Congratulations. ZOS killed all enjoyment out of BGs

nightstrike

Magio_ wrote: »

nightstrike wrote: »

I don't get why people keep saying you can hide with the chaos ball. The map reveals where you are....

People hide in ledges where the only way to get back up on the map is to jump to your death and respawn. Clearly not intended an anti-competitive.

So because a particular map has a bug, you are saying that the entire game mode is not "players vs players"? I'm trying to follow your logic here, but I'm finding it difficult. Why not just report the map bug?

Magio_

Minyassa wrote: »

Combat or lack of combat isn't what makes PvP. Volleyball is PvP. Chess is PvP. A football game is commonly referred to as a battle, and it's played in an arena or a coliseum, both traditionally the names of gladiatorial venues. Guess what, sports are PvP.

Lmao. You objective gamers can't stop bringing up Head-to-Head matchups as examples of good PvP when defending the terrible 3 way system ESO has. Yes, head-to-head anything promotes engaging your opponent to win and that's why those other video games or real life sports are competitive and are good PvP lol. How do you still not understand? The problem is not the objectives, it's having a third team. Jfc.

You said it yourself, "combat" doesn't necessarily mean violence in sports since athletes are called gladiators etc. Chess promotes "combat" because you have to checkmate the king. The win condition still promotes engaging your opponent. ESO objective modes do the opposite because of having 3 teams. If two teams are contesting a flag the best thing the third team can do to win the objective is run to the opposite side of the map and cap as many empty flags as possible.

Even then, everything you said helps my argument. People who like DM want to engage in combat. People who like objectives want to play game modes that don't promote it. Completely random queue puts those people who want vastly different things into the same match. It's clearly a flawed system and letting people pick their preferred mode was the best queue system we had.

nightstrike

Magio_ wrote: »

You said it yourself, "combat" doesn't necessarily mean violence in sports since athletes are called gladiators etc. Chess promotes "combat" because you have to checkmate the king. The win condition still promotes engaging your opponent. ESO objective modes do the opposite because of having 3 teams. If two teams are contesting a flag the best thing the third team can do to win the objective is run to the opposite side of the map and cap as many empty flags as possible.

I don't see how having 3 teams results in the play style you describe, and that doesn't happen in the games that I've played.

For capture the relic, the typical scenario is that teams leave a defender at their base and send an attack team out. That team has to deal with the defender at the target base, which involves combat.

For chaosball, as you've seen me indicate previously, I've never once at all ever seen someone hide, nor been in a game where the player holding the ball was in accessible. Maybe I'm just luckier than you are. In any case, this promotes having the two non-ball holding teams to gang up on the team holding the ball, which is an interesting dynamic play style where the people working together changes rapidly (We've always been at war with Oceania!)

For crazy king, this is actually a pretty entertaining mode, as it gets more chaotic as the game progresses. This involves a race component that rewards how quickly you are able to move from one point to another, and a strategy component in using parts of your team to prevent or impede the runners of another team from reaching their goal. Further, I've never stood at a flag for its total duration without being attacked, so I fail to see how this mode is devoid of players engaging other players.

For domination, this is probably the game mode requiring the most strategy. The more points you hold, the harder it is to defend them. You can spread out, and then have to keep retaking flags, or you can turtle up, but then not earn points as rapidly. There are many ways to do those things, and it's a gradient between both extremes that you have to constantly adapt based on the changes of your competitors' strategy.

Ultimately, there is plenty of strategy and competitiveness in any game mode. It just isn't what you want. I would also argue that Deathmatch has the least amount of strategy required, as it's simply "identify the weakest targets and farm them". I see plenty of fights that last maybe 1.5 to 2 seconds. Is that engaging combat? That's just flicking away ants at a picnic. IMO, as it stands, Deathmatch is just as broken of a mode as you claim that the others are. Although unlike your complaints about Chaosball, it's not broken due to a bug in the map. It's broken due to ineffective matching with no handicap. It's similar to when the 1992 Olympics allowed the US to send its professional "Dream Team" players to compete against amateurs.

master_vanargand

I waited 30 minutes for solo but can not play BGs.
DC set and deathmatch seem to have destroyed the BGs.

