Upcoming Changes to Battleground Queues

Aldoss

ITT: self-proclaimed PvEers stating that they hate this change because they're bad at PvP, have no interest in trying to get better at PvP, but were still rewarded as if they were better at PvP...

When new changes come out to PvE sets, encounters, or skills that are changed in the PvE environment, I keep my opinions to myself because I know I don't really identify as someone who PvEs. I do a decent amount of it and I'll be happy when the stars align and I finally get unchained, but my knowledge on the subject is vastly lower than others.

You know what happens when 3 of the 4 players in a random vet are bad at PvE? The group disbands and they "lose". There are no mechs that can get a poor dps team past the 2nd boss of vMGF. There are no amount of sigils that will get you past vet Vateshran if you suck at target management. The strategy is to "get better" (if you care to complete it).

Why must that not be the case in a PvP environment? Why have modes that cater at all to people who specifically have stated that they have no intention of progressing their skill with this play style?

CameraBeardThePirate

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.

This argument is, imo, a little silly. Yes, strategy, positioning, and outmaneuvering is a staple of objective based PvP. But all of the games you mentioned still focus on PvP (that is, actual combat and killing). In objective BGs, you can literally win every game without getting a single kill or doing any damage, going 0-20. You cannot do that in the other games you mentioned, period. You can avoid fights for a bit, but there are punishments for dying. If you die in a CS match, you're dead for the round, giving the enemy team a huge advantage (and incentive) to kill you. If you die in a BG, you hit respawn and run to the new flag that just spawned. Easy as that, there are no punishments for dying, and no rewards for killing. That is poor game design no matter how you look at it.

TequilaFire

I am ashamed at how selfish some of my fellow PvP players are who can't cope with the idea of alternative modes of play.
As long as there is a death match queue what is the problem?
Not enough PvP players? Well ZOS should be looking in the mirror on that one.

Greasytengu

TequilaFire wrote: »

I am ashamed at how selfish some of my fellow PvP players are who can't cope with the idea of alternative modes of play.
As long as there is a death match queue what is the problem?
Not enough PvP players? Well ZOS should be looking in the mirror on that one.

its part of an alarming trend of ZOS removing things from PVP and people applauding them for it.

CameraBeardThePirate

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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

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

Franchise408

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

CameraBeardThePirate

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not disagreeing that there should be separate queues at all.

To your point that you've never seen this happen, well of course. Most people want to fight. But there are a select few players that I'm sure you've seen (who I will not name because pretty sure that's against forum rules) that routinely win the objective modes singlehandedly for their entire team by avoiding any and all fights and getting very few, if any, kills. If anything, this is even worse than my hypothetical scenario, because a single player can ruin the rest of the player's experience because the modes are designed so poorly that they can end the match quickly and relatively easily without ever even fighting.

Franchise408

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not disagreeing that there should be separate queues at all.

To your point that you've never seen this happen, well of course. Most people want to fight. But there are a select few players that I'm sure you've seen (who I will not name because pretty sure that's against forum rules) that routinely win the objective modes singlehandedly for their entire team by avoiding any and all fights and getting very few, if any, kills. If anything, this is even worse than my hypothetical scenario, because a single player can ruin the rest of the player's experience because the modes are designed so poorly that they can end the match quickly and relatively easily without ever even fighting.

If you're not disagreeing with separate queues, then what happens in those alternate game modes should be no issue, just as what happens in Cyrodiil or Imperial City is not my issue, since I'm not particularly a fan of PVP in this game.

I don't like mindless killing of other players. It has nothing to do with how good or bad I am, it has to do with my preferences of how I like to play. I like games that have a bit more objective and strategy to them, so I prefer the capture and flag games. From what I see, the problem isn't so much that people can avoid fighting, because I've never seen that in a battleground, but that a segment of the player base disagrees with the methods of fighting being done. I see a lot of people who love their super burst insta-death builds, while saying "learn to protect against it", but then when people learn to protect against it, with say... high health and high resistance builds that can withstand such bursts and not die, then people complain about "perma-block tanks". It is said that perma-block tanks make PVP no fun, but on the flip side, I don't find that super-burst insta-death DPS builds to be any fun either, but in an RPG with such wide build variety, it is bound to happen.

It is not an invalid strategy to have your super burst insta-death builds, it is not invalid strategy to tank up to defend against it, deathmatch is not void of strategy, as there can be teamwork and collaboration used to gain an upper hand, and non-deathmatch games that reward people for attacking unguarded objectives is not an invalid strategy either.

But as has been said in this thread by myself and others, I have never once entered an objective battleground where there was no fighting or death, and not just from the people who treat it like deathmatch, just as when I have entered deathmatch games, it's never been an experience of 3 coordinated teams trying to strategize against each other, rather than a bunch of people just crashing into each other, with the super burst insta-kill builds dominating over everyone else.

