Congratulations. ZOS killed all enjoyment out of BGs

MashmalloMan · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Demonstrably bad? That's your takeaway?

If it was demonstrably bad, they wouldn't of given it a specific queue for DM while leaving objective and DM in random, players clealy want it, but what ZOS refuses to acknowledge is that most of the PVP community left during this test and the patch as a whole because of Dark Convergence, Hrothgar and New World's release.

You can see the comments on the forums alone, go to any Youtube video or stream and see what people are saying about pvp, join discords, even people who wanted a DM only queue, could not be bothered to play something they found unenjoyable this patch with sometimes upwards of 7-8 people using Dark Convergence in small confined, 12 person lobbies. It's a nightmare.

But whatever, win/win for both Objective, DM and "any mode" players. I wouldn't spin anything about this test in a negative light.

trackdemon5512 · October 2021

MashmalloMan wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Demonstrably bad? That's your takeaway?

If it was demonstrably bad, they wouldn't of given it a specific queue for DM while leaving objective and DM in random, players clealy want it, but what ZOS refuses to acknowledge is that most of the PVP community left during this test and the patch as a whole because of Dark Convergence, Hrothgar and New World's release.

You can see the comments on the forums alone, go to any Youtube video or stream and see what people are saying about pvp, join discords, even people who wanted a DM only queue, could not be bothered to play something they found unenjoyable this patch with sometimes upwards of 7-8 people using Dark Convergence in small confined, 12 person lobbies. It's a nightmare.

But whatever, win/win for both Objective, DM and "any mode" players. I wouldn't spin anything about this test in a negative light.

“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.”

Yes. That’s the very textbook definition of “demonstrably bad”. Participation quickly declined leaving Battlegrounds in an unhealthy state. There was clear evidence as to why and there was no benefit to Battlegrounds.

I’ve already addressed the nonsense argument that either Dark Convergence or New World would have any effect on the BG population in such a manner.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

I

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

I beg to disagree. If things play out like they should, players who just want to test their builds' kill:death ratio, which are the same players who ignored objectives in non-DM games, will queue up for Death Matches. The rest will opt for the variety pack.

Araneae6537 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

So looking back at this debacle:

- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.

Those players who really wanted to do Deathmatch and were treating every Battleground as such can now queue specifically for it — where pursuing their preferred objective is also pursuing victory. So this should address the problem or at least fix part of it, no?

Sooooo what happens when the queue for Deathmatches only plummets like it did with this test? Are those players just gonna sit in queue for hours possibly or will they join the random queue, hope for a deathmatch, and then continue the kill everything and ignore the objective for flag games when they come up?

ZOS addressed the issue of possibly reducing DM wanting players entering Flag Games. That is NOT the same as incentivizing said players to properly engage in those flag games and play in a manner that doesn’t hamper the team effort or ruin the overall experience.

The dm queue may have gone down, but my pvp guilds played a ton of bgs. And it only went down because of dark convergence and new world. Poorly timed for a test. I can assure you, people will not be sitting in a queue for dm for an hour lol

Yeah, no.

Dark Convergence cannot possibly be a reason because you would have likely seen the same amount of player proportionally quitting Cyrodiil during this time. I don’t believe that can factor in. Also as Gina stated, BG engagement briefly increased and then decreased. Dark Convergence was around prior to the beginning of the test on PC and would be unlikely to cause such a rise and fall after the test began as opposed to when the update was released.

If Dark Convergence was such a factor both PC and Console would see similar rises in BG populations and subsequent falls roughly two weeks apart. The same amount of time between PC and Console release.

NEW WORLD can’t factor in. It was only released fully two weeks ago. And even then it’s PC only. Drops in BG engagement was across all platforms and New World has had newsworthy trouble in just getting players able to sign on. No New World isn’t a reason either.

