Battlegrounds still Deathmatch Only

CyberOnEso

With the change to the Battleground queue, nearly all battleground matches are deathmatch only.

In my opinion, this is an issue, especially since ZOS said after their Deathmatch only tests

Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.

I predicted this before the patch went live here. And now it's out ZOS, or Rich Lambert doesn't seem to think it is an issue. As "Deathmatch only is still the top queue" (Because, as he points out, it's the first one on the dropdown menu).

If we presume "Deathmatch only" has 51% of the people queuing for it (As "it's the top queue"). Then due to sheer probability, 99.984% of all games played will be Deathmatch. Which I think is an issue as 49% of hypothetical players want something else other than Deathmatch, as they went out of their way to change the drop-down to select it.

0.99984% = 1-(((1-0.51)^12)*0.8)

Rich Lambert did reveal that there were some non- deathmatch games running, which I personally think is a miracle. And shows that a significant amount of people are queuing into "Random Queue", meaning they went and changed a drop-down because they want another game mode than "Deathmatch", for whatever their reasons are, but the game will not give them one.

Rich Lambert describes the queue as a set of buckets, with each bucket being assigned a gamemode. "Random Queue" puts a ticket in each of the buckets and "Deathmatch Only" puts a ticket into the "Deathmatch" bucket. When one bucket is full (has 12 people) the queue finder will start a match of that type.

Due to sheer probability, any other bucket will never fill faster than the "Deathmatch" bucket, because you cannot choose to not put your ticket into the "Deatchmatch" bucket.
It is frankly maddening how no one at ZOS saw this coming, or how this isn't seen as an issue. They seem to think if "Deathmatch Only" is the most popular queue (despite being the default) then all matches being Deathmatch is fine, which in my opinion is crazy especially considering how many achievements are tied to non- deathmatch battleground modes.

This thread is not meant as an opinion on which mode is better or whatever, it is meant to hopefully get across a point that the new battleground queue has been poorly thought out and will likely

[leave] Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state

I just want to point out that I am aware ZOS did say this

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.

Just because you said getting Deathmatch is more likely doesn't mean that it is a good idea or that people didn't understand, please don't treat your player base like we are stupid. We care about this game, we read what you said, however, I personally disagree with it.

I may be a stupid player that has no idea how complex your impressive systems are. But I think this is an issue that should be seriously looked into as I personally don't want to see the Battleground population in a 'fairly unhealthy state', again.

Quotes from Rich Lambert from: https://twitch.tv/videos/1198116853 starts around 4 hours in.

BTW, if you want my thoughts on the "Warsong gulch" issue, or "De_Dust2" issue,

1. Create two buckets one labeled "Deatchmatch" one labeled "Not Deathmatch"
2. When you queue into "Random Queue" you place your ticket in the "Non-Deatchmatch" bucket, when you queue "Deatchmatch Only" you place your ticket into the "Deathmatch" bucket.
3. If after 5 minutes of being in the "Non-Deatchmatch" bucket you still are not in a match you then place a ticket into the "Deathmatch" bucket also.
4. As soon as either bucket has 12 players the match starts, the "Deatchmatch" bucket will be deathmatch the "Non- Deathmatch" bucket will be a random "Non- Deathmatch" mode.
5. That creates a system where players are given a legitimate choice as to which mode to play. And allows the "Random" queue to help the "Deatchmatch" queue ensuring people get into matches in a reasonable time.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

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.

trackdemon5512

I still won’t play BGs lol. It’s all such a mess and needs to be completely redone at this point. They’ve been trying to fix this with little adjustments for the last 3 years now. It’s not working at all.

Pevey

Yeah, it is basically still death match only. The OP helps me understand why, great post.

FeedbackOnly

Nothing against deathmatch, but I want to play other modes even if I have to wait long at this point

M0ntie

I was assuming that if I queued for a random BG that I would have an equal chance of any of the modes. I didn’t follow all the reasons above, but if I queue for a “random” BG and I’m still going to get Deathmatch all them time (or 99+% of the time), then I still won’t be doing BGs. Random should mean roughly equal chance of any.