PhoenixGrey

This change will force players to PVP in a PVP game mode. Will work as intended now

GuildedLilly

Aldoss wrote: »

ITT: self-proclaimed PvEers stating that they hate this change because they're bad at PvP, have no interest in trying to get better at PvP, but were still rewarded as if they were better at PvP...

When new changes come out to PvE sets, encounters, or skills that are changed in the PvE environment, I keep my opinions to myself because I know I don't really identify as someone who PvEs. I do a decent amount of it and I'll be happy when the stars align and I finally get unchained, but my knowledge on the subject is vastly lower than others.

You know what happens when 3 of the 4 players in a random vet are bad at PvE? The group disbands and they "lose". There are no mechs that can get a poor dps team past the 2nd boss of vMGF. There are no amount of sigils that will get you past vet Vateshran if you suck at target management. The strategy is to "get better" (if you care to complete it).

Why must that not be the case in a PvP environment? Why have modes that cater at all to people who specifically have stated that they have no intention of progressing their skill with this play style?

*When changes come to existing sets and skills in PVE, it's almost ALWAYS because of PVPers.
*You know what happens currently in BG when 3 of 4 players are bad at playing match objectives, regardless of whether that's killing other players, flags, relics, or chaos ball? They lose. They don't get the daily bonus. Also--considering BGs are currently non-champ, your comparison to Vet PVE content is irrelevant, because EVERYONE in vet content can access CP-- and normal dungeon Qs exist for those who just want to have fun.
*Why have modes other than Death Match?
1. Because DM alone is boring.
2. Because a variety of objectives encourages a variety of builds, play styles, tactics and strategies-- it's a hell of a lot more fun than a single mode.
3. Because not all players, regardless of whether they are PVE or PVP, are elite end gamers--and giving them an opportunity to play PVP in a way that doesn't pit them head to head with BiS Meta players & groups to get slaughtered encourages more people to play
4. Because if you actually WANT more PVP content, or PVP players, it makes ZERO sense to get rid of existing content and *** off a significant portion of players who liked the variety they had, so they abandon BGs--and ZOS has even LESS reason to make new PVP content because the playerbase is constantly shrinking

PVErs don't have the same crit resistance and burst builds as players built for PVP, but PVErs can actually do fairly well in BGs other than DM, because we PAY ATTENTION to the objective. Players who only care about their PKs don't. That's not the fault of PVErs. Are you seriously complaining that PVErs don't just stand there to get ganked when they see your team coming? Or that you got so distracted slaughtering the rest of their team AWAY from any objectives you didn't pay any attention to the one that got away and capped a flag or stole your relic? Not the fault of PVErs. You may not like the way some of us play--but we're under no obligation to lose just because we're easier to kill. We do fight in BGs, and it typically doesn't end all that well for us--but if it distracts the PVP berserkers long enough for our teammate to get the objective, then we die for the good of the team. We will lay down speed buffs, shields, blood altars, and function as squishy meat shields and bait to protect our teammates and distract our opponents. We throw out orbs and DOTs to reveal stealthed enemies. A lot of us ARE using strategies and tactics, and when we can, we play to win-- PVPers who don't focus on objectives and lose the match because of it have no one to blame but themselves.

For the record, while I mostly PVE, I have a couple of PVP toons. I've tanked for squads on patrolling horror runs in IC, I've lost count of the times I've killed Molag Bol, I've captured districts and killed plenty of gankers--but not always before they managed to bomb half my team to oblivion. I've killed gankers camping quest objectives to prey on PVErs who just want their events tickets, I've killed gankers lurking outside the alliance base in sewers. I've played in Cyrodil and help Capture Keeps, Castles, resources, and I've been on scroll runs and defended invasions. I have EVERY skyshard from Cyrodil and IC. I HAVE the battleground achievements & style pages-- I just don't see the point in going through all of that on every alt I have.

I also don't see the point in stripping variety from the game or making it harder for PVErs who truly don't have a choice in PVP because ZOS chose to lock skills they need to be effective in their battle roles behind the Alliance War. BGs can be fun (without toxic players)-- and they're easier to get in and out of than IC or Cyrodil. They're easier to level alliance skill lines. They *can* be a great way to get players into PVP--until the teabagging trolls ruin it.

I'm glad the DM only queue will be restored for the players who like that mode--BUT: There is no reason to remove the other battlemodes--it does nothing help enrich PVP, or draw in new players, or even entertain the existing ones who liked the variety they had.

jaws343

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Franchise408 wrote: »

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Füßchen wrote: »

FENGRUSH wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not disagreeing that there should be separate queues at all.