ZOS_Ragnar

Hello All,

We have removed a few of the most recent posts from this thread as they were becoming disruptive to the rest of the discussion. Please do your best to remain civil and respectful, even when you strongly disagree with someone else's viewpoint. It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree, but please do not put other people down for their opinions, ideas, or suggestions.

To prevent any further disruption to the thread please take a moment to review our Community Rules before posting here.

Jeremy

DavGlen wrote: »

I actually enjoyed objective-themed BGs. Tried a few DM games today and it was absolutely disgusting - nothing but premades deathballing through the map and winning in 3 minutes with almost 500-0-0 scores.

[snip]

So long, battlegrounds. You will be missed.

[edited for baiting]

I recently came back after a few weeks (had some things to take care of) and I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing. Death-match only? What if you play a defensive character? This was probably the worse thing they could have done. Who comes up with this stuff? lol...

Why do the developers think its so much fun for players to get gang _____ in microseconds in PvP? It's not. IF you want to know why more people don't do your PvP, that is why. So locking everyone in Deathmatch where that is basically the goal and all that's going to happen to them is just going to steer more and more people away from your PvP systems. So great job ZoS, you came up with the most terrible solution possible and implemented it.

You need to be moving away from modes like Deathmatch and concentrate more of making your PvP fun instead of just a slaughterfest, which is what's wrong with your PvP in the first place. Your objective-base matches were the only thing that made Battlegrounds any fun or interesting, aside from the extreme minority who simply find joy in the slaughter of other characters and racking up "kills". But if you want to keep catering exclusively to that tiny group of players be my guest, your PvP will continue to wither into nothing.

Jackey

I tried the DM only BGs today.
Maybe it's the proc-meta, but it was pretty bad. I carried my team to victory and still got disappointed in the game.
Everyone seems to gather in a big pile for some reason. Whenever I got a rare 1v1 situation the other person just ran away to be a part of the pile. My teammates were also running straight into it.
Idk but this didn't really happen last patch in DM.
Gathering in pile sounds counterintuitive to me because of Dark Convergence. Maybe it's some pro strats I don't understand.
Well, they didn't win though. I did

Aldoss

I find it pertinent to again point out how interesting it is that this is the ONLY game I've ever played where people are vocally negative against "good" players in a manner as if they've somehow cheated or are doing something improperly.

Instead of applause that someone took the time to not only theorycraft a build that has a great balance between survivability, damage, and sustain, AND put in the time and effort to learn how to functionally play the build, they are put down and told that they don't matter and ask the devs to develop the game away from them.

When I first started PvPing, I remember getting absolutely deleted. I remember watching some of the 1vx'ers in Cyro and just not understanding how they don't freaking die. I STILL don't understand how some people do it. Logically I thought, "wow, I must be doing something wrong" and then did something about it. I started by just whispering people, "what am I doing wrong?" How else would I have understood that 20k resists were too low, that I was letting my buffs drop, that I wasn't properly sustaining or blocking things that should be blocked, and not lining up any burst combos... things that your opponent does to get an advantage on you. It makes sense that if you don't do those things but your opponent does, you should lose.

The anti-dm people in this thread continue to push a narrative that says "combat = bad". While I appreciate the counter-perspective for how objective modes can require strategy, I disagree with the argument that they require any more strategy than DM simply because those making the arguments have proven they don't have enough combat experience to identify the strategies involved. Honestly, their inexperience to identify those strategies are what makes them dislike deathmatch so much.

I will also back the argument with my experience in objective modes that, because of the unique 3-way battle, objective modes reward the teams that disengage first and participate in anti-combat play.

I agree with Magio that using any other game as evidence in favor of objectives is ultimately flawed in that all those other games are Team vs Team, rather than Team vs Team vs Team. Domination could actually be fun (maybe even the most fun) if it were only 2 teams. I would LOVE to play objectives so long as those objectives don't incentivize and actively reward anti-combat play.