Sarannah

BG's would actually be better off without a deathmatch mode. Deathmatch only feeds players to the hardcore PvP-crowd, and makes balance issues much too impactful. Whereas other BG modes, also includes tactics, and fun play. Even for PvE players, and players new to PvP.

There needs to be an entry level into PvP, and than increasingly difficult stepping stones into higher end PvP, otherwise PvP is basically killing itself. You can't throw a mouse within a group of hungry lions, and expect to like it.

PS: Maybe we need something like wargrounds: Where players fight alongside strong NPC's against another group of players and strong NPC's. So players only make up/influence a small part of the complete battle.

Nogawd

I stopped queuing the first day. It's an absolute mess.

I miss the other modes.

spartaxoxo

Well that's incredibly lame

Hallothiel

Was starting to enjoy BGs when there was a decent chance to get anything but a DM.

Actually managed to win some, as if idiots on other teams play it as a DM & you play the objectives, which are fun, you generally score more points.

But if that chance has gone, and I have to face try-hards whose self-esteem sadly seems to be based on how many people they kill in a video game, then I will be avoiding BGs like the plague.

Taggund

Thanks for posting. I tried it for 2 nights and only got deathmatch when queueing for random. I'd like the random option and deathmatch only option to be separate queues. I'm also OK if random was like the old way, and included deathmatch as one of the options, I just don't want it as the only option, which is basically what it still is.

The order of the dropdown was even an issue prior to this change, when it was solo and group. What is the default is going to lead to what many select. I know it was not obvious to me there were multiple options when i first started playing BGs, and I'd just hit join queue.

Mandragora

Thanks for posting it on general forums - I felt my stomac when I saw the posts on BG forums. I cannot even think about it if I want to stay positive about ESO. And I still don't understand what Rich was trying to explain.
The explanation for me is a bit more simplified, but probably wrong, but this is how I see it - if there is random dungeon and nobody choose any specific, you get random dungeon. If someone will que for specific dungeon and all other will que for random - all of those players will get the specific dungeon (and can thank him later if it is some unpopular dlc one).
If this is the same for BGs then the moment someone will que for deathmatch - all random will get deathmatch? if there is so many players who want deathmatch, why they need to include others?

drunkendx

I was thinking it's just m,y bad luck, but apparently ZOS messed up... AGAIN.

Look ZOS.

I'd rather wait 1 hour in queue for non DM match, than do single DM after 5 second queue.

So far in 20+ queues for solo random BG, I've been 100% in DM, which I left immediately. No interest in DM.

Jeremy

CyberOnEso wrote: »

With the change to the Battleground queue, nearly all battleground matches are deathmatch only.

In my opinion, this is an issue, especially since ZOS said after their Deathmatch only tests

Although we initially saw a very slight bump in participation, it quickly declined and has left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state.

I predicted this before the patch went live here. And now it's out ZOS, or Rich Lambert doesn't seem to think it is an issue. As "Deathmatch only is still the top queue" (Because, as he points out, it's the first one on the dropdown menu).

If we presume "Deathmatch only" has 51% of the people queuing for it (As "it's the top queue"). Then due to sheer probability, 99.984% of all games played will be Deathmatch. Which I think is an issue as 49% of hypothetical players want something else other than Deathmatch, as they went out of their way to change the drop-down to select it.

0.99984% = 1-(((1-0.51)^12)*0.8)

Rich Lambert did reveal that there were some non- deathmatch games running, which I personally think is a miracle. And shows that a significant amount of people are queuing into "Random Queue", meaning they went and changed a drop-down because they want another game mode than "Deathmatch", for whatever their reasons are, but the game will not give them one.