To your point that you've never seen this happen, well of course. Most people want to fight. But there are a select few players that I'm sure you've seen (who I will not name because pretty sure that's against forum rules) that routinely win the objective modes singlehandedly for their entire team by avoiding any and all fights and getting very few, if any, kills. If anything, this is even worse than my hypothetical scenario, because a single player can ruin the rest of the player's experience because the modes are designed so poorly that they can end the match quickly and relatively easily without ever even fighting.

If you're not disagreeing with separate queues, then what happens in those alternate game modes should be no issue, just as what happens in Cyrodiil or Imperial City is not my issue, since I'm not particularly a fan of PVP in this game.

I don't like mindless killing of other players. It has nothing to do with how good or bad I am, it has to do with my preferences of how I like to play. I like games that have a bit more objective and strategy to them, so I prefer the capture and flag games. From what I see, the problem isn't so much that people can avoid fighting, because I've never seen that in a battleground, but that a segment of the player base disagrees with the methods of fighting being done. I see a lot of people who love their super burst insta-death builds, while saying "learn to protect against it", but then when people learn to protect against it, with say... high health and high resistance builds that can withstand such bursts and not die, then people complain about "perma-block tanks". It is said that perma-block tanks make PVP no fun, but on the flip side, I don't find that super-burst insta-death DPS builds to be any fun either, but in an RPG with such wide build variety, it is bound to happen.

It is not an invalid strategy to have your super burst insta-death builds, it is not invalid strategy to tank up to defend against it, deathmatch is not void of strategy, as there can be teamwork and collaboration used to gain an upper hand, and non-deathmatch games that reward people for attacking unguarded objectives is not an invalid strategy either.

But as has been said in this thread by myself and others, I have never once entered an objective battleground where there was no fighting or death, and not just from the people who treat it like deathmatch, just as when I have entered deathmatch games, it's never been an experience of 3 coordinated teams trying to strategize against each other, rather than a bunch of people just crashing into each other, with the super burst insta-kill builds dominating over everyone else.

I think the problem lies in the XvXvX nature of BGs for Relic at least. While tanky builds are a problem imo in these game modes, having a 3 team system makes them even worse.

What you end up with in a lot of Relic games is 1 team with an unkillable tank sitting on their relic. So both the other teams avoid that relic because it is a waste of time. And then they fight against eachother for their relics. But if they don't also have a tank, those two teams are just trading players back and forth to die while the team with the tank is just taking relics out from under them. It's terribly imbalanced. And even worse when all three teams have that tanky type player because then nothing gets taken and it's just a stalemate for 15 minutes.

Chaos ball and the opening bits of Crazy King are probably the bet objective modes. At least they have objectives that force players together. Later stages of Crazy king just turn into domination too much and spread everything out too much. And unfortunately, Chaos ball is plagued by the same tanky characters as Relic. These are builds that are designed to tank zergs in cyrodil. There is pretty much nothing 2 teams of 4 could do to them. And they take the chaos ball and just hold it for the entire match alone mostly.

I've mentioned it already but I think a few simple changes would make these modes more enjoyable without compromising what they are:

Relic: Just lose the 3 teams and do to teams of 6. Or, have 3 teams, but only 1 relic. And have the relic randomly spawn when captured. Force the teams to all converge on the relic and run it back to their base, but respawn it elsewhere when dropped.

Chaos Ball: This should also respawn when dropped, randomly on the map. Initial spawn in the middle like normal and then random after that. And either the damage from carrying needs to increase or healing needs to be severely punished, to avoid 1 player being able to hold the ball most of the match. (I've personally won this match by carrying the ball twice on a non tanky DPS character just using really good healing and LOS, and actually being tanky makes this worse imo).

Domination: Should really just be King of the Hill. 1 flag, whatever team holds it the longest wins.

Crazy King: Should just be rotating King of the Hill. 1 flag that moves around the map, whatever team holds it the longest wins.

IMO, these changes to the game modes would make them pretty great. As it is now, outside of maybe Crazy King and Chaos ball, I despise getting objective modes in the queue. They are incredibly boring.

Woozywyvern

PhoenixGrey wrote: »

This change will force players to PVP in a PVP game mode. Will work as intended now

Which is fine, let the PVP players have PVP modes. As long as ZOS move the skill lines from being AP advancement I have no issues with PVP players having whatever floats their boat.

jaws343

Woozywyvern wrote: »

PhoenixGrey wrote: »

This change will force players to PVP in a PVP game mode. Will work as intended now

Which is fine, let the PVP players have PVP modes. As long as ZOS move the skill lines from being AP advancement I have no issues with PVP players having whatever floats their boat.

But the skill lines are PVP skills lines. Their usefulness in PVE play is mostly irrelevant. You should HAVE to do PVP to earn them.