Foto1

master_vanargand wrote: »

I waited 30 minutes for solo but can not play BGs.
DC set and deathmatch seem to have destroyed the BGs.

and my turn is no more than 5 minutes. it seems that deathmatch attracted a lot of players

Foto1

Jeremy wrote: »

DavGlen wrote: »

I actually enjoyed objective-themed BGs. Tried a few DM games today and it was absolutely disgusting - nothing but premades deathballing through the map and winning in 3 minutes with almost 500-0-0 scores.

[snip]

So long, battlegrounds. You will be missed.

[edited for baiting]

I recently came back after a few weeks (had some things to take care of) and I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing. Death-match only? What if you play a defensive character? This was probably the worse thing they could have done. Who comes up with this stuff? lol...

Why do the developers think its so much fun for players to get gang _____ in microseconds in PvP? It's not. IF you want to know why more people don't do your PvP, that is why. So locking everyone in Deathmatch where that is basically the goal and all that's going to happen to them is just going to steer more and more people away from your PvP systems. So great job ZoS, you came up with the most terrible solution possible and implemented it.

You need to be moving away from modes like Deathmatch and concentrate more of making your PvP fun instead of just a slaughterfest, which is what's wrong with your PvP in the first place. Your objective-base matches were the only thing that made Battlegrounds any fun or interesting, aside from the extreme minority who simply find joy in the slaughter of other characters and racking up "kills". But if you want to keep catering exclusively to that tiny group of players be my guest, your PvP will continue to wither into nothing.

deathmatch players are not a minority

mmtaniac

Deathmatch is nice mode when teams are balanced but cancer mode when your team feed enemy and you lose thanks to them.
On objective modes this problems not that bad they can be still carried by that bad players .

Im not anti fighting i like fighting and can have nice score every match but 10/1 means nothing when your teammates feed 1/7 or more. You still lose thanks to them.
If they add mmr that can be raised and fall than maybe deathmatch will work finally ,you will fight 12 tanks that is unkillable whole match and have fun and see which tank is tankier.

thesarahandcompany

I disagree with the original post here and a lot of the negative sentiment to the deathmatch queue.

Point 1: Matches during the "random objective" queue ended more quickly than compared to now in the deathmatch only queue. Deathmatch has herstorically been the most popular battleground option in the Elder Scrolls Online. The Battlegrounds NPC even states this when you speak to him. It's an emblem and staple of the PvP community, and its return has rejuvenated a lot of faltering spaces within the PvP community. When the deathmatch option was removed, and its appearance was extremely rare in the previous test, we found most players were ignoring objectives. Usually two in three teams would ignore the objective or even purposefully hold onto certain objectives (like relics) to prevent the match from progressing. Matches would end extremely quickly because one team would be the only one interested in doing objectives.

Point 2: 4-person premade groups are not a prevalent as thought. Groups of two people queueing together are probably the most common, with solo players being the second most common. And, groups of 3 being the least common. The reason why people are grouping as a team of two usually are for at least two main reasons 1) it's an MMO and we want to play with our friends (this gets at the nicely presented critique we've seen from Magio et al. in this thread) and 2) groups of 4 have a seriously high time-tax if they want to play. I sometimes group with 3 other friends and we can sit in the queue system for 30-45 minutes. This length of time discourages us, and so many others, from constantly queueing with 3 or 4 people in a group because you miss out on gameplay. However, it's been very nice knowing that we will wait 30 minutes in a queue for a deathmatch that will not end in 3 minutes because there is no single team back-capping relics or flags.

Point 3: If premade and deathmatch-queue players seriously chose to engage in objective gameplay, it would be far worse for both communities. There is an unfortunate reality that deathmatch-oriented players tend to have more thorough and organized gameplay. That's just the tea, and no shade intended. That's because deathmatch is the only really engaging mode. Whereas other modes, avoiding combat is the best available strategy to win the objective.

What could we do?

For starters, scratch the idea of a solo queue. Groups of 4 already have to wait 30 minutes for a match, and the penalty for leaving a match is only 5 minutes. Either that, or just take the L. It's part of MMOs to fight groups of friends. I don't think ZOS has a responsibility to make every aspect of the game solo-friendly, and they certainly don't have the capacity to do so.