Rich Lambert describes the queue as a set of buckets, with each bucket being assigned a gamemode. "Random Queue" puts a ticket in each of the buckets and "Deathmatch Only" puts a ticket into the "Deathmatch" bucket. When one bucket is full (has 12 people) the queue finder will start a match of that type.

Due to sheer probability, any other bucket will never fill faster than the "Deathmatch" bucket, because you cannot choose to not put your ticket into the "Deatchmatch" bucket.
It is frankly maddening how no one at ZOS saw this coming, or how this isn't seen as an issue. They seem to think if "Deathmatch Only" is the most popular queue (despite being the default) then all matches being Deathmatch is fine, which in my opinion is crazy especially considering how many achievements are tied to non- deathmatch battleground modes.

This thread is not meant as an opinion on which mode is better or whatever, it is meant to hopefully get across a point that the new battleground queue has been poorly thought out and will likely

[leave] Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state

I just want to point out that I am aware ZOS did say this

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.

Just because you said getting Deathmatch is more likely doesn't mean that it is a good idea or that people didn't understand, please don't treat your player base like we are stupid. We care about this game, we read what you said, however, I personally disagree with it.

I may be a stupid player that has no idea how complex your impressive systems are. But I think this is an issue that should be seriously looked into as I personally don't want to see the Battleground population in a 'fairly unhealthy state', again.

Quotes from Rich Lambert from: https://twitch.tv/videos/1198116853 starts around 4 hours in.

BTW, if you want my thoughts on the "Warsong gulch" issue, or "De_Dust2" issue,

1. Create two buckets one labeled "Deatchmatch" one labeled "Not Deathmatch"
2. When you queue into "Random Queue" you place your ticket in the "Non-Deatchmatch" bucket, when you queue "Deatchmatch Only" you place your ticket into the "Deathmatch" bucket.
3. If after 5 minutes of being in the "Non-Deatchmatch" bucket you still are not in a match you then place a ticket into the "Deathmatch" bucket also.
4. As soon as either bucket has 12 players the match starts, the "Deatchmatch" bucket will be deathmatch the "Non- Deathmatch" bucket will be a random "Non- Deathmatch" mode.
5. That creates a system where players are given a legitimate choice as to which mode to play. And allows the "Random" queue to help the "Deatchmatch" queue ensuring people get into matches in a reasonable time.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

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.

I've seen nothing but death matches as well.

But I'm fairly certain it's just a bug and the new system isn't working properly. Live is basically a test server when it comes to PvP.

CyberOnEso

Jeremy wrote: »

I've seen nothing but death matches as well.

But I'm fairly certain it's just a bug and the new system isn't working properly. Live is basically a test server when it comes to PvP.

I would love it if it was just a bug, but seemingly not, as if we look at the Battlegrounds leaderboards (PC EU)

The top player for Deathmatch has a total of 472750 points, if we presume 5500 points avg per game, that gives us 85 Deathmatch games, in a week.

The top player for Flag Games has 5204 points, which you can get in 1 match.

So other modes are happening just way less often than Deathmatch.

Jeremy

CyberOnEso wrote: »

Jeremy wrote: »

I've seen nothing but death matches as well.

But I'm fairly certain it's just a bug and the new system isn't working properly. Live is basically a test server when it comes to PvP.

I would love it if it was just a bug, but seemingly not, as if we look at the Battlegrounds leaderboards (PC EU)

The top player for Deathmatch has a total of 472750 points, if we presume 5500 points avg per game, that gives us 85 Deathmatch games, in a week.

The top player for Flag Games has 5204 points, which you can get in 1 match.

So other modes are happening just way less often than Deathmatch.

Everyone I've talked to has gotten nothing but deathmatch. In fact: I don't think I've seen single person who has gotten anything but deathmatch.