Franchise408

jaws343 wrote: »

Woozywyvern wrote: »

PhoenixGrey wrote: »

This change will force players to PVP in a PVP game mode. Will work as intended now

Which is fine, let the PVP players have PVP modes. As long as ZOS move the skill lines from being AP advancement I have no issues with PVP players having whatever floats their boat.

But the skill lines are PVP skills lines. Their usefulness in PVE play is mostly irrelevant. You should HAVE to do PVP to earn them.

War Horn and Barrier are basically essential to PVE. You won't ever hear about organized PVE groups without those.

Vigor is pretty relevant in PVE, both for group and solo content.

Saying the PVP skills are irrelevant to PVE is like saying class, weapon, and guild skills are irrelevant to PVP.

CameraBeardThePirate

Franchise408 wrote: »

If you're not disagreeing with separate queues, then what happens in those alternate game modes should be no issue, just as what happens in Cyrodiil or Imperial City is not my issue, since I'm not particularly a fan of PVP in this game.

I don't like mindless killing of other players. It has nothing to do with how good or bad I am, it has to do with my preferences of how I like to play. I like games that have a bit more objective and strategy to them, so I prefer the capture and flag games. From what I see, the problem isn't so much that people can avoid fighting, because I've never seen that in a battleground, but that a segment of the player base disagrees with the methods of fighting being done. I see a lot of people who love their super burst insta-death builds, while saying "learn to protect against it", but then when people learn to protect against it, with say... high health and high resistance builds that can withstand such bursts and not die, then people complain about "perma-block tanks". It is said that perma-block tanks make PVP no fun, but on the flip side, I don't find that super-burst insta-death DPS builds to be any fun either, but in an RPG with such wide build variety, it is bound to happen.

It is not an invalid strategy to have your super burst insta-death builds, it is not invalid strategy to tank up to defend against it, deathmatch is not void of strategy, as there can be teamwork and collaboration used to gain an upper hand, and non-deathmatch games that reward people for attacking unguarded objectives is not an invalid strategy either.

But as has been said in this thread by myself and others, I have never once entered an objective battleground where there was no fighting or death, and not just from the people who treat it like deathmatch, just as when I have entered deathmatch games, it's never been an experience of 3 coordinated teams trying to strategize against each other, rather than a bunch of people just crashing into each other, with the super burst insta-kill builds dominating over everyone else.

Why should it not be my concern, as a PvPer, if the gamemodes I play have inherent problems? Even if there are separate queues, that doesn't mean the game modes can't be improved upon and be made more fun and more competitive for all players. I'm also not stating that playing to the objective, positioning, or picking fights are a bad thing, but the current state of the objective modes make those way more viable than actually fighting. That is where the problem lies in my opinion.

GuildedLilly

But the skill lines are PVP skills lines. Their usefulness in PVE play is mostly irrelevant. You should HAVE to do PVP to earn them.

You couldn't be more wrong on this. The skills locked behind Alliance War are INCREDIBLY relevant to PVE play, especially for tanks and healers-- which are 2 out of 3 battle roles.

Lets break this down, shall we?

Assault:
Ultimate: Warhorn --needed for tanks and healers
Vigor: Stamina heal-- needed in many stam builds so they can self heal while enjoying solo PVE content, occasionally picked up by tanks to help during challenging trials and vet dungeons, and nearly required for stam-based healers (yes, they exist)
Rapid manuevers: While strictly speaking not needed (anywhere, PVP or PVE) have you SEEN the size of PVE zones? If you think Cyrodil's map is big-- it's just 1 map. Try stacking another 15 or so zones worth.
Caltrops: Great aoe DOT & cc for stam builds, used in most of the PVE groups I've seen
Magicka Detonation: useful for magika builds, great when there are large mobs
Major Gallop (passive): For PVPers, this is only really useful in Cyrodil. For PVErs, it's useful in every single zone.

Support
Ultimate: Barrier-- extremely powerful & useful in PVE Vet content when damage would otherwise be capable of wiping the group. Tanks and healers often have this. Only mildly useful in PVP, current meta sets melt right through it
Seige shield: fine-- PVP can keep it, useless in PVE
Purge: Very useful in Vet trials and any combat where constant powerful debuffs and poisons are applied to the group--and yes, PVE has those fights.
Guard: Useful when tanks are protecting new or low level players in PVE during their first dungeon runs, but if you want to take it away, fine.
Revealing Flare: PVP can keep it
Magicka aid (passive): incredibly useful for PVE healers with Barrier slotted

So... out of all the skills locked behind Alliance War, only 3 are actually irrelevant to PVE, and several are basically required for endgame content if you play 2 out of 3 battle roles, and ALL of the Assault skills are useful & relevant in PVE.

