What's Wrong With Battlegrounds?

MEBengalsFan2001

Battlegrounds does need to be reworked.

Deathmatch won't solve anything. It may actually make things worst.

The timer after you die needs to go away or be reduced, I think 5-10 seconds would be more than enough of a penalty if you die. First death 5 seconds, 2nd death 10 seconds, 3rd 5 seconds, etc...

Also, I think having groups of 3 would be better instead of groups of 4; or two groups of 5.

I also would reduce the points need by half. Making battle grounds quicker and more likely to attract more players to play it for the daily award.

Coatmagic

So, no games to play but tons of items still locked behind BG. Not cool.

What do those of us that are collectors do now?

Make a stack of invis pots and play hide-and-seek...?

SMH.

Fridjhof

auz wrote: »

The idea that people (and not just a few) expect to do well in bgs without actually fighting has got me flabbergasted. Either I have made a huge mistake, or they have.

I can assure you you can ...
I've almost always had one of the highest (if not the highest) score of the 3 teams with close to no kills on CTF or CK (even if my team lost) ... simply because I played the objective
even managed to do well in CB and CTR a few times ...
all that while sucking at DM ...

I don't like DM but didn't mind doing one once in a while ... now I'm gonna finish my BG quests and leave it at that ...

Lady_Galadhiel

Anyone knows when the other modes will return?

Sarannah

The past week I've had to explain to a few players in chat why they were only getting deathmatch games, while queueing for a random BG.

Personally I feel ZOS should remove deathmatch from BG's completely, and only allow the other BG types to exist. To avoid balance issues, player skill issues, and promote teamplay more. This should also help create a more friendly PvP environment.

Elo106

Ranked BGs would give ESO some competitive PvP and make it so PvE Players fight each other for their daily.

The system now punishes PvE Players who do their daily because they rise in the match maker and have to fight veteran PvP players.

Great rewards for end of season placement would also decrease BG q time by a lot

Maitsukas

Lady_Galadhiel wrote: »

Anyone knows when the other modes will return?

They will return when Deadlands launches and the BG queue options will be following:

• Solo Deathmatch Battleground
• Solo Random Battleground
• Deathmatch Only Battleground
• Random Battleground

Random Battleground queue can still place you in a Deathmatch though.

Lady_Galadhiel

Maitsukas wrote: »

Lady_Galadhiel wrote: »

Anyone knows when the other modes will return?

They will return when Deadlands launches and the BG queue options will be following:

• Solo Deathmatch Battleground
• Solo Random Battleground
• Deathmatch Only Battleground
• Random Battleground

Random Battleground queue can still place you in a Deathmatch though.

Oh nice,I didnt find this in the patch notes.Thanks.

trackdemon5512

Elo106 wrote: »

Ranked BGs would give ESO some competitive PvP and make it so PvE Players fight each other for their daily.

The system now punishes PvE Players who do their daily because they rise in the match maker and have to fight veteran PvP players.

Great rewards for end of season placement would also decrease BG q time by a lot

Ranked BGs would work if the population for such wasn’t so borked already.

The current BG population is so low that ranking, MMR, etc. can’t function properly. At any given time, outside of a PVP event, the number of players queuing for BGs is such that you’ll get the same individuals in each match. You already see BG matches that start without full teams. Compare this to Call of Duty or Battlefield where large zone matches will wait until teams have a large number of players before even starting. Here in ESO it’s difficult enough to get 9 players so they can face off against one another.

Ranking players and organizing them in BG groups only works if you seriously up the active BG population. That’s not happening anytime soon because the majority of ESO players Long got tired of dealing with unbalanced matches and BGs being not fun as the die hards ruined casual experiences.

BGs need a top-to-bottom redo. They were designed with constantly active players coming in casually to get things done. That has not been the case for years now. It’s not things like Dark Convergence or werewolves or players focusing on kills in every mode doing it as those are quarterly issues. The issues that affect BGs are long standing ones.

Until actual gameplay/rule changes come in to reflect how people actually engage you won’t see the BG population get healthier. Bringing back the die-hards who complain the most about BGs also isn’t enough as their population is small and they’re part of the systemic issues with BGs. ZOS needs to get everyone playing.

Sarannah

Maitsukas wrote: »

Lady_Galadhiel wrote: »

Anyone knows when the other modes will return?