Second, rework the medal system and give deathmatch a more meaningful rank and rewards. Split the queue into one for flag, relic and objective players. Split the other for deathmatch. I would argue that the deathmatch community is larger than all the other objectives combined. While it's probably not idea for objective players to be able to select their mode, the population issue with BGs is ultimately with those specific game modes (because they have fundamental issues with their low level of engagement).

Third, use the data. Forums are helpful. But a lot of the feedback in forums (which is anti-deathmatch) has a huge selection bias that will hurt the game overall.

Finally, give us new BG maps please

_adhyffbjjjf12

Foto1 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

DavGlen wrote: »

I actually enjoyed objective-themed BGs. Tried a few DM games today and it was absolutely disgusting - nothing but premades deathballing through the map and winning in 3 minutes with almost 500-0-0 scores.

[snip]

So long, battlegrounds. You will be missed.

[edited for baiting]

I recently came back after a few weeks (had some things to take care of) and I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing. Death-match only? What if you play a defensive character? This was probably the worse thing they could have done. Who comes up with this stuff? lol...

Why do the developers think its so much fun for players to get gang _____ in microseconds in PvP? It's not. IF you want to know why more people don't do your PvP, that is why. So locking everyone in Deathmatch where that is basically the goal and all that's going to happen to them is just going to steer more and more people away from your PvP systems. So great job ZoS, you came up with the most terrible solution possible and implemented it.

You need to be moving away from modes like Deathmatch and concentrate more of making your PvP fun instead of just a slaughterfest, which is what's wrong with your PvP in the first place. Your objective-base matches were the only thing that made Battlegrounds any fun or interesting, aside from the extreme minority who simply find joy in the slaughter of other characters and racking up "kills". But if you want to keep catering exclusively to that tiny group of players be my guest, your PvP will continue to wither into nothing.

deathmatch players are not a minority

actually they are, PVE is the majority in this and the other big 3 mmorpg. the issue here is that content has been taking away from paying customers. Its a bit like taking all PVP away from the game on the basis that PVE is more popular as an 'experiment'.

I loved BGs, i liked DM. [snip] DM is often fun, but It would be nice if not all BG consists of 12 people spamming the [snip] out of each other, its not a pfs.

[edited for bashing & profanity bypass]

thesarahandcompany

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Foto1 wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

DavGlen wrote: »

I actually enjoyed objective-themed BGs. Tried a few DM games today and it was absolutely disgusting - nothing but premades deathballing through the map and winning in 3 minutes with almost 500-0-0 scores.

[snip]

So long, battlegrounds. You will be missed.

[edited for baiting]

I recently came back after a few weeks (had some things to take care of) and I almost couldn't believe what I was seeing. Death-match only? What if you play a defensive character? This was probably the worse thing they could have done. Who comes up with this stuff? lol...

Why do the developers think its so much fun for players to get gang _____ in microseconds in PvP? It's not. IF you want to know why more people don't do your PvP, that is why. So locking everyone in Deathmatch where that is basically the goal and all that's going to happen to them is just going to steer more and more people away from your PvP systems. So great job ZoS, you came up with the most terrible solution possible and implemented it.

You need to be moving away from modes like Deathmatch and concentrate more of making your PvP fun instead of just a slaughterfest, which is what's wrong with your PvP in the first place. Your objective-base matches were the only thing that made Battlegrounds any fun or interesting, aside from the extreme minority who simply find joy in the slaughter of other characters and racking up "kills". But if you want to keep catering exclusively to that tiny group of players be my guest, your PvP will continue to wither into nothing.

deathmatch players are not a minority

actually they are, PVE is the majority in this and the other big 3 mmorpg. the issue here is that content has been taking away from paying customers. Its a bit like taking all PVP away from the game on the basis that PVE is more popular as an 'experiment'.

I loved BGs, i liked DM. [snip] DM is often fun, but It would be nice if not all BG consists of 12 people spamming the [snip] out of each other, its not a pfs.

[edited for bashing & profanity bypass]

You can play defensive characters in the context of deathmatch if you build it right. It means you're just unwilling to change and adapt -- or make a build that makes sense. That's not ZOS' problem or the problem of deathmatch players. You don't wear the same setup to the same trial or dungeon.