For passives, Major Gallop (under continuous attack), and Magicka aid are the only ones that are useful for PVE

AScarlato

This is awful. Battlegrounds were fun because you could use strategy to win matches regardless of just mindlessly killing other players.

I even used to sell ESO pvp to people who aren't PVPers by saying they can play the mini-games of battlegrounds and still succeed.

This experiment is garbage.

jaws343

GuildedLilly wrote: »

But the skill lines are PVP skills lines. Their usefulness in PVE play is mostly irrelevant. You should HAVE to do PVP to earn them.

You couldn't be more wrong on this. The skills locked behind Alliance War are INCREDIBLY relevant to PVE play, especially for tanks and healers-- which are 2 out of 3 battle roles.

Lets break this down, shall we?

Assault:
Ultimate: Warhorn --needed for tanks and healers
Vigor: Stamina heal-- needed in many stam builds so they can self heal while enjoying solo PVE content, occasionally picked up by tanks to help during challenging trials and vet dungeons, and nearly required for stam-based healers (yes, they exist)
Rapid manuevers: While strictly speaking not needed (anywhere, PVP or PVE) have you SEEN the size of PVE zones? If you think Cyrodil's map is big-- it's just 1 map. Try stacking another 15 or so zones worth.
Caltrops: Great aoe DOT & cc for stam builds, used in most of the PVE groups I've seen
Magicka Detonation: useful for magika builds, great when there are large mobs
Major Gallop (passive): For PVPers, this is only really useful in Cyrodil. For PVErs, it's useful in every single zone.

Support
Ultimate: Barrier-- extremely powerful & useful in PVE Vet content when damage would otherwise be capable of wiping the group. Tanks and healers often have this. Only mildly useful in PVP, current meta sets melt right through it
Seige shield: fine-- PVP can keep it, useless in PVE
Purge: Very useful in Vet trials and any combat where constant powerful debuffs and poisons are applied to the group--and yes, PVE has those fights.
Guard: Useful when tanks are protecting new or low level players in PVE during their first dungeon runs, but if you want to take it away, fine.
Revealing Flare: PVP can keep it
Magicka aid (passive): incredibly useful for PVE healers with Barrier slotted

So... out of all the skills locked behind Alliance War, only 3 are actually irrelevant to PVE, and several are basically required for endgame content if you play 2 out of 3 battle roles, and ALL of the Assault skills are useful & relevant in PVE.

For passives, Major Gallop (under continuous attack), and Magicka aid are the only ones that are useful for PVE

My point is, where the skills are used should not dictate the type of gameplay required to achieve them.

These skils are earned in PVP with PVP advancement. Just because they are valuable in PVE activities should have ZERO impact on the way the skills are earned.

So no, just because Warhorn is a valuable tool for a PVE tank doesn't mean that they should be able to avoid PVP to earn it since it is a PVP earned skill.

auz

We will swap you. You take the alliance skill line to pve. You give us undaunted, psjic, mages, and fighters.

GuildedLilly

auz wrote: »

We will swap you. You take the alliance skill line to pve. You give us undaunted, psjic, mages, and fighters.

[snip]
In WHAT possible realm outside of Shivering Isles would a 'swap' of 4 skill lines for 1 make any sense?

Tell you what--- if ZOS is willing, you can swap Fighters Guild for the Alliance skill line. FG can currently be leveled by grinding Dolmens & Daily Fighters guild Quests, Alliance can be leveled by grinding BGs, Cyrodil, and IC & their respective quests. If FG is moved to Alliance War, it can still be leveled by BG, Cyrodil, IC, and their respective quests--you're fighting, after all (or aiding the fight by capturing resources and scouting). If Alliance War was moved to PVE and could be leveled grinding dolmens-- hey, it's in defense of Nirn and the alliance territory you're currently in, right? Then it's a fair trade.

Undaunted, Psijic, and especially MAGES guild?! Keep dreaming, and welcome to the suck. ZOS purposefully made leveling those skill lines a royal, festering PITA to level for ALL players. You're seriously deluded if you think PVErs are content with how those lines level-- especially Mages. I feel so sorry for the console players without the lore book addon--though the stream today gave me some hope that in update 32, they'll finally get some relief. They'll be getting the equivalent of the skyshard addon at last, so maybe there's hope for lore books as well.

I honestly don't understand why some PVPers are up in arms when PVErs are protesting the REMOVAL OF PVP CONTENT. Granted, it may not be your favorite content, or your favorite battle mode-- but it's not like you've got that much to choose from, so the fact that you're ok with getting even LESS makes no sense to me.

The objective based BGs were fun and allowed players of all skill levels, builds, and gear types a chance to score in the top two teams IF they played towards the match objectives. Removing ALL other battle modes except for Death Match essentially ONLY works for endgame, BiS Meta PVPers & organized pre-made groups--everyone else gets curb-stomped.

