully turn me into gibblets with one blistering burst combo in BGs. Believe it or not-- I actually respect the skill it takes to time things that well, and I'm very curious about their builds when I can tell it's something a bit unique. It's PVP, I'm largely not geared for it-- so if I encounter a player who is, AND has skills-- I know I'm dead, and I probably won't even see you coming. No hard feelings.

I'm kinda impressed--especially if they take me out with a combo I haven't seen before. I'm not upset with those players. I respect the time and effort it took to make their build, get their set pieces, and practice how to turn other players into paste. That's why I'm sincerely glad that the DM queue has returned for them. PVErs aren't a challenge for elite BG players, and I'm happy they're getting the option to only play their favorite battle mode again--- there's just no reason why the rest of us have to be stripped of our preferred BG modes in the process.

I have an issue with the teabaggers and the players who ignore objectives to treat every match like DM because they found the PVErs and are camping them to twerk on their corpses. I have an issue with the teammates who joined solo Q (not premade group) and spend the match cursing the rest of us because we try to play objectives since we can't back them up with kills when they try to slaughter the other teams (despite the fact it's not DM), and die instead. THOSE are the ones who are toxic and trolls, not the roving death squads that melt you and move on.

I agree with Feng Rush, and a lot of the other players: there needs to be a DM queue, and a queue for the other objectives.

I don't mind the non-prat PVP BG players. I accept that I will die--but I try to go down swinging. However, I despise the teabaggers, trolls, and toxic players who deliberately ignore objectives, and intentionally act like jerks. Killing me with a combo in BGs isn't being a jerk-- that's just PVP. Teabagging me? repeatedly? Camping the spawn point of the PVE-geared team on non-DM BGs to twerk on their corpses? Camping quest objectives in IC to slaughter & teabag telvar-broke PVErs who just want their event tickets? That's being a troll. I hate that ZOS routinely caters to them, and has now decided to eliminate all BG modes *except* DM indefinitely.

PS: Earthgore was exceptionally powerful-- and reducing it's group healing factor would have been fine. I liked it because I'd do random vet pugs to help people get their first monster helms, and for vet pugs... teammates standing in stupid is still a real issue that overcomes every HOT other than Barrier, and if they didn't synergize with Blood Feast from the altar I laid down, not even BoL with stacks of illustrious/grand healing, and Mutagen/Rapid Regen will save them. Nerfing Earthgore to only affect one player was overkill IMO, they could have reduced the OP group heal while still keeping the functionality for group play. Symphony of Blades, Sentinel, Nightflame, or Lady Thorn are my go to's now.

Sometimes I swapped in Selletrix for dungeons if the group doesn't need regen beyond shards and orbs but the tank needs help CCing. Dark Convergence has taken it's place---and yes, I'm aware the nerf hammer is coming for DC. If they stripped the damage but kept the aoe pull in some fashion and fixed the physics that are pulling players through walls and floors, it's probably the closest we'll ever come to the aoe taunt tanks have been begging for.

Franchise408

metabLast3r wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

There is no strategic advantage to just crashing into the enemy and fighting just for the sake of fighting. The strategic advantage comes in attacking weaknesses in your opponent and attacking where you can do the most damage while taking the least amount of damage back.

So you're telling me that strategically pinpointing specific opponents, causing them to be on death cooldown to cause a flag capture not a play? Focusing Chaosball carriers teammate's leaving the carrier wide open? Having the battle sense on your team to figure out which team is the weakest to force points? From your build makeup, down to how good you are with making quick decisions to what skills you have on your bar to include movement. Its ALL strategic. The RNG of your team with little to no experience to ending up in high MMR games, makes the game mode. You can't just run into any PvP mode thinking you can just faceroll the keyboard and win something.

Hell I stopped trying for end game trials a long time ago because of the rotation requirement and repetition. End game PvP is dynamic, every outcome is different. This game will just end up making the skill cap lower and lower.

Those things are all strategic, and are my point about objective games being strategic.

metabLast3r

Franchise408 wrote: »

Those things are all strategic, and are my point about objective games being strategic.

Notice, they all require standard PvP is my point though, you still have to perform the art of deathmatch to accomplish those goals.