They will return when Deadlands launches and the BG queue options will be following:

• Solo Deathmatch Battleground
• Solo Random Battleground
• Deathmatch Only Battleground
• Random Battleground

Random Battleground queue can still place you in a Deathmatch though.

Thanks for the info! Yet I am totally missing the solo non-deathmatch random battleground option. As all those above options would force deathmatch upon players even when they choose the 'random' options, while allowing others to choose deathmatch specifically. This leads me to believe the current deathmatch-only queue's have proven that there isn't enough interest in deathmatch-only battlegrounds, so they have to sideways force it upon players with 'random'.

Non-deathmatch BG's are lots of fun!

Fazuszek

Elo106 wrote: »

Ranked BGs would give ESO some competitive PvP and make it so PvE Players fight each other for their daily.

The system now punishes PvE Players who do their daily because they rise in the match maker and have to fight veteran PvP players.

Great rewards for end of season placement would also decrease BG q time by a lot

Battlegrounds are PVP not PVE, if a PVE player joins PVP place, he will fight pvp players. As a PVP player i suck at PVE dlc dungs hm, why? Coz i mostly play PVP and dont have time to practice dps etc.

This thing is (mostly) u dont have the right skills developed and u dont have a PVP build. U can ofcourse join fight on PVE toon and look for getting carried, but trust me - it happens veryyy rarely.

trackdemon5512

Fazuszek wrote: »

Elo106 wrote: »

Ranked BGs would give ESO some competitive PvP and make it so PvE Players fight each other for their daily.

The system now punishes PvE Players who do their daily because they rise in the match maker and have to fight veteran PvP players.

Great rewards for end of season placement would also decrease BG q time by a lot

Battlegrounds are PVP not PVE, if a PVE player joins PVP place, he will fight pvp players. As a PVP player i suck at PVE dlc dungs hm, why? Coz i mostly play PVP and dont have time to practice dps etc.

This thing is (mostly) u dont have the right skills developed and u dont have a PVP build. U can ofcourse join fight on PVE toon and look for getting carried, but trust me - it happens veryyy rarely.

The problem with BGs is that mindset. That players need to come in specifically with the right skills to even compete. There is no room to learn how to play. Contrast that with PVE content which allows for both casual and hardcore plays without being properly skilled/geared up.

As I said, everything about the BG experience needs to be redone in order to fix it because right now the engagement is more akin to the hardcore PVE groups that go for trial hardmodes. Nothing is causal about BGs.

Mrtoobyy

I mainly play BG's when I pvp and I have one word for what is wrong - Dark convergence

Elo106

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The current BG population is so low that ranking, MMR, etc. can’t function properly.

Thats where the end of season rewards come in, that would motivate more people to play. Also with a smaller player base going of ranks (based on performance) is going to be better than going of what we have now (games played)

Even with the same people you can make a more competitive match basing teams on individual performance than games played. The amount of players in q doesnt really matter or am I overlooking something?

Fazuszek wrote: »

Battlegrounds are PVP not PVE, if a PVE player joins PVP place, he will fight pvp players. As a PVP player i suck at PVE dlc dungs hm, why? Coz i mostly play PVP and dont have time to practice dps etc.

This thing is (mostly) u dont have the right skills developed and u dont have a PVP build. U can ofcourse join fight on PVE toon and look for getting carried, but trust me - it happens veryyy rarely.

The problem is Pve players join BGs to get their dailies done and get ranked higher and higher everytime they complete one. If we have enough players the game should match them with each other. At the veryleast spread PvPers and PvErs equally among the 3 teams.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The problem with BGs is that mindset. That players need to come in specifically with the right skills to even compete. There is no room to learn how to play. Contrast that with PVE content which allows for both casual and hardcore plays without being properly skilled/geared up.

As I said, everything about the BG experience needs to be redone in order to fix it because right now the engagement is more akin to the hardcore PVE groups that go for trial hardmodes. Nothing is causal about BGs.

Exactly, "new" players, new to battlegrounds that is, try BGs get roflstomped by active battleground players and never try again. Wouldnt it be healthier for the game if as a new player you get yeeted into a different match than the veterans? Even if full games cant be made it would be better. EG: 3vs3vs3 "bronze" match or a 2bronze, 1silver player per team etc

So as a new player you fight your way up the ranks and learn, joining a bronze match and fighting your way up to gold makes it clear that you have room to improve.
As it is right now ive seen teammates say countless times "Team X over powered" and proceed to just stay in spawn.
Pve players or cyro zerglings thinking they are great but they dont have experience running in small groups so they proceed to rage quit.