For the PVPers who wanted DM only Queues returned, I'm glad you got your wish-- they never should have been removed. However: There was no reason to remove the other battle modes.

[edited for rude/insulting comment]

auz

You are complaining about having to pvp to level skill lines. Complaining that you don't want to respect pve to pvp to level them. You have to level 2 skill lines that level at the same time. But pvpers have 3 or 4 or 5 pve based skill lines to level all via vastly different methods. Who is really getting the short end of the stick?
Also no one asked to have just dm. Zos will do their test. It won't last long. Not with the amount of noise being made. You would think someone had said "nerf cloak" or "removing procsets" with all the crying going on at the moment. All the objective lovers will be able to go back to their "tactical" gameplay soon.

VaranisArano

auz wrote: »

You are complaining about having to pvp to level skill lines. Complaining that you don't want to respect pve to pvp to level them. You have to level 2 skill lines that level at the same time. But pvpers have 3 or 4 or 5 pve based skill lines to level all via vastly different methods. Who is really getting the short end of the stick?
Also no one asked to have just dm. Zos will do their test. It won't last long. Not with the amount of noise being made. You would think someone had said "nerf cloak" or "removing procsets" with all the crying going on at the moment. All the objective lovers will be able to go back to their "tactical" gameplay soon.

Keep in mind that players know that without that "crying", ZOS is liable to listen to the loudest voices in favor of the change to Deathmatch-only.

After all, consider that at one point, ZOS intended to remove proc sets from PVP entirely because they only heard good things about it in the first portion of the trial. Players who didn't like that playstyle didn't speak up...until ZOS announced that, and then they rushed to complain. ZOS quickly backtracked.

So the players complaining now are wise to do so. In fact, their "crying" now is what ensures that they will eventually get their objective modes back. If they didn't speak out now, that's when they run the risk of ZOS deciding that objective-modes should be replaced permanently.

Adremal

I'll still queue for the daily rewards but I won't be enjoying it. DM (actually Team DM) is the least interesting game mode to me. The reasoning behind this change is... well, let's just say it'd be wise to look at what the removal of PvP game modes did to other games too.

GuildedLilly

auz wrote: »

You are complaining about having to pvp to level skill lines. Complaining that you don't want to respect pve to pvp to level them. You have to level 2 skill lines that level at the same time. But pvpers have 3 or 4 or 5 pve based skill lines to level all via vastly different methods. Who is really getting the short end of the stick?
Also no one asked to have just dm. Zos will do their test. It won't last long. Not with the amount of noise being made. You would think someone had said "nerf cloak" or "removing procsets" with all the crying going on at the moment. All the objective lovers will be able to go back to their "tactical" gameplay soon.

Me stating that PVErs have to level PVP skill lines to be effective in PVE isn't complaining, it's fact.
Me explaining that DM only BGs will make it more difficult for PVErs to level those skill lines isn't complaining, it's fact.
Me explaining which PVP skills are essential and useful in PVE isn't complaining, it's fact.
Me stating removing PVP Content in favor of a single BG DM mode that will only benefit end-game BiS PVP meta players and toxic PVP trolls is a MASSIVE mistake that hurts PVErs and players who aren't end game *IS* me complaining--with good reason.

Those 3-5 additional skill lines that all have VERY different ways of leveling? Mostly optional for PVP IF you're playing objective BGs. Even in DM with elite squads, I seldom see a mages guild meteor, but I take plenty of dawnbreakers and ballistas to the back. Frenzied Momentum and Deep Thoughts from the psijic skill line seem to be pretty popular-- but that's because PVP BiS meta encourages burst builds with NO sustain, so you slot a skill that gives you endless resources. Time stop is another one that's popular with Death Squads-- nothing like shanking an opponent that can't fight back. Everything you're complaining about exists due to BiS meta end-game for PVP, but it wasn't necessary for objective BGs. It IS more needed in DM, and it's the short end of the stick the elite PVPers are shanking you with, so don't blame PVErs. A casual PVPer or PVEr could both win in objective BGs just by having teams that paid attention to the objectives of the match. Removing objective BGs doesn't just shaft PVErs, it shafts every player who isn't currently an end-game geared and skilled PVPer with an obsession for PKs. It shafts EVERY player who actually liked variety in battle modes.

There is no good reason to remove every other battle mode. There is no good reason to further reduce the already small amount of PVP content in the game. There is no good reason why ZOS continues to cater to a small portion of the most toxic elements of their player base at the expense of the rest (and no-- non-teabagging/trolling elite PVPers, I'm not talking about you. I respect your skills, and if we meet in BGs, IC, or Cyrodil when I'm on my PVE toons, I'll give it my best effort, but honestly? We who are about to die salute you ).