Urzigurumash

Replace the Chaosball with Volendrung and make that the only mode

Franchise408

metabLast3r wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

Those things are all strategic, and are my point about objective games being strategic.

Notice, they all require standard PvP is my point though, you still have to perform the art of deathmatch to accomplish those goals.

You're arguing against a point I never made. I never said killing people was pointless, I said mindlessly crashing into the enemy solely for the sake of fighting has no strategic advantage.

auz

Pve players that only pvp to level skill lines can have an opinion on bgs and all forms pvp, but we zos shouldn't be designing pvp around you. So what if you have to respec for pvp for a little bit to level your skill lines? Pvpers have to respec pvp toons to pve so they can get undaunted, psijic, fighters and or mages guild and even just to farm gear. It's part of the game. You might even enjoy bgs a little more with a proper pvp build and spec.
Also subscribe to my only fans for an op flag catching build. You will be able to run from empty flag to empty flag faster than everyone else. Bask in the endless amounts of strategy.

luen79rwb17_ESO

Wow sad news.. Cheese builds and tbag kids all around next week I guess. I still gonna play for my daily share of AP and XP tho. But my preferred modes are crazy king, domination and chaos ball.

PVP is not only about fighting other people, is about outplaying them with the tools at your disposal. Playing objectives is about outplaying and outsmarting other teams... Someone said earlier "go to empty flags and win", like if that wasn't the smartest thing to do in that game mode? OFC they will win because they're playing towards that goal whereas DM-only players just go after other people ignoring banners or balls...

Right now the issue with BGs IMO is the constant frustration of players joining in a team with other players that have a different mindset.

The best solution IMO is adding stuff like seasons, having 1 or 2 fixed queues (like current solo and group queues for example) and add 1 extra special queue with a fixed theme that rotates each week (for example, one week DM only, one week Crazy King/ Domination only, etc). Maybe adding new game modes to this special queue, for example, 2v2v2 only; 3v3v3 only and stuff like that. It would be cool.

SimonThesis

SO first we had to deal with people who were ruining battlegrounds by spawn camping and not playing the objectives and ruining the game for their teammates. Now to add insult to injury Zos has just said they've won and so now no one who enjoys playing the objectives can play their favorite battleground modes. This customer service is terrible! People who loved chaosball and capture the relic now preording new world because of this decision.

If they want to increase battleground population increase the rewards simple, more gold and style pages and better weapons etc.

Magio_

SimonThesis wrote: »

This customer service is terrible! People who loved chaosball and capture the relic now preording new world because of this decision.

Obj gamers preordering New World? I doubt it. You have to actually PvP in that game lol.

If anything, this change was made to try and keep the Deathmatch players from leaving to New World lol. Which is probably too little too late tbh.

BalticBlues

FENGRUSH wrote: »

People still trying to convince PvP players that capture the flag takes strategy... please stop.

1. You are confusing "strategy" with "tactics".
2. If you do not know how to use tactics in BGs... please stop.
3. "Deathmath only" means BGs will become "Boring only" to many people

Urvoth

Looking for high IQ gamers to join my flag games premade. Must have a full setup with Coward's Gear, triple Swift jewelry, Wild Hunt mythic, and Steed mundus to be considered. If you try to fight the enemy teams instead of capping flags, you will be kicked. Applicants must be able to demonstrate a deep tactical understanding of running away and standing on uncontested points.

auz

BalticBlues wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

People still trying to convince PvP players that capture the flag takes strategy... please stop.

1. You are confusing "strategy" with "tactics".
2. If you do not know how to use tactics in BGs... please stop.
3. "Deathmath only" means BGs will become "Boring only" to many people

I am not convinced running faster than everyone else is a valid "tactic" for a battle ground. Unfortunately, as it stands, it is a very effective. The problem is and has never been with objective players. It is that the objective sucks. It doesn't encourage conflict. It encourages running from a fight to find an uncontested flag. That should not be battlegrounds pvp. If zos were to bring in a new mode of non combative pvp where the goal was to race around and grab flags, I would be happy for the non combatitive objective players. They can call it sonic at the Olympics or something clever. Also if you would like to complete many and varied objectives with little to no resistance, there is always questing.