And as for this new test with separate queues it leaves a gaping problem. When the dedicated DM queue can’t find enough players two things will happen. Either the random queue filters players into excessive amounts of Deathmatches and the population gets sick of it like they did with all Deathmatches this test. Or those players enter the random queue and we continue to have the same issue of players acting as if every game mode is a DM and don’t play toward the objectives. That last one is literally the main reason for the previous test.

HiImRex · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

MashmalloMan wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Demonstrably bad? That's your takeaway?

If it was demonstrably bad, they wouldn't of given it a specific queue for DM while leaving objective and DM in random, players clealy want it, but what ZOS refuses to acknowledge is that most of the PVP community left during this test and the patch as a whole because of Dark Convergence, Hrothgar and New World's release.

You can see the comments on the forums alone, go to any Youtube video or stream and see what people are saying about pvp, join discords, even people who wanted a DM only queue, could not be bothered to play something they found unenjoyable this patch with sometimes upwards of 7-8 people using Dark Convergence in small confined, 12 person lobbies. It's a nightmare.

But whatever, win/win for both Objective, DM and "any mode" players. I wouldn't spin anything about this test in a negative light.

“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.”

Yes. That’s the very textbook definition of “demonstrably bad”. Participation quickly declined leaving Battlegrounds in an unhealthy state. There was clear evidence as to why and there was no benefit to Battlegrounds.

I’ve already addressed the nonsense argument that either Dark Convergence or New World would have any effect on the BG population in such a manner.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

I

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

I beg to disagree. If things play out like they should, players who just want to test their builds' kill:death ratio, which are the same players who ignored objectives in non-DM games, will queue up for Death Matches. The rest will opt for the variety pack.

Araneae6537 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

So looking back at this debacle:

- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.

Those players who really wanted to do Deathmatch and were treating every Battleground as such can now queue specifically for it — where pursuing their preferred objective is also pursuing victory. So this should address the problem or at least fix part of it, no?

Sooooo what happens when the queue for Deathmatches only plummets like it did with this test? Are those players just gonna sit in queue for hours possibly or will they join the random queue, hope for a deathmatch, and then continue the kill everything and ignore the objective for flag games when they come up?

ZOS addressed the issue of possibly reducing DM wanting players entering Flag Games. That is NOT the same as incentivizing said players to properly engage in those flag games and play in a manner that doesn’t hamper the team effort or ruin the overall experience.

The dm queue may have gone down, but my pvp guilds played a ton of bgs. And it only went down because of dark convergence and new world. Poorly timed for a test. I can assure you, people will not be sitting in a queue for dm for an hour lol

Yeah, no.

Dark Convergence cannot possibly be a reason because you would have likely seen the same amount of player proportionally quitting Cyrodiil during this time. I don’t believe that can factor in. Also as Gina stated, BG engagement briefly increased and then decreased. Dark Convergence was around prior to the beginning of the test on PC and would be unlikely to cause such a rise and fall after the test began as opposed to when the update was released.

If Dark Convergence was such a factor both PC and Console would see similar rises in BG populations and subsequent falls roughly two weeks apart. The same amount of time between PC and Console release.

NEW WORLD can’t factor in. It was only released fully two weeks ago. And even then it’s PC only. Drops in BG engagement was across all platforms and New World has had newsworthy trouble in just getting players able to sign on. No New World isn’t a reason either.

And as for this new test with separate queues it leaves a gaping problem. When the dedicated DM queue can’t find enough players two things will happen. Either the random queue filters players into excessive amounts of Deathmatches and the population gets sick of it like they did with all Deathmatches this test. Or those players enter the random queue and we continue to have the same issue of players acting as if every game mode is a DM and don’t play toward the objectives. That last one is literally the main reason for the previous test.

The problem is your arguments are extremely flawed.

1. Cyrodil population DID go down. You're blind if you don't see that.

2. Dark Convergence has a much larger impact on the quality of the BG experience than Cyrodil because:

The smaller the area, the greater DC ruins the combat
The more concentrated the combat, the greater DC ruins the combat
NO CP exacerbates DC because CP has much better sustain and defense to mitigate some of the DC effects

DC ruins 95% of BG because BGs are non-stop fighting in small, limited spaces, where the no CP makes every DC pull extremely punishing.