Thats why most people like sub 50 BGs I suppose, its less try hard.
My point is players shouldnt be pushed right into the deep end against olympic medal swimmers, kiddie pool first, than the deep end.
New exciting end of season rewards to fill the Q.

Jeremy

I agree with some of what you say. Not so much others. But I'd like to concentrate on this point because you really nailed it.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The problem with this thinking is that it isn't like when you conducted tests for non-proc Cyrodiil. Players are clearly treating Flag Games as Deathmatches because it's effective. Killing a player takes them out for 10 to 30 seconds, the amount of time it takes for them to respawn and get back into a fight. Time to Kill is so low with proc sets and skill that many players spend far more time in respawn than actually accomplishing an objective.

And that's the main problem with this game's PvP generally. Ganging up to focus and slaughter the same target is just too effective in this game. They have had ways to counter it in the past, but they are always nerfed or removed entirely from the game. So they could balance it if they wanted to. So it's not a problem with the amount of sets or the variety in character builds. The problem is they simply choose not to, and whoever calls the shots when it comes to PvP development likes that aspect of their PvP. Don't ask me why. But they clearly do and prefer people dropping like flies.

So until this person either changes their mind or a new head honcho is put in charge I wouldn't expect this to change. In fact: it's likely to just get worse.

trackdemon5512

Elo106 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The current BG population is so low that ranking, MMR, etc. can’t function properly.

Thats where the end of season rewards come in, that would motivate more people to play. Also with a smaller player base going of ranks (based on performance) is going to be better than going of what we have now (games played)

Even with the same people you can make a more competitive match basing teams on individual performance than games played. The amount of players in q doesnt really matter or am I overlooking something?

Fazuszek wrote: »

Battlegrounds are PVP not PVE, if a PVE player joins PVP place, he will fight pvp players. As a PVP player i suck at PVE dlc dungs hm, why? Coz i mostly play PVP and dont have time to practice dps etc.

This thing is (mostly) u dont have the right skills developed and u dont have a PVP build. U can ofcourse join fight on PVE toon and look for getting carried, but trust me - it happens veryyy rarely.

The problem is Pve players join BGs to get their dailies done and get ranked higher and higher everytime they complete one. If we have enough players the game should match them with each other. At the veryleast spread PvPers and PvErs equally among the 3 teams.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

The problem with BGs is that mindset. That players need to come in specifically with the right skills to even compete. There is no room to learn how to play. Contrast that with PVE content which allows for both casual and hardcore plays without being properly skilled/geared up.

As I said, everything about the BG experience needs to be redone in order to fix it because right now the engagement is more akin to the hardcore PVE groups that go for trial hardmodes. Nothing is causal about BGs.

Exactly, "new" players, new to battlegrounds that is, try BGs get roflstomped by active battleground players and never try again. Wouldnt it be healthier for the game if as a new player you get yeeted into a different match than the veterans? Even if full games cant be made it would be better. EG: 3vs3vs3 "bronze" match or a 2bronze, 1silver player per team etc

So as a new player you fight your way up the ranks and learn, joining a bronze match and fighting your way up to gold makes it clear that you have room to improve.
As it is right now ive seen teammates say countless times "Team X over powered" and proceed to just stay in spawn.
Pve players or cyro zerglings thinking they are great but they dont have experience running in small groups so they proceed to rage quit.

Thats why most people like sub 50 BGs I suppose, its less try hard.
My point is players shouldnt be pushed right into the deep end against olympic medal swimmers, kiddie pool first, than the deep end.
New exciting end of season rewards to fill the Q.

It’s about the number of players overall queuing. If you queue for a random dungeon you don’t have to wait long. Healers and tanks are almost instant while DPS takes some time. But you get a full group, you can usually fully complete content, and everyone is happy.

BGs don’t have that population. The vast majority of players in it are the same individuals queueing over and over again as if it’s an obsession. You see their names every week on the BG leaderboards because all they do is play BGs. They’re geared out for their roles and in the past would often play the same mode over and over as their skills/gear were tailored for it. They’re so good or specialized that it’s not competitive. That one individual on a team is essentially broken.