DM BG Queue is back-- and congrats for the players who love it.

Objectives Battlegrounds shouldn't be removed in the process.

auz

I agree. Zos did not need to remove objective game modes to test how many people want DM. A separate que would have shown that pretty easily, I think.
Apart from vigor, which is the first skill you receive for participating in pvp, all the other skill are as necessary in pve as dawnbreaker or undaunted is to pvp. In that it is great to have them, but not strictly speaking necessary. I assume you are alluding to the skills that are helpful in a trials situation and ask, would you accept team mates in pvp set ups into your trials for vet content and expect that they should be able to complete easily? Building for pve and feeling entitled to be competitive in bgs is the same? Different?
Also frenzied momentum is the 2h weapon from vateshran. Another instance of pvpers grinding pve for bis gear.
I hope they bring objective bgs back soon. I also hope they adjust the objectives to encourage healthier pvp. And I hope they stop trying to balance pvp around people that don't want to pvp.

Aldoss

GuildedLilly wrote: »

PVErs don't have the same crit resistance and burst builds as players built for PVP, but PVErs can actually do fairly well in BGs other than DM, because we PAY ATTENTION to the objective.

The fact that you don't see the immense privilege and hypocrisy while writing that sentence is amazing.

Literally every PvPer sucks it up and does what they don't want to do (PvE) because they know that the benefits and gear rewards that come from it are useful to them when they PvP. They change their CP, they change their skills, they change their gear and assume the role that suits them best and join groups as if they are PvErs, because for that moment in time, they are.

What they don't do is join random vet groups in PvP gear and start harassing their group mates about how they're not PvErs so they shouldn't have to change their skills, their gear, their CP, or whatever else is expected of them. When they do, they're kicked from the group.

I ran a vBRP once with a group of PvPers who literally have never run it on vet before and we completed it in less than 2 hours. It was the weirdest PvE experience I've ever had because the healer was doing damage, the dps were managing their own health, no one was standing in stupid or getting hit by heavies, and they learned and adapted to mechs on the fly. It took my PvE group months of practice to progress and finally complete it. I'm not saying they're better at PvE, but I am saying that your privilege doesn't work the opposite way 'round. If PvPers aren't good enough at PvE'ing, it ruins many of their their build options. PainInTheAxx is one of the top score solo arena runners and it's not because he's using a PvP build when he does it.

Again, no BGer is happy that your choice is getting removed [temporarily]. We are, and have every right to be, happy that for the first time in over a year, when we queue for a BG, we'll actually get the mode that we queued for the most prior to the whole "group queue" update.

For the last year, you got your desired mode 84% of the time. I've gone entire sessions without ever getting a DM. The other night I got Domination 5 times in a row.

I, and I suspect every other BGer, is with you that it sucks and is arguably the stupidest decision for ZOS to make to literally remove content for an undisclosed amount of time. All we wanted was the choice put back into the system. I hear you. I'm with you.

What this topic has devolved into is a debate on whether or not objective modes should continue (because they currently do) cater to non-PvP players, and that's what my comment you quoted was regarding. Most of the BGers I know are totally fine with Chaosball and Crazy King (for the first half of the mode). They're modes that actually incorporate the PvP spirit and bolster it through its objectives. The same cannot be said about Relic or Domination. These modes need some serious reworking UNLESS they were actively designed by ZOS to cater to PvErs.

If ZOS intended for these objective modes to cater to players who just want to benefit from PvP rewards without actually PvP'ing, then by all means, ZOS can keep offering them and I won't say a peep so long as I'm given the option to avoid it.

DreadDaedroth

Restore the original queue system. Problems solved.

GuildedLilly

[snip]