Eevee_42

Urvoth wrote: »

Looking for high IQ gamers to join my flag games premade. Must have a full setup with Coward's Gear, triple Swift jewelry, Wild Hunt mythic, and Steed mundus to be considered. If you try to fight the enemy teams instead of capping flags, you will be kicked. Applicants must be able to demonstrate a deep tactical understanding of running away and standing on uncontested points.

Is it okay if I go 2-20 every game? I heard that this was an optimal way to play objective games. I’m sick and tired of these deathmatch fools ruining everything. I just want to stand on flags, hold balls, and capture some relics in peace. I’m not interested in mindless killing, I just want my daily rewards and an easy way to level my alliance war skill lines. Pvp’ers are ruining everything, ZOS needs to stop catering to their every whim. I can’t even complete Fungal Grotto without the old Earthgore anymore either. I hope they all go to New World so that we can stand on our flags undisturbed again.

Stratti

Honestly this is the worst I have seen from a developer in recent memory. Removing the ability to play BGs and only allowing Deathmatch will only ensure you lose more players, more subscribers and people that actually enjoy BG. Also you are gonna see 1 build that will dominate and those people will tune their build just for deathmatch. You have served to remove another part of the game.

wolfie1.0.

FENGRUSH wrote: »

People still trying to convince PvP players that capture the flag takes strategy... please stop.

No more than killing other players in a deathmatch does.

wolfie1.0.

Decimus wrote: »

Baitless version:

The more PvE oriented players worried about now having to do PvP to earn the skills locked behind PvP might want to look at it from the PvPer perspective: we have had to farm dungeons for 7 years now to get BiS gear for PvP builds, and there is no end in sight.

I would also look at the fact that no new PvP content has been added in years (no, a trebuchet emote doesn't count), while PvErs get 4 dungeons and 1-2 trials/arenas each year.


This is the PvPer point of view.

Having a bit more PvP when queueing for a PvP game mode is a very welcome change, with this point of view in mind.


They can add back the objective game modes when PvP isn't actively discouraged in those.

Yet pvpers complain about people abandoning the content and pvp zones only coming alive during events when pve players venture in. There is a post here about someone battling the same group of people every day. How is that a good thing? The focus should be on finding good ways to get pvers into pvp in such a way that they can compete with regular pvpers.

I will also add that many many balance changes for gear, races, classes that have been pvp focused have severely impacted PVE players. The vast majority of balance complaints are from the pvp community.

The other format match did that for me. It got me into BGs because I still had a chance to win with objective points no matter how much I died. It was to the point that I didn't mind the DM modes when they showed up.

Now that they will be gone most of the people I know won't go back in.

Griefclaw

The reason people deathmatch is because there's hardly any rewards and goals in Battlegrounds as a result of this. The rewards that are there, people don't know about or aren't enough to warrant playing the objectives. There's no punishment for not playing the objective. (Obviously kill people in other game modes, but if you are exclusively doing that in a way which makes your team lose, you should suffer in some way eg. less points, which kind of happens currently but if the points are tied to something meaningful then people might think twice). People just use it as an environment to deathmatch in as a result.

If the aim of the game modes gave a bunch of points for doing the objectives and then these points at the end of the game meant something, eg a ranked ladder with rewards tied to your rank, then more people would attempt to play the actual game. If I saw someone walking around with a sick aura on a weapon then realised its from them participating in Battlegrounds and getting to a certain rank, I personally would attempt to give it a go with the aim of getting that. Then perhaps as I grow to like Battlegrounds, become determined to climb the ranks and improve, leading me possibly into other PvP content in turn.

Battlegrounds is insanely fun and an easier way to start PvP for newer players providing clear objectives for them and its a different style of PvP that's really refreshing. A ranked environment with meaningful rewards would help provide some longevity and replayability to the game, some competitive content for those type of people out there, and something to grind / enjoy and show off.