With all due respect, most of these block-holder builds (which is a PVE strat and not a PVP one) are successful in the context of objective BGs where very few deathmatch players care to engage. A solid group of players in builds setup for deathmatch would always win objective games -- if they found them engaging enough to play the actual objective.

And all past data is directly in opposition to this idea that we are a minority of the PvP community. We aren't. We're the backbone, blood and life of the community.

Sidebar: We should also be very, very careful using sexually violent language to describe our feelings about video games. Seems a bit much and should disqualify the merits of your argument simply for that.

Magio_

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

actually they are, PVE is the majority in this and the other big 3 mmorpg.

Lol what? So you have ESO's PvP scene to be more PvE friendly just because the majority of players are PvErs? How does that logic make sense? Do you hear yourself right now? To be fair, at least you admit the 3 way objective modes are very PvE friendly and not actual PvP like DM is lol. So thanks for that.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

The issue here is that content has been taking away from paying customers. Its a bit like taking all PVP away from the game on the basis that PVE is more popular as an 'experiment'.

Kinda how they took away our ability to be able to group up for a Team v Team v Team arena which killed the community-organized BG scene overnight for a whole year? Same way how then they made the system completely random and Deathmatch, the one mode vastly different from the others, only had ~15% chance to appear for the majority of players that only want to play DM, but then Objective Players that filled the match would leave it anyway and take a 5 minute penalty to try for another 85% chance to get a mode they want to play and then the rare TDM match would be ruined anyway? Put yourselves in our shoes. 2 years they took away what we enjoyed. You're crying so hard after a measly two weeks.

Look man, I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority Deathmatch-only players when I say we really don't care about objective modes in the sense that we don't want you guys to not have them. We never asked for that in all the threads we opened. All we want is to be able to queue for DM and DM only all day everyday and be able to group up for DM to do sweaty BGs and even our community tournaments. That is all. Of course we're ecstatic we get to play and group for DM after 2+ years of not being able to do so. If a bit of schadenfreude crops up here and there it's probably due to how vocal some objective gamers were against DM players having our own queue back in those same threads we opened.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

I loved BGs, i liked DM. [snip] DM is often fun, but It would be nice if not all BG consists of 12 people spamming the [snip] out of each other, its not a pfs.

If you think DM is just "12 people just spamming each other", then I'm sorry to say but either you play in super low MMR with a bunch of newbies (nothing wrong with that) or you're not good enough yourself at the game to understand how intricate combat can be in this game (nothing wrong with that either), but that means your opinion on Deathmatch is uninformed. Either way, a successful game's PvP should be balanced from top to bottom and you can't disagree with that statement without being objectively wrong.

_adhyffbjjjf12

Magio_ wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

actually they are, PVE is the majority in this and the other big 3 mmorpg.

Lol what? So you have ESO's PvP scene to be more PvE friendly just because the majority of players are PvErs? How does that logic make sense? Do you hear yourself right now? To be fair, at least you admit the 3 way objective modes are very PvE friendly and not actual PvP like DM is lol. So thanks for that.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

The issue here is that content has been taking away from paying customers. Its a bit like taking all PVP away from the game on the basis that PVE is more popular as an 'experiment'.

Kinda how they took away our ability to be able to group up for a Team v Team v Team arena which killed the community-organized BG scene overnight for a whole year? Same way how then they made the system completely random and Deathmatch, the one mode vastly different from the others, only had ~15% chance to appear for the majority of players that only want to play DM, but then Objective Players that filled the match would leave it anyway and take a 5 minute penalty to try for another 85% chance to get a mode they want to play and then the rare TDM match would be ruined anyway? Put yourselves in our shoes. 2 years they took away what we enjoyed. You're crying so hard after a measly two weeks.

Look man, I'm sure I can speak for the vast majority Deathmatch-only players when I say we really don't care about objective modes in the sense that we don't want you guys to not have them. We never asked for that in all the threads we opened. All we want is to be able to queue for DM and DM only all day everyday and be able to group up for DM to do sweaty BGs and even our community tournaments. That is all. Of course we're ecstatic we get to play and group for DM after 2+ years of not being able to do so. If a bit of schadenfreude crops up here and there it's probably due to how vocal some objective gamers were against DM players having our own queue back in those same threads we opened.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

I loved BGs, i liked DM. [snip] DM is often fun, but It would be nice if not all BG consists of 12 people spamming the [snip] out of each other, its not a pfs.