You're arguing that DC should have had a proportionate impact on the population of Cyrodil and BGs when everything wrong about the set is greatly magnified in the BG setting.

3. New World did sap a huge amount of PC players from BGs, and you have no idea how ZOS calculated the data to arrive at the "unhealthy" population--total numbers across platforms? % decrease across platforms? calculated individually and then averaged across platforms?

In conclusion:

You actually don't have anywhere near enough information to draw the kind of conclusive interpretations you're forcing on the very barebone statement made by ZOS.

Also you're arguing about the impact of DC on BGs by referring to Cyrodil population when you don't have any data on Cyrodil population to support your conclusions.

I think most players who have been checking Cyrodil population daily can attest to the fact that anecdotally (the ONLY data we have right now on the subject of Cyrodil population), Cryodil population indeed has gone significantly down after DC and New World. So the numbers actually speak against your conclusions.

trackdemon5512 · October 2021

HiImRex wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

MashmalloMan wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Demonstrably bad? That's your takeaway?

If it was demonstrably bad, they wouldn't of given it a specific queue for DM while leaving objective and DM in random, players clealy want it, but what ZOS refuses to acknowledge is that most of the PVP community left during this test and the patch as a whole because of Dark Convergence, Hrothgar and New World's release.

You can see the comments on the forums alone, go to any Youtube video or stream and see what people are saying about pvp, join discords, even people who wanted a DM only queue, could not be bothered to play something they found unenjoyable this patch with sometimes upwards of 7-8 people using Dark Convergence in small confined, 12 person lobbies. It's a nightmare.

But whatever, win/win for both Objective, DM and "any mode" players. I wouldn't spin anything about this test in a negative light.

“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.”

Yes. That’s the very textbook definition of “demonstrably bad”. Participation quickly declined leaving Battlegrounds in an unhealthy state. There was clear evidence as to why and there was no benefit to Battlegrounds.

I’ve already addressed the nonsense argument that either Dark Convergence or New World would have any effect on the BG population in such a manner.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

I

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

I beg to disagree. If things play out like they should, players who just want to test their builds' kill:death ratio, which are the same players who ignored objectives in non-DM games, will queue up for Death Matches. The rest will opt for the variety pack.

Araneae6537 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

So looking back at this debacle:

- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.

Those players who really wanted to do Deathmatch and were treating every Battleground as such can now queue specifically for it — where pursuing their preferred objective is also pursuing victory. So this should address the problem or at least fix part of it, no?

Sooooo what happens when the queue for Deathmatches only plummets like it did with this test? Are those players just gonna sit in queue for hours possibly or will they join the random queue, hope for a deathmatch, and then continue the kill everything and ignore the objective for flag games when they come up?

ZOS addressed the issue of possibly reducing DM wanting players entering Flag Games. That is NOT the same as incentivizing said players to properly engage in those flag games and play in a manner that doesn’t hamper the team effort or ruin the overall experience.

The dm queue may have gone down, but my pvp guilds played a ton of bgs. And it only went down because of dark convergence and new world. Poorly timed for a test. I can assure you, people will not be sitting in a queue for dm for an hour lol

Yeah, no.

Dark Convergence cannot possibly be a reason because you would have likely seen the same amount of player proportionally quitting Cyrodiil during this time. I don’t believe that can factor in. Also as Gina stated, BG engagement briefly increased and then decreased. Dark Convergence was around prior to the beginning of the test on PC and would be unlikely to cause such a rise and fall after the test began as opposed to when the update was released.

If Dark Convergence was such a factor both PC and Console would see similar rises in BG populations and subsequent falls roughly two weeks apart. The same amount of time between PC and Console release.