If the reason for not doing this in the past is related to toxicity, new players or other players complaining that rewards are locked behind content they don't want to do etc. that's a poor excuse I find. It can also bring people together, keep people entertained and continuously improving their PvP, and provide awesome challenging rewards which mean something. Ranked/PvP environments are inherently competitive and there will always be toxicity but that's not a reason not to implement something that will have a overall positive impact on the game. And if your the person to complain about rewards being behind content you don't want to do, then a MMO isn't for you, try single player games.

You could also have the ranked environment alongside letting people create their own custom games / just a unranked environment which would also alleviate any issues with people just wanting to play a game mode and not worry about ranked, etc. Going down the path of custom gamemodes could help foster competitions run by guilds and just add another really cool layer to the game, and something much needed for PvP content.


I could be wrong however, as ESO seems to keep going down a more casual playstyle path, and this type of thing definitely isn't that which is a shame. I think something like this could really breath new life into the game and bring back PvP players or at least peak the interest of other players to maybe dive into PvP.

We can't add any more PvP content as the population is already spread too thin across Bgs, Imp city and Cyrodiil, so upgrading and revamping BG's in a way like this seems like a logical step to me.

That or improving Cyrodiil in a similar fashion with more rewards, ranks tied to these rewards, and in general system's like the hammer that provide newer PvPers with an actual aim when they jump into Cyrodiil and not reliant on groups or more experienced PvPers to guide them around the map.

But if something like this is implemented, reward's need to be actually interesting, not consumables, mementos, titles, but more tangible stuff like mounts, pets, aura's??, cosmetic gear that you actually notice (who has actually used the battleground runner style) because otherwise it wont peak the attention of people (newer players that see cool stuff and want it) to jump into the content and give it a go.

Woozywyvern

GuildedLilly wrote: »

One aspect I think hasn't been discussed yet on this thread is PVErs who want to tank or heal MUST do PVP to unlock Warhorn, Barrier, and to a lesser extent caltrops for additional tank CC (I don't hate dark convergence for this reason. Tanks have been begging for an aoe taunt for YEARS-- and not everyone wants to play as a perma-WW tank with tormentor. DC isn't a taunt, but it's an amazing CC without the massive resource drain of silver leashing & chaining everything, or running around stabbing everything with pierce armor/ ransack--it also helps us stack mobs nice and neat for our groups in dungeons and trials to melt them down)

The most efficient way to level Alliance skills lines is the daily bonus BGs--specifically, objective based BGs where we stand a chance of our teams placing 1st or 2nd.

I've noticed a lot of comments from PVPers who are happy DM queue is returning and mocking PVErs with the equivalent of 'git gud', or, if you're not a real PVPer, and don't want to PVP, GTFO. The fact is: many PVErs DON'T want to be in PVP areas to begin with-- We HAVE to be for 2 out of 3 battle roles, and during events, because otherwise needed skills are locked away, and we can't get event rewards--which AREN'T just for PVP events-- they're quarterly. We could be collecting fragments for MONTHS, only to get screwed on the final piece we need because yet again, ZOS is forcing us into IC instead of letting us go to Cyrodil, or converting all BGs to DM.

--BTW ZOS-- don't think I didn't notice the dates of the open ended BG experiment will most likely coicide with the next event and possibly the one after. If tickets are PVP, and tied to IC or BGs, you've effectively given your PVE players no way to avoid feeding trolls.

Look: I get PVP DM fans are happy the DM Queue is returning. Honestly, I'm happy for you. You deserve to have your DM queue back. I know this was something the death squads have been wanting for quite a while. There's just no good reason why ZOS chose to REMOVE the other battle modes as well.

Getting trolled by DM fans teabagging dead PVErs who just want to get Warhorn/Barrier, or event tickets doesn't encourage us to play PVP. It reminds us of all the reasons we HATE IT. Being taunted to 'git gud' at a game mode we despise and are FORCED to play to be effective in PVE as tanks and healers doesn't encourage us either.

I expect to die in PVP. Not all my characters are geared for it, and I hate it, so why bother wasting materials golding out new sets when I'm just there for Warhonr/Barrier, and event tickets? Why bother with the expense of re-speccing my entire character's attribute points, skill points, and CP just so that the 15min I spend in PVP that day won't suck *quite* as badly-- while I've effectively gimped myself for the play-style I actually enjoy and spend the most time with? I'm okay with dying--I try not to, and I go down swinging as best I can--but if someone good at & geared for PVP turns me into little gibblets, so be it.