If you think DM is just "12 people just spamming each other", then I'm sorry to say but either you play in super low MMR with a bunch of newbies (nothing wrong with that) or you're not good enough yourself at the game to understand how intricate combat can be in this game (nothing wrong with that either), but that means your opinion on Deathmatch is uninformed. Either way, a successful game's PvP should be balanced from top to bottom and you can't disagree with that statement without being objectively wrong.

Perhaps you should play in solo pvp, that's exactly what happens. I've played pvp in mmorpg for 20 years, it really has not changed much where no comms are involved.

In any case, the only issue that that the devs have taken all objective pvp content away from PVP players that enjoy it. The game should have both objective based PVP and DM, they are not mutually exclusive, and DM only fans and players who like mixed PVP are not against each other.

temerley

I enjoy the other modes too but as cyro is broken [snip], having constant fights on BGs is really great. I hope it stays this way or bring back death match queue when the experiment ends.

[edited for profanity bypass]

Skoomah

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

_adhyffbjjjf12

Skoomah wrote: »

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

Exactly. Give AP and XP for objectives on Objective based BG and in DM give XP and AP for kills. Give diminish returns for rewards so people don't just farm a single objective/kills in objective mode.

When joining ask player for their preference including fight type, solo/group/ and preferred wait time. Build matching algorithm around that. 1 queue.

aerrow77

I reallllllyyy dont care if its seperated from DM. just bring back GROUP OBJECTIVE MODES I hate DM.

Unsubscribing until they are back.

thesarahandcompany

Skoomah wrote: »

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

Honestly. I don't like the idea or sound of adding incentives like this. There's a lot of context behind who gets a kill, who earns the most medals, etc. It's just going to open up more problems than we already have, and it will especially open up issues with BG becoming more of a farming ground for PUGs than actual, good PVP.

I wait for the day that kills/FBs give AP and everyone is running magsorcs fury spamming to get kills. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

Skoomah

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

Honestly. I don't like the idea or sound of adding incentives like this. There's a lot of context behind who gets a kill, who earns the most medals, etc. It's just going to open up more problems than we already have, and it will especially open up issues with BG becoming more of a farming ground for PUGs than actual, good PVP.

I wait for the day that kills/FBs give AP and everyone is running magsorcs fury spamming to get kills. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I was just throwing out random ideas, but too often, if you read this thread and sentiment from players, it’s this group against another group. It’s gotten completely toxic. How about ZOS gives us new maps, give us the power to select whatever mode we want, and give us new sets to farm through battlegrounds. Because right now, the vast majority of players don’t see the point of queue’ing in.

I don’t like how players are blaming each other when ZOS as the game manager is doing such a poor job. They’ve given PVP’ers no new content for years now. And look at how petty and toxic the player base has become against each other.

The overall point I’m trying to make is for ZOS to reconsider the overarching conditions of battlegrounds in general.

At this point, I don’t even know if there’s anyone left to really complain about the game. ZOS really has lost their opportunity to secure their place in the marketplace. Half my friends list hasn’t logged on in days now...

Magio_

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

Perhaps you should play in solo pvp, that's exactly what happens. I've played pvp in mmorpg for 20 years, it really has not changed much where no comms are involved.

I've experienced teamplay even with no voice comms. Agree to disagree then.

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

In any case, the only issue that that the devs have taken all objective pvp content away from PVP players that enjoy it. The game should have both objective based PVP and DM, they are not mutually exclusive, and DM only fans and players who like mixed PVP are not against each other.

Exactly. Let people choose what the mode they want to play.

Dem_kitkats1

master_vanargand wrote: »

I waited 30 minutes for solo but can not play BGs.
DC set and deathmatch seem to have destroyed the BGs.

Yeah lowbie BGs are especially dead after changing the ques. New players especially hate DM only and it's sparse enough with people leaving to play New World

_adhyffbjjjf12

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

Honestly. I don't like the idea or sound of adding incentives like this. There's a lot of context behind who gets a kill, who earns the most medals, etc. It's just going to open up more problems than we already have, and it will especially open up issues with BG becoming more of a farming ground for PUGs than actual, good PVP.