NEW WORLD can’t factor in. It was only released fully two weeks ago. And even then it’s PC only. Drops in BG engagement was across all platforms and New World has had newsworthy trouble in just getting players able to sign on. No New World isn’t a reason either.

And as for this new test with separate queues it leaves a gaping problem. When the dedicated DM queue can’t find enough players two things will happen. Either the random queue filters players into excessive amounts of Deathmatches and the population gets sick of it like they did with all Deathmatches this test. Or those players enter the random queue and we continue to have the same issue of players acting as if every game mode is a DM and don’t play toward the objectives. That last one is literally the main reason for the previous test.

The problem is your arguments are extremely flawed.

1. Cyrodil population DID go down. You're blind if you don't see that.

2. Dark Convergence has a much larger impact on the quality of the BG experience than Cyrodil because:

The smaller the area, the greater DC ruins the combat
The more concentrated the combat, the greater DC ruins the combat
NO CP exacerbates DC because CP has much better sustain and defense to mitigate some of the DC effects

DC ruins 95% of BG because BGs are non-stop fighting in small, limited spaces, where the no CP makes every DC pull extremely punishing.

You're arguing that DC should have had a proportionate impact on the population of Cyrodil and BGs when everything wrong about the set is greatly magnified in the BG setting.

3. New World did sap a huge amount of PC players from BGs, and you have no idea how ZOS calculated the data to arrive at the "unhealthy" population--total numbers across platforms? % decrease across platforms? calculated individually and then averaged across platforms?

In conclusion:

You actually don't have anywhere near enough information to draw the kind of conclusive interpretations you're forcing on the very barebone statement made by ZOS.

Also you're arguing about the impact of DC on BGs by referring to Cyrodil population when you don't have any data on Cyrodil population to support your conclusions.

I think most players who have been checking Cyrodil population daily can attest to the fact that anecdotally (the ONLY data we have right now on the subject of Cyrodil population), Cryodil population indeed has gone significantly down after DC and New World. So the numbers actually speak against your conclusions.

If Cyrodiil dropped it didn’t to the extent that BGs did. I mean Gina states that the BG population is extremely unhealthy.

And it’s ridiculous for you to think that an analysis of participation in BGs during this test wouldn’t account for NW. Like I said, NW is PC only. The test was across all three platforms. You’re telling me that the people jumped ship from consoles for PC (very rare to do) to play a game that news reports show had severe problems getting people to sign into? And that the small amount of players who did so are responsible for ruining an all DM test?

Or that in graphing data trends the developers couldn’t see the slow decline from the initial boost they noticed and that if there were any immediate extenuating factors that those outliers couldn’t be excised from the data?

How about now? A lot of the hype around NW has died down. If BGs continue to bleed players heavily how do you account for that? Are you going to blame something else or choose the most obviously point, that many players hated this as they said and ppl just weren’t into it.

Aldoss · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Are you going to blame something else or choose the most obviously point, that many players hated this as they said and ppl just weren’t into it.

You seem very invested in spinning the little amount of insights shared into your game view. However, no one can extrapolate anything further other than what Gina shared: ZOS thinks the state of the BG population is unhealthy.

There are too many factors at play to say why that happened. You believe it to be a response to the DM only experiment. I believe it to be a response to NW and the absolutely trash gameplay that Dark Convergence has created.

Say what you want, I'll throw my experience into the ring that Cyro is equally as unhealthy as the BG scene is right now. Pop is down across the board and Gray Host is ACTUALLY playable for the first time in months, but only because there is barely more than 50 people on each alliance.

BGs were extremely fun at the start of this DM only experiment because only a few people who dropped millions to buy their DC sets had it. We hit critical mass DC a couple weeks ago. The BG experience now might as well be "run away from Dark Convergence for 10 minutes".

God forbid you get Foyada. Nothing is more frustrating than getting pulled from outside the pull radius into the lava and then getting light attacked to death. It's tiresome and no longer enjoyable. My wife and I picked up Valheim and we've been enjoying spending the time we used to spend playing BGs there while we wait for ZOS to fix/backpedal this atrocity.