What I can't stand is the constant teabagging from some BG teams, and the troll behavior. If it wasn't for the teababbing trolls and the teams who treat every BG like DM, PVP in BGs is actually kinda fun. My preference is the objective games, but even DM isn't too awful if no one's being a trolling, teabagging, toxic bully. Those players spoil it for the rest of us-- and now ZOS has effectively given them open season.

I won't be playing BGs for the duration of their experiment. When at all possible, I prefer not to feed the trolls.

Absolutely agree with this. If the change becomes permanent I don't look forward to handicapping many, many groups with my crap PVP skills as i try to grind for AP. But it will happen. At least in the other modes I have achance of winning, getting the daily rewards on my first try and not hampering proper PVP players fun by being useless.

SimonThesis

Griefclaw wrote: »

We can't add any more PvP content as the population is already spread too thin across Bgs, Imp city and Cyrodiil, so upgrading and revamping BG's in a way like this seems like a logical step to me.

No new content for years is one of the reasons the Pvp community is so small. How would Pvers feel if there wasnt a new dungeon, trial, or arena for years.

slimwaffle

@ZOS_GinaBruno @Zos You guys should just be honest. You want to know if you can get away with just having 1 game mode.

(Only having deathmatch)I actually think is a great idea. One of your best ideas in fact. As long as you remove the achievements for the other game modes entirely.

As someone who has been doing Battlegrounds just to get achievements. I can tell you now making things like achievements un-obtainable is likely to make people leave.

But you guys said it yourself deathmatch is your most popular game mode. It would make more sense to focus on just that.
I really hope this is done right and becomes a thing.

I reckon this could be huge and I would love to see a surge of new players from this.

@Zos Please do this one right. Please make this a permanent thing.

Rex-Umbra

Really bad decision. Players who want to just kill Players can do that in any Mode. Players who want to play objectives now are left out of BGs entirely.

MurderMostFoul

Urvoth wrote: »

Looking for high IQ gamers to join my flag games premade. Must have a full setup with Coward's Gear, triple Swift jewelry, Wild Hunt mythic, and Steed mundus to be considered. If you try to fight the enemy teams instead of capping flags, you will be kicked. Applicants must be able to demonstrate a deep tactical understanding of running away and standing on uncontested points.

Would you consider making an exception to include a 70k HP, zero damage, permablocking, bash bot?

Füßchen

jaws343 wrote: »

Is it though?

In each gamemode:

Relic: Players Deathmatching this mode would have to do it either at an enemy relic, at their own relic, or in between relics. So technically, they are playing the game mode by defending their relic, preventing another team from getting to their relic, or preventing another team from taking an opponents relic. They just aren't capturing relics themselves. But neither is that 50K health tank sitting on the relic for 15 minutes preventing everyone from taking it.

Chaos Ball: The objective is to kill other players. So DM players DMing here is the point. The problem with this mode, imo, is that it is horribly balanced in favor of unkillable builds, and one team will often hold for the entire match with almost no chance of actually getting the ball from them.

Domination/Crazy king: If DM players are fighting on flags, they are doing the game mode properly, or at least they are preventing teams from taking those flags with no resistance, as well as tying up a team in a fight, preventing them from capturing flags. Which is also kind of the point.

So players who left the game modes because other players were going for kills speaks volumes already. These are pvp zones and the intention is that things are contested and players kill each other. That isn't for everyone, and that is fine.

You certainly have way more luck than me when doing Battlegrounds then, if that's what you're seeing.
Chaos Ball is the only one that usually works out ok, but I don't know how often I've been in the others and most of the players were NOT fighting on flags or the relics or somewhere it might make sense stragetically so that the other teams can't get near them. They just fought somewhere trying to kill each other and everyone else who came near them or were camping at the spawnpoint of one of the other teams and completely disregarding the objectives.
If they're playing the way you describe it's part of the game and I won't complain about it. But it isn't what is usually happening in my experience.
And a contest you can only win if you manage to get some points yourself, so completely ignoring the objectives doesn't really work out for that.

Füßchen

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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