1. Stop comparing Objective BGs to Vet PVE content. They're not remotely the same thing, and don't require even remotely the same skill level--Especially if you're rolling in the Solo Queue and not pre-made groups.
2. If anything, Objective BGs have more in common with random Normal dungeons. Sometimes random dungeons have fake tanks and healers, sometimes players stand in stupid, sometimes the DPS does no damage, and sometimes they don't know fight mechanics. Sometimes objective BGs have 'fake' PVPers, who are just PVErs trying to level alliance lines and do their best, but they're not playing at the same level as a BiS Meta PVP player who can melt them with 3 dizzying swings. You know what? that's fine. I view Objective BGs and Normal Dungeons as casual content--it's meant to be fun. Anyone can participate.
3. Death Match BGs are meant to be highly competitive. They are made specifically for Player Kills, and favor only the best skilled, geared, & built PVP players. They are end-game, in your face PVP devoted to slaughter. Casual players get curb stomped, regardless of whether they're PVE or PVP. For at least the 7th time: I'm glad PVPers have their DM queue back. I vehemently disagree with the removal of the other battle modes in the process.
4. I don't feel entitled to be competitive in PVE gear in a PVP DM. I highly doubt any PVEr does.
5. PVErs have a fighting chance in Objective BGs because they actually pay attention to match mechanics, and too many PK obsessed PVPers don't. That is not hypocrisy or privilege--that is calling out players who by all rights should wipe the floor with us (AND DO) when they actually play for match objectives instead of just body counts.
6. PVErs have to suck it up and go to PVP to get skills that are regarded as the MINIMUM requirements for their roles, PVPers go to PVE for BiS end game gear and skills. PVE tanks, healers, and stam builds are functionally gimped if we don't have Alliance War skills, while PVPers can win practically EVERY Objective BG without ever setting foot in a PVE zone after level 10 if they play match mechanics.
7. Both play styles have to suck it up, but PVPers have normal dungeon Queues, normal arenas, and normal trials aka: "easy mode" to get them trained up with only minorly less powerful gear and weapons than the Vet perfected versions. If they want to progress to Vet content in their BiS Meta hunt, so be it.
8. PVErs HAD objective BGs aka: 'easy mode' PVP where we could get our required skills and get out--but that's gone now. Zerg surfing in Cyrodil works if you know when and where the Zergs are--which most PVErs do not-- and by the time we reach where zone chat said the zerg would be, it's over. Zerg surfing is also slower and not nearly as convenient as daily BG rewards.
9. PVPers still have their PVE 'easy mode'--where quite a few of them are carried. PVErs and casual gamers just lost our PVP 'easy mode'--and quite a few of us were actually doing fairly well at it despite facing off against much more powerful opponents because we focused on the match mechanics, while they focused on melting noobs.
10. For those hoping ZOS stops trying to balance pvp around people that don't want to pvp ...You already got your wish. ZOS has been requiring PVErs to go to IC during events for years when there's no real reason we couldn't go to Cyrodil instead--except that IC forces us into close proximity with Gankers. ZOS announced DM only BG queues for an indefinite amount of time when there's no real reason why Objective BGs had to be taken away...except that ZOS has decided PKs are the only type of PVP that matters in BGs. ZOS has restricted and eliminated the PVP content that most appealed to casual gamers and PVErs.

[edited for baiting]

auz

1. No, you don't treat it like vet pve. There is a difference. Pvpers have heaps of builds and sets and are constantly doing everything they can go get an edge.
2. That is an opinion, not a rule. And refer to point 1.
3. Zos removed any semblance of difference in standard of competivness when the scrapped the separate game mode que. All bgs count for the same.
4. Ok. Cool. But in objectives...
5. Pvers that put in effort and try to optimise their team have a chance in every game mode. Especially with low mmr. In a solo que there is a good chance you will be matched with experienced players. Stick to them and enjoy the ride.
6. I promise you, dawnbreaker on a stamina warden is just as important as barrier on a healer. And then if you want to Min max, undaunted is necessary. Everyone can win bgs at level 10. You literally don't even need much of a heal. Scaling is your friend.
7. Can't get monster sets from normal. And I can get perfected weapons to buff my stat's a little more. Fact is Pvpers have to get reasonably good at pve and farm pve gear to go get the bis pvp gear. Suck it up. The grind is part of the game.
8. Yeah, Pvers wanted the rewards of pvp without pvping. That's how this started?
9. Once again, Can't get monsters from norm, or purple jewellery or perfected weapons.
10. I don't understand what that has to do with balance? I don't care if you ic or not. I don't even care if they give you the rewards or achievements and you don't compete. I don't even know what they are. But if I see you in ic, I want your telvar. Do you miss me when I don't participate in new life or witches or any of the non pvp events? Was there one where you had to kill dragons? I am not sure.
And 11. Don't stress. You will get what you want. Zos doesn't like pvpers. And hasn't for a long time. Instead of encouraging skill and people to get better, they do everything they can to close the skill gap. I would love if there was a competitive pvp portion of the game. But there isn't.
Zos will do their tests. You might have to do a couple extra bgs a day to get your rewards then zos will take it all back to normal. Maybe with a separate DM que. Probably not.
Enjoy.

Skoomah

I believe the conclusion from the long list of feedback from all these players is that players should be given the choice to either queue for Deathmatch OR Flag Games. There's no reason to keep the two players bases together since they have diametrically opposing views on what is enjoyable and what is unenjoyable to play.

And just like any other game, dlc, or zone... players will vote with their feet and stop playing a piece of content that they no longer enjoy, hence the Deathmatch crowd continuing to ignore objectives and ruining it for the Objective and vice versa.

If the queues aren't taken a serious look at, it's the equivalent of forcing two absolutely different player bases into an unhappy marriage.