Downplaying the effect that DC has had on this game is woefully ignorant. Someone complains about it in every BG and a day hasn't gone by in my BG guild where someone hasn't expressed frustration with this trash meta. We went from the best meta in recent history to the absolute worst I've ever experienced.

Nov 1 can't come soon enough. This should have been #1 priority for a hotfix along with Hrothgar.

At the end of the day, despite our disagreement as to the causes, I think we can all agree that ZOS is responsible for the unhealthy state of the PvP community and I really hope they start making better choices as they address it before it's gone and beyond saving.

renne · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Yeah but we don't know that it was because it was DM only or because they also released insanely broken pvp sets at the same time. DM only with extremely broken dark convergence was DEFINITELY bad for the game. It's bad for the entirety of PVP, and you can bet if they hadn't done this test, it would be bad for all modes of BGs, too.

_adhyffbjjjf12 · October 2021

renne wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Yeah but we don't know that it was because it was DM only or because they also released insanely broken pvp sets at the same time. DM only with extremely broken dark convergence was DEFINITELY bad for the game. It's bad for the entirety of PVP, and you can bet if they hadn't done this test, it would be bad for all modes of BGs, too.

DC existed before the experiment. I hate DC but i persevered. when it went to DM only I stopped playing BG and focused on PVE, and will come back when the rotation is resumed ( I will tolerate DC again but i hate it). Lots of others have reported doing the same.

thesarahandcompany · October 2021

Everyone using this test data, which was on the tail of an MMO release by Amazon Studios, to suggest that BG population fell cause of deathmatch need to like get a grip and stop trying to skew this really bad amount of test data to their narrative.

I'm not even going to @ anyone.

_adhyffbjjjf12 · October 2021

thesarahandcompany wrote: »

Everyone using this test data, which was on the tail of an MMO release by Amazon Studios, to suggest that BG population fell cause of deathmatch need to like get a grip and stop trying to skew this really bad amount of test data to their narrative.

I'm not even going to @ anyone.

There were 2 factors that influenced the trial, they are not mutually exclusive.

1 New world/ new mmorpg honeymoon period (transitory)
2. People who still play ESO but stopped playing BG because its was DM only (fact, I and others I know and others in forum have already intimated this)

its already been explained by an official in this forum that removing content was a factor in the decision to stop the trial. They can't control 1, they can control 2.

Aldoss · October 2021

3. People who still play ESO and love the DM only format, but stopped playing DM only BGs because Dark Convergence hit critical mass and each match has 2-6 players using it

There are a lot of factors that contributed to the "unhealthy state of the BG population", not just the ones you cherry picked to fit your bias.

Regardless, I'm happy with the changes they're making to the BG queue. I hope it, plus the DC nerfs coming on Nov 1, will help to make BGs fun for my wife and I again.

renne · October 2021

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

renne wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Yeah but we don't know that it was because it was DM only or because they also released insanely broken pvp sets at the same time. DM only with extremely broken dark convergence was DEFINITELY bad for the game. It's bad for the entirety of PVP, and you can bet if they hadn't done this test, it would be bad for all modes of BGs, too.

DC existed before the experiment. I hate DC but i persevered. when it went to DM only I stopped playing BG and focused on PVE, and will come back when the rotation is resumed ( I will tolerate DC again but i hate it). Lots of others have reported doing the same.

See this comment from Aldoss above:
"3. People who still play ESO and love the DM only format, but stopped playing DM only BGs because Dark Convergence hit critical mass and each match has 2-6 players using it"

The critical mass part is the important part and why I think it had a major, MAJOR impact on the DM test even though it existed before. Objective based players didn't use it that much. It was BIS for straight up killing people which is what DMs are.