So it's just really hard for me to believe that's just how the odds work out. But if you're right and it is, then they definitely need to make some changes to how they code their probabilities.

redspecter23

I think it's very interesting to get a good look at how the queue works. I'm not sure many players really understood that "random" wasn't really random at all. Many sort of knew that it would backfill specific groups, especially in the dungeon finder but knowing exactly how it works with the buckets, it is truly mind boggling that those in charge feel this is acceptable.

Your random bucket just can't fill up due to player behavior. At least not on a regular enough basis to ethically call it "random"

If there really, truly aren't enough players to have a DM only as well as an objective only queue running at the same time, that is quite telling in itself. ZOS claims they can't fracture the BG playerbase any more than it currently is. They are basically saying that they can't get 12 players to all queue for an objective BG within X amount of time, whatever amount is considered an acceptable wait time. I never knew the objective BG playerbase was just that low overall. If that's really the case, perhaps DM only all the time (which is what we basically have anyway) is the right way to go and then have special events where it's only objective BG for a short time maybe?

ealdwin

Very insightful post.

redspecter23 wrote: »

I think it's very interesting to get a good look at how the queue works. I'm not sure many players really understood that "random" wasn't really random at all. Many sort of knew that it would backfill specific groups, especially in the dungeon finder but knowing exactly how it works with the buckets, it is truly mind boggling that those in charge feel this is acceptable.

Your random bucket just can't fill up due to player behavior. At least not on a regular enough basis to ethically call it "random"

If there really, truly aren't enough players to have a DM only as well as an objective only queue running at the same time, that is quite telling in itself. ZOS claims they can't fracture the BG playerbase any more than it currently is. They are basically saying that they can't get 12 players to all queue for an objective BG within X amount of time, whatever amount is considered an acceptable wait time. I never knew the objective BG playerbase was just that low overall. If that's really the case, perhaps DM only all the time (which is what we basically have anyway) is the right way to go and then have special events where it's only objective BG for a short time maybe?

It doesn't necessarily mean that the DM only population is significantly higher than the random. If in each interval between a BG being generated, 12 people queue for BGs. If 11 of those people pick Solo Random and 1 picks Solo DM, that means 11 tickets are in the Random "bucket" and 12 are in the DM "bucket". Since the DM bucket is full, it spits out a DM BG. I highly doubt ZOS will make visible what data they have on BGs, so its hard to say what the actual ratio of DM only to Random is. So all we can do is speculate.

I will say that removing the queue that allows for the objective modes, which plenty of players on the forums at least have voiced a preference to, is not feasible for the health of BG population in the long run. More importantly, it would be removing a choice from players that had recently been granted simply because it isn't perfect.

Rather, I think one of the two could be implemented to see what the effect is:

1. Setting the Solo Random Queue to be the default. See if by removing the opt-in step it increases the number of people in the queue. Since DM only is a specific request it might make more sense to be an opt-in rather than an opt-out.

2. Severing the tie between the Random and the DM only. You could still have DM as a possibility within the Random, but make it so that queuing for the Random queue doesn't also mean putting a ticket in the DM "bucket". It might mean longer queue times for both queues, but at least the Random queue would be working as the players expect it to.

Chrysa1is

I did wonder why it was deathmatch only lol. Battlegrounds at the moment is just full of people using dark convergence anyway, and all day yesterday, i noticed I was being put into games with the same people running the set. It was very boring.

CyberOnEso

redspecter23 wrote: »

They are basically saying that they can't get 12 players to all queue for an objective BG within X amount of time, whatever amount is considered an acceptable wait time. I never knew the objective BG playerbase was just that low overall. If that's really the case, perhaps DM only all the time (which is what we basically have anyway) is the right way to go and then have special events where it's only objective BG for a short time maybe?

What makes you think that objective BG playerbase is low? There has been no data to suggest that. The two choices players have right now is "Deathmatch" or "Deathmatch with 1% chance of another mode" that isn't a fair choice and should certainly not influence how future decisions are made.
Even if Deathmatch is the most popular mode (which it most certainly is) it shouldn't stop every single other mode from being played.