If BGs weren’t such unbalanced blowouts because of said players more PVE players would join. But there is also such a gap to overcome that it’s not worth it. How good do you have to become to overcome that one player? That one player that is in EVERY BG match because the population is so low. That one player who it feels like they’re cheating and you lose every single time. And you aren’t learning anything from this. It’s all kinds of frustrating.

The main failure of BGs is that they aren’t designed around their objectives. The rules of the game don’t enforce the objective. It’s like playing football or ice hockey, only that in every game players are more focused on putting opponents in penalty boxes or injuring them to keep them out of play rather than play to the intent.

A domination game will have one team overpower and then keep opposing teams locked in their spawns. That’s not the intent of BG and it becomes dull/frustrating. No one likes chasing after a player who is stupid fast and basically always immune to CC AND heals themselves in Chaosball.

Other competitive games stop this by controlling load outs. You either have damage limits, specified roles, abilities, etc. ESO has none of that. It’s completely unbalanced and it shows. Players don’t want to engage except for those that have no problem with exploitation. It’s toxic and it needs to be addressed.

ADDENDUM

ZOS has long adhered to the mantra that you play however you want for ESO. They give you options and you do whatever to make it work. There is no requirement to do content.

The problem with that is it’s inherently against a closed competitive environment. EVERY organized sport has rules, tiers, ranking, and controls to ensure balanced and fair competition. ESO eschews this everywhere.

In Cyrodiil it’s fine due to the large scale PVP. But the unbalance really manifests itself in BGs because there are rules, objectives, and limited time. There are too few players to even out power imbalances.

ZOS needs to abandon their long held mantra for BGs in order for it to work. You can’t have an organized mode thrive when you encourage disorder.

Fazuszek

[/quote]The problem with BGs is that mindset. That players need to come in specifically with the right skills to even compete. There is no room to learn how to play. Contrast that with PVE content which allows for both casual and hardcore plays without being properly skilled/geared up.

As I said, everything about the BG experience needs to be redone in order to fix it because right now the engagement is more akin to the hardcore PVE groups that go for trial hardmodes. Nothing is causal about BGs. [/quote]

Yes, u need to right skills, knowledge and build to win - is that a suprise? Same goes for things like ,,Tick Tock Tormentor - u need right skills, gear etc to get the thing done. Sure, u can play as u want, but ur prog group dont have the obligations to play with u. Causuals dont go with hardcore players in the same team. Causuals do Fungal Grotto vet, Hardcore players go Stone Garden HM.

Lack of proper skills, exclude u from doing specific PVE things. And that is normal. I suck at DPS parsing, and i know, that i will never get a ,,Godslayer'' on my dd. And i dont have any problem with that.

Many things can be redone with BG, but u wont redone the fact, that some players lack skill to get decent results. When i started bg above lvl 50, i was insanly smashed almost every match. It took me 2 years (of regular playing PVP) to get to the position, that i can win most of my BG matches, and have a decent K/D ratio. Not to mention,

Show me ur video of playing PVP, and ill give u feedback and show u, how much u need to learn/correct.

Franchise408

Fazuszek wrote: »

The problem with BGs is that mindset. That players need to come in specifically with the right skills to even compete. There is no room to learn how to play. Contrast that with PVE content which allows for both casual and hardcore plays without being properly skilled/geared up.

As I said, everything about the BG experience needs to be redone in order to fix it because right now the engagement is more akin to the hardcore PVE groups that go for trial hardmodes. Nothing is causal about BGs. [/quote]

Yes, u need to right skills, knowledge and build to win - is that a suprise? Same goes for things like ,,Tick Tock Tormentor - u need right skills, gear etc to get the thing done. Sure, u can play as u want, but ur prog group dont have the obligations to play with u. Causuals dont go with hardcore players in the same team. Causuals do Fungal Grotto vet, Hardcore players go Stone Garden HM.

Lack of proper skills, exclude u from doing specific PVE things. And that is normal. I suck at DPS parsing, and i know, that i will never get a ,,Godslayer'' on my dd. And i dont have any problem with that.

Many things can be redone with BG, but u wont redone the fact, that some players lack skill to get decent results. When i started bg above lvl 50, i was insanly smashed almost every match. It took me 2 years (of regular playing PVP) to get to the position, that i can win most of my BG matches, and have a decent K/D ratio. Not to mention,

Show me ur video of playing PVP, and ill give u feedback and show u, how much u need to learn/correct.