My group couldn't GET a DM to pop even once before the test - which is a major problem in of itself which has to be admitted even by people who don't like DMs; in a queue that supposedly has equal chance on all modes, you shouldn't be able to play multiple BGs every night and only ever get mostly relic, the occasional flag game, and one single chaosball with ZERO DMs - and after the test it was just a mass of DC procs which stopped us from playing because it wasn't fun.

I know it's only anecdata but that's 4 people right there who wanted to play DMs not wanting to play DMs - what we'd been looking forward to so much - because of the absolute proliferation of this broken set.

Jeremy · October 2021

MashmalloMan wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Demonstrably bad? That's your takeaway?

If it was demonstrably bad, they wouldn't of given it a specific queue for DM while leaving objective and DM in random, players clealy want it, but what ZOS refuses to acknowledge is that most of the PVP community left during this test and the patch as a whole because of Dark Convergence, Hrothgar and New World's release.

You can see the comments on the forums alone, go to any Youtube video or stream and see what people are saying about pvp, join discords, even people who wanted a DM only queue, could not be bothered to play something they found unenjoyable this patch with sometimes upwards of 7-8 people using Dark Convergence in small confined, 12 person lobbies. It's a nightmare.

But whatever, win/win for both Objective, DM and "any mode" players. I wouldn't spin anything about this test in a negative light.

There is always some "OP" setup everyone uses that ruins battlegrounds and is the worse meta ever. So Dark Convergence is nothing new in that respect, and is just the latest example of a trend that's always there. So I don't think you can lay the blame at its door. Clearly the Death Match Only was a bad move and made what was already a dying activity die even harder. The wait times are longer, and I see even less a variety of players than before.

Most people avoid PvP because it's the same bull ____, where you just get jumped by groups of griefers who like to team up on others, and then do their silly little teabag as if they did something special by killing someone who really had no chance. The root problem is this game 's pvp is balanced for 1v1, yet there is no 1v1. And until they change that, this game's PvP is always going to suck. The lag doesn't help either. But at least the objective-based battlegrounds were like a breath of fresh air because they consisted of strategies other than just ganging up on others to slaughter them asap. Well, except maybe for that stupid ball one.

Aldoss · October 2021

Jeremy wrote: »

The root problem is this game 's pvp is balanced for 1v1

If this were true, dueling tournaments wouldn't have as many rules as they do.

People team up on each other in every game that allows it because it's a historically proven strategy.

Jeremy · October 2021

Aldoss wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

The root problem is this game 's pvp is balanced for 1v1

If this were true, dueling tournaments wouldn't have as many rules as they do.

People team up on each other in every game that allows it because it's a historically proven strategy.

Now imagine how many rules there would need to be if the tournament was 1 vs 2. lol

So not sure what your point is there.

And whether it's "historically proven" or not, it's not fun getting slaughtered by superior numbers and games are suppose to be about having fun. That should be the goal, and the developers need to focus on that: making PvP fun. There is nothing fun about being ganged up on and slaughtered. And this game's PvP literally revolves around that, which is why so few players do it.

Aldoss · October 2021

My point is that extra rules were created by organizers of dueling tournaments specifically because the community has the general consensus that this game is not balanced in a 1v1 scenario and will likely never be balanced in a 1v1 scenario.

This is a multiplayer game which allows for players to use tactics that come with multiplayer scenarios, one of the primary strategies being teaming up against smaller numbers or isolating the weak link on a team and focusing that target to gain advantage.

This strategy exists in literally every multiplayer PvP game. At least in a BG, the numbers start balanced (except when the queue system breaks and a team only gets 3 or worse). In cyro, you expect to get zerged or you're not going to have any fun.

gariondavey · October 2021

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

MashmalloMan wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

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.

Demonstrably bad? That's your takeaway?

If it was demonstrably bad, they wouldn't of given it a specific queue for DM while leaving objective and DM in random, players clealy want it, but what ZOS refuses to acknowledge is that most of the PVP community left during this test and the patch as a whole because of Dark Convergence, Hrothgar and New World's release.