I wait for the day that kills/FBs give AP and everyone is running magsorcs fury spamming to get kills. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

the option of not rewarding BG because it may attract the wrong sort is not very healthy. Todays newbie is next years expert if they keep coming. RE rewards, if we take domination as an example then for this kills is less important (still necessary) so lower the reward for kills and raise the rewards for capturing. In each other BG type do same, match reward to most healthy game style. also have diminishing returns.

thesarahandcompany

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

Honestly. I don't like the idea or sound of adding incentives like this. There's a lot of context behind who gets a kill, who earns the most medals, etc. It's just going to open up more problems than we already have, and it will especially open up issues with BG becoming more of a farming ground for PUGs than actual, good PVP.

I wait for the day that kills/FBs give AP and everyone is running magsorcs fury spamming to get kills. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

the option of not rewarding BG because it may attract the wrong sort is not very healthy. Todays newbie is next years expert if they keep coming. RE rewards, if we take domination as an example then for this kills is less important (still necessary) so lower the reward for kills and raise the rewards for capturing. In each other BG type do same, match reward to most healthy game style. also have diminishing returns.

There's already rewards for BGs. In my opinion the better option is to just increase the quantity of rewards or the shape of rewards we already have. The last thing we need is new gear like before where BGs turn into a set-fest and farming ground for coin.

_adhyffbjjjf12

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Skoomah wrote: »

It's a very simple fix. Just let people select what they want to play. The goal should be a high population for everything so no matter what game mode you select, there's a match being filled fast.

Lets reframe this discussion around what ZOS needs to do. ZOS needs to make all game modes attractive for the player base to find BGs worth it and want to play. It shouldn't be pitting the players against each other and blaming us that the player population can't support... Give us a reason to be there (give us AP per kill, give us new reward sets every 3 months, etc.)

Honestly. I don't like the idea or sound of adding incentives like this. There's a lot of context behind who gets a kill, who earns the most medals, etc. It's just going to open up more problems than we already have, and it will especially open up issues with BG becoming more of a farming ground for PUGs than actual, good PVP.

I wait for the day that kills/FBs give AP and everyone is running magsorcs fury spamming to get kills. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

the option of not rewarding BG because it may attract the wrong sort is not very healthy. Todays newbie is next years expert if they keep coming. RE rewards, if we take domination as an example then for this kills is less important (still necessary) so lower the reward for kills and raise the rewards for capturing. In each other BG type do same, match reward to most healthy game style. also have diminishing returns.

There's already rewards for BGs. In my opinion the better option is to just increase the quantity of rewards or the shape of rewards we already have. The last thing we need is new gear like before where BGs turn into a set-fest and farming ground for coin.

I agree, change the shape of the reward.

HiImRex

There’s a really clear line in the debate between combat-focused players and combat-casual players.

Allow me to contribute to the discussion by clarifying one big reason for the seemingly irreconcilable conflict in perspective.

ESO pvp is hard. Veteran pvp players at the top end of the skill curve tend to forget how hard it is. It’s not just the mechanical skill required (of which there is a lot) but also understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each class within the current meta and knowing how to build + pilot in said meta.

It’s clear from the way combat is perceived by combat-averse players (it’s spammy” “it’s mindless” “dogpiling” “slaughter”) that the problem is a lack of understanding.

Those of us who understand ESO pvp combat at the highest levels understand this is far from the case. ESO pvp is much more strategic and tactical even in its worst state for those of us who understand it well.

In other words, once you reach a certain level of competency, the basic combat itself is many times more interesting and strategic than the simplistic objective mechanics present in the game.

Understanding the meta, building your character, the in-combat decision making, and finally the challenge of executing those decisions, all of this makes the combat itself extremely engaging and replayable. That is, if you understand what is going on.

If, on the other hand, you don’t understand the intricacies of prevailing in pvp combat, its extremely punishing. And because the game itself has no way to teach you these intricacies, it can be very frustrating. Add to that the lack of an adequate teaching community, and the problem is exacerbated.