[/quote]

The point being made is that PVP offers no place to learn. You mention TTT, but your opportunity to learn is by doing runs that aren't trifecta runs, where you can learn the mechanics and still have opportunities for clearing in a basic way. You are not thrown immediately into TTT runs. TTT is an achievement for a particular standard of performance.

PVP doesn't have that. Youre thrown in with everyone else and just expected to figure it out. There's not much you can learn by being one shot by proc bursts, or being DC'd to death.

Fazuszek

.

[/quote]

The point being made is that PVP offers no place to learn. You mention TTT, but your opportunity to learn is by doing runs that aren't trifecta runs, where you can learn the mechanics and still have opportunities for clearing in a basic way. You are not thrown immediately into TTT runs. TTT is an achievement for a particular standard of performance.

PVP doesn't have that. Youre thrown in with everyone else and just expected to figure it out. There's not much you can learn by being one shot by proc bursts, or being DC'd to death.[/quote]


What place to learn do u expect? U learn PVP by doing PVP. Simple. If u fight top PVP players, the faster ull learn. When i started BGs i was horribly smashed, everything was too fast. But i was systematic - i trained, learned, watched as other play, learn tactic, gear and skills - and i now i dont have any issues in PVP. Mostly i win, or get solid second place.

The problem is the start, and that is a slow proces. Most players dont have will to do PVP systematicly and practice. It took me almost 2 years of PVP to get to the level i am. And i dont consider myself as ,,top'' player.

drsalvation

auz wrote: »

I am actually very confused as to what people think battlegrounds are now. I always thought of it as a competition with 2 other teams where you fight each other and whoever gets to the required number of kills first, wins. Or it is a competition where you fight each other over objectives and whoever holds the objective long enough to reach the required score first wins. While fighting other teams the hole time. The idea that people (and not just a few) expect to do well in bgs without actually fighting has got me flabbergasted. Either I have made a huge mistake, or they have. Hopefully zos can clear this up.

I think you're mistaken. Would you be flabbergasted that a goalkeeper is just standing there instead of punching other players in their faces?
PvP can mean many things, it's player vs player in the end, chess games are player vs player, soccer games are player vs player, it doesn't specifically mean duels/skirmishes, it boils down to competition.
A tank in PvP is useless in the sense that they don't deal any damage, and the best they can do is just try not to die. So how would that be useful in deathmatches? Exactly, it's not (well, maybe by not giving points to the enemy teams).
How would a tank who has to carry a scorching ball that deals constant damage be useful to a team? Clearly a tank can't kill players, so they can still be useful in a way that doesn't involve direct conflict.
There's deathmatch if you wanna kill players, others would rather be useful in other ways.

Erissime

So........ how are the battlegrounds "balanced" - this patch there were supposed to be spread between deathmatch and everything else. I chose twice "solo random battleground" - and I got into a blasted deathmatch. I find it very frustrating and time consuming - when I need to do the achievements involving OTHER battlegrounds - but if you mix into the "other battlegrounds" the blasted deathmatch AND give it a whole section just for itself - how is that any better!? Seriously!? What is this some sort of a bad joke!?

Yes there are people which treat every other game as a deathmatch - you already made a section for that - why incumber even furthermore the rest of them by putting the deathmatch into the roll? Wasn't this supposed to be separated? What's with this nonsense?

I understand, the fun is in the roll - you never know what you will get yourself into - so making a special section for every type of game would be too much to ask. But since you already made a differentiation between the death-match and everything else - DO keep it so!? Just how many games one needs to roll just to get ONE relic game? (one example) - nvm the nrs required for the achievements ? With this difference of games, the hope went sliiiiiightly ( very slightly yes?) up in eventually fulfilling those achievements - but this? It literally feels like a mockery. Get out of the "random battlegrounds" the deathmatch ! (and no I'm not against it - I pretty much love it - and find good the idea to keep it separate) - but you know - separate!

The problems with the "people treating all games as a deathmatch" is not in killing others - but rather as in killing others while completely ignoring the rules of the game (for example I've seen players completely ignoring the chaosball just to kill other players - that is just ruining your team) - and other such examples, I'm sure the world is full of. So alright - some can't be bothered with rules - that is why "deathmatch" is good to be separated. Beyond that - yes the point of pvp is killing each other. But allowing the deathmatch into the random roll is simply allowing these players into it as well. It literally solves nothing. Whereas if they get constantly into those other games, most choosing them in the know and willing to play them as they come - they will either mend or quit and go play only deathmatch - as they so ardently desire. Simple things!