You can see the comments on the forums alone, go to any Youtube video or stream and see what people are saying about pvp, join discords, even people who wanted a DM only queue, could not be bothered to play something they found unenjoyable this patch with sometimes upwards of 7-8 people using Dark Convergence in small confined, 12 person lobbies. It's a nightmare.

But whatever, win/win for both Objective, DM and "any mode" players. I wouldn't spin anything about this test in a negative light.

“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.”

Yes. That’s the very textbook definition of “demonstrably bad”. Participation quickly declined leaving Battlegrounds in an unhealthy state. There was clear evidence as to why and there was no benefit to Battlegrounds.

I’ve already addressed the nonsense argument that either Dark Convergence or New World would have any effect on the BG population in such a manner.

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

gariondavey wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

propertyOfUndefined wrote: »

I

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

I beg to disagree. If things play out like they should, players who just want to test their builds' kill:death ratio, which are the same players who ignored objectives in non-DM games, will queue up for Death Matches. The rest will opt for the variety pack.

Araneae6537 wrote: »

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

So looking back at this debacle:

- a poorly thought out test yielded results that we expected.
- Few players actually engaged in BGs when they were DM only
- Listening to the loudest voices on the forum was clearly a mistake
- A specialized choice (randoms vs DM) queue is coming
- All of this IN NO WAY has remotely addressed players playing every flag game like a DM.

That last point is more important as it was the reasoning behind the test in the first place. While the developers are now making it easy to split the population, they missed the fundamental point of incentivizing combatants to play for an objective rather than to just kill everyone in Flag Games.

Those players who really wanted to do Deathmatch and were treating every Battleground as such can now queue specifically for it — where pursuing their preferred objective is also pursuing victory. So this should address the problem or at least fix part of it, no?

Sooooo what happens when the queue for Deathmatches only plummets like it did with this test? Are those players just gonna sit in queue for hours possibly or will they join the random queue, hope for a deathmatch, and then continue the kill everything and ignore the objective for flag games when they come up?

ZOS addressed the issue of possibly reducing DM wanting players entering Flag Games. That is NOT the same as incentivizing said players to properly engage in those flag games and play in a manner that doesn’t hamper the team effort or ruin the overall experience.

The dm queue may have gone down, but my pvp guilds played a ton of bgs. And it only went down because of dark convergence and new world. Poorly timed for a test. I can assure you, people will not be sitting in a queue for dm for an hour lol

Yeah, no.

Dark Convergence cannot possibly be a reason because you would have likely seen the same amount of player proportionally quitting Cyrodiil during this time. I don’t believe that can factor in. Also as Gina stated, BG engagement briefly increased and then decreased. Dark Convergence was around prior to the beginning of the test on PC and would be unlikely to cause such a rise and fall after the test began as opposed to when the update was released.

If Dark Convergence was such a factor both PC and Console would see similar rises in BG populations and subsequent falls roughly two weeks apart. The same amount of time between PC and Console release.

NEW WORLD can’t factor in. It was only released fully two weeks ago. And even then it’s PC only. Drops in BG engagement was across all platforms and New World has had newsworthy trouble in just getting players able to sign on. No New World isn’t a reason either.

And as for this new test with separate queues it leaves a gaping problem. When the dedicated DM queue can’t find enough players two things will happen. Either the random queue filters players into excessive amounts of Deathmatches and the population gets sick of it like they did with all Deathmatches this test. Or those players enter the random queue and we continue to have the same issue of players acting as if every game mode is a DM and don’t play toward the objectives. That last one is literally the main reason for the previous test.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong.
@MashmalloMan is right.

lrs8855b14_ESO · November 2021

Choices are always a good things - my vote is to bring back all types of BGs. I've stopped playing them entirely due to only deathmatch.

Talyndor · November 2021

lrs8855b14_ESO wrote: »

Choices are always a good things - my vote is to bring back all types of BGs. I've stopped playing them entirely due to only deathmatch.

Me too.