Hence for those players who like the idea of pvp but does not understand the pvp combat at a high enough level (for whatever reason, of which there are many), the simple objectives, as barebones as they are, provide the minimum structure necessary to experience an understandable and therefore enoyable BG match.

So, ultimately, I see two possible
and realistic remedies. One, the community takes up the responsibility of making high level ESO pvp combat accessible to more players via well crafted guides. Two, objectives and DM given two separate queues.

Finally, I think ideally ZOS will step up and give us better designed instanced pvp content as no matter what the current bg designs are very sub par as a matter of game design.

trackdemon5512

Test results are in:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/7419947#Comment_7419947?utm_medium=social&utm_source=discord&utm_campaign=dwemer_automaton

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hi everyone, thanks so much for your participation, patience and feedback while we experimented with only having the Deathmatch game mode available. It was important for us to run this for a few weeks to ensure we had an accurate representation of overall involvement and interest in Battlegrounds during this time.

First, it’s valuable to note the general feedback on this test was quite polarizing. While there were certainly a lot of players that liked only having Deathmatch available, there were just as many that didn’t enjoy it. A frequent complaint we saw, though, was the disappointment that we removed something that is ultimately at the core of our game: the freedom of choice. And in the case of this test, the data appeared to back that up as well. Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.

Starting with the launch of Update 32 (November 1 for PC/Mac/Stadia and November 16 for consoles), we’ll be giving you more choices to decide which game mode to queue into depending on if you are playing solo or with a group. These will include:

• Solo Deathmatch
• Solo Random Battleground
• Group Deathmatch
• Group Random Battleground

One thing to keep in mind is the random queue will include all game modes (Flag Games, Land Grabs, and Deathmatch) so the likelihood of getting Deathmatch is going to be higher for those queueing into that game mode, specifically.

We’ll continue to monitor the sentiment and participation rates with Battlegrounds once this rolls out next month, and we’ll let you know if we plan for any additional changes. Thanks again for posting all your thoughts during this time!

Deathmatch Only was demonstrably bad for the health of the game.

_adhyffbjjjf12

HiImRex wrote: »

There’s a really clear line in the debate between combat-focused players and combat-casual players.

Allow me to contribute to the discussion by clarifying one big reason for the seemingly irreconcilable conflict in perspective.

ESO pvp is hard. Veteran pvp players at the top end of the skill curve tend to forget how hard it is. It’s not just the mechanical skill required (of which there is a lot) but also understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each class within the current meta and knowing how to build + pilot in said meta.

It’s clear from the way combat is perceived by combat-averse players (it’s spammy” “it’s mindless” “dogpiling” “slaughter”) that the problem is a lack of understanding.

Those of us who understand ESO pvp combat at the highest levels understand this is far from the case. ESO pvp is much more strategic and tactical even in its worst state for those of us who understand it well.

In other words, once you reach a certain level of competency, the basic combat itself is many times more interesting and strategic than the simplistic objective mechanics present in the game.

Understanding the meta, building your character, the in-combat decision making, and finally the challenge of executing those decisions, all of this makes the combat itself extremely engaging and replayable. That is, if you understand what is going on.

If, on the other hand, you don’t understand the intricacies of prevailing in pvp combat, its extremely punishing. And because the game itself has no way to teach you these intricacies, it can be very frustrating. Add to that the lack of an adequate teaching community, and the problem is exacerbated.

Hence for those players who like the idea of pvp but does not understand the pvp combat at a high enough level (for whatever reason, of which there are many), the simple objectives, as barebones as they are, provide the minimum structure necessary to experience an understandable and therefore enoyable BG match.

So, ultimately, I see two possible
and realistic remedies. One, the community takes up the responsibility of making high level ESO pvp combat accessible to more players via well crafted guides. Two, objectives and DM given two separate queues.

Finally, I think ideally ZOS will step up and give us better designed instanced pvp content as no matter what the current bg designs are very sub par as a matter of game design.

its been resolved now with separate queues, but to be clear 'combat-focused players and combat-casual players.' is both a strawman and elitist. It should be 'Combat focused players' and 'players that like Combat with Objectives' The rest of your chat is then meaningless as skill is irrelevant, highly skilled players may like either/both.