And if you consider entirely removing the deathmatch from the roll would give us too many chances than intended into the completion of those achievements - then create a replacement of the deathmatch with new rules so to keep the numbers in the roll similar - and still leave the deathmatch on its own. Of course with all the necessary additions - similar achievements, new furniture rewards - etc etc. Yes you are challenged!

auz

drsalvation wrote: »

auz wrote: »

I am actually very confused as to what people think battlegrounds are now. I always thought of it as a competition with 2 other teams where you fight each other and whoever gets to the required number of kills first, wins. Or it is a competition where you fight each other over objectives and whoever holds the objective long enough to reach the required score first wins. While fighting other teams the hole time. The idea that people (and not just a few) expect to do well in bgs without actually fighting has got me flabbergasted. Either I have made a huge mistake, or they have. Hopefully zos can clear this up.

I think you're mistaken. Would you be flabbergasted that a goalkeeper is just standing there instead of punching other players in their faces?
PvP can mean many things, it's player vs player in the end, chess games are player vs player, soccer games are player vs player, it doesn't specifically mean duels/skirmishes, it boils down to competition.
A tank in PvP is useless in the sense that they don't deal any damage, and the best they can do is just try not to die. So how would that be useful in deathmatches? Exactly, it's not (well, maybe by not giving points to the enemy teams).
How would a tank who has to carry a scorching ball that deals constant damage be useful to a team? Clearly a tank can't kill players, so they can still be useful in a way that doesn't involve direct conflict.
There's deathmatch if you wanna kill players, others would rather be useful in other ways.

If the soccer game had a rule set that allowed the goalie to equip armour and weapons I would be very suprised if they were not trying to injure the opposition.
I appreciate that pvp doe not strictly apply to a fight, and sports and boardgames also fall into a player vs player environment. The difference here, however, is your pvp environment is called "battlegrounds" and your are equipped with weapons and armour and violent skills of your choosing. I fail to see how anyone would see it a lesser encounter.
If you are in a coordinated group tanks can be very useful, however if your sole purpose is to not die, we'll I think there may be a support group for that. But if you are a CC tank your team mates may be pretty thankful for your contribution and it is unfortunate the score boards don't recognise your achievements more.

Hallothiel

So, this becomes an unnecessary negative feedback loop.

‘Random’ BGs are 99% DMs, due to the way ‘random’ ones are now filled; players who are queueing for non-DMs are getting only DMs, so are stopping playing, so only those happy with DMs are joining the queues - and again, that creates more DMs, making it look like they are the most popular.

Random should be random. Chance to get any of the choices.

People queueing for DMs should NOT be included in the random queues. If its that popular, then DMs should be easy to fill, no?

Until this is changed, know that myself & a lot of my guildies won’t be doing BGs. Which is sad, as enjoyed them previously.

luen79rwb17_ESO

Hallothiel wrote: »

So, this becomes an unnecessary negative feedback loop.

‘Random’ BGs are 99% DMs, due to the way ‘random’ ones are now filled; players who are queueing for non-DMs are getting only DMs, so are stopping playing, so only those happy with DMs are joining the queues - and again, that creates more DMs, making it look like they are the most popular.

Random should be random. Chance to get any of the choices.

People queueing for DMs should NOT be included in the random queues. If its that popular, then DMs should be easy to fill, no?

Until this is changed, know that myself & a lot of my guildies won’t be doing BGs. Which is sad, as enjoyed them previously.

100% agree with this. This is the way it should have been implemented.

To make this work ZOS should place DM-only on a separate queue or make random REALLY random so if it's crazy king that pops, make everyone in random queue fill the crazy king match.

Ffs this is frustrating beyond limits and "probably" we'll see a fix in 4+months since normally Q1 update drops in MARCH!

Erissime

Well apparently they are utterly broken. I did bgs all of these days since my last post and always chose "solo random" - it always is a deathmatch. There is no ratio, so to at least say some other game was chosen - there is just deathmatch. The other games have not been opened - simple. But I insist that in this context, deathmatch should keep their own little slot, and be completely removed from the rest - whenever a fix occurs. Also "solo" is not a thing - I have seen fully organized groups getting into these games - so much for the "solo" part - too.