ZOS tried doing Deathmatch only, and it failed, they admitted that it "left Battleground populations in a fairly unhealthy state."

You cannot use the logic of "Deathmatch is the only mode running therefore people must want to play Deatchmatch" when you aren't giving players the option of picking anything other than Deathmatch. Especially when so many achievements are tied to non- deathmatch activities. At the moment it would take 100x longer to get those achievements, and that is simply impossible.

FreeMaN_A

I don`t understand why not to make 2 different queues DM only and Objective only and an option to queue both of them.

spartaxoxo

Where did he say that, on stream? Just want to see the full clip.

CyberOnEso

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

I don`t understand why not to make 2 different queues DM only and Objective only and an option to queue both of them.

The reason Rich Lambert stated as to why they won't do this is that you could have queues with 9 people in DM only and 3 in Objective only and never form a match.
Whilst I don't think this is the biggest issue (It can happen all the time in the dungeon queue), I did suggest keeping the queue names the same. And having 2 buckets "DM only and "Objective only", if you spend 5 minutes in the "Objective only" bucket, you also enter the "Deathmatch only" bucket.
That way there is a fair chance to get a game formed using the "Objective only" bucket, whereas now that chance is near 0 by design.

trackdemon5512

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Where did he say that, on stream? Just want to see the full clip.

Gina stated it. Emphasis mine.

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!

spartaxoxo

trackdemon5512 wrote: »

Gina stated it. Emphasis mine.

That's a different quote. That's the intial feedback. The quote above refers to a subsequent statement by Rich that current system is fine because "Deathmatch is still the top queue" so was hoping to see his statement in full.

CyberOnEso

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Where did he say that, on stream? Just want to see the full clip.

I posted the link in the original post (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1198116853) , he starts talking about the BG queue sitation at around 4 hours in.

spartaxoxo

CyberOnEso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Where did he say that, on stream? Just want to see the full clip.

I posted the link in the original post (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1198116853) , he starts talking about the BG queue sitation at around 4 hours in.

Ah I missed that the first time, thank you

trackdemon5512

spartaxoxo wrote: »

CyberOnEso wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Where did he say that, on stream? Just want to see the full clip.

I posted the link in the original post (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1198116853) , he starts talking about the BG queue sitation at around 4 hours in.

Ah I missed that the first time, thank you

Just saw it too. Wanted to badly respond several times in a video that’s well in the past that it’s A TERRIBLE WAY FOR THAT TO WORK lol.

FreeMaN_A

CyberOnEso wrote: »

The reason Rich Lambert stated as to why they won't do this is that you could have queues with 9 people in DM only and 3 in Objective only and never form a match.

It just meens that I`ll wait x3 longer than DM queuer. This is nonsense. I`d rather wait three times longer than play dm instead of objective. I hope they will understand their mistake and return objective back.

CyberOnEso wrote: »

if you spend 5 minutes in the "Objective only" bucket, you also enter the "Deathmatch only" bucket.

You mean automatically? Absolutely don`t like this proposal. I don`t want to queue DM, better to wait longer. Players who want faster just should have an option to queue both of them.

CyberOnEso

FreeMaN_A wrote: »

CyberOnEso wrote: »

The reason Rich Lambert stated as to why they won't do this is that you could have queues with 9 people in DM only and 3 in Objective only and never form a match.

It just meens that I`ll wait x3 longer than DM queuer. This is nonsense. I`d rather wait three times longer than play dm instead of objective. I hope they will understand their mistake and return objective back.

CyberOnEso wrote: »

if you spend 5 minutes in the "Objective only" bucket, you also enter the "Deathmatch only" bucket.

You mean automatically? Absolutely don`t like this proposal. I don`t want to queue DM, better to wait longer. Players who want faster just should have an option to queue both of them.

That's fair, the reason given was that "Any Battleground is better than no Battleground", and I would assume their thoughts are having a never-ending queue is a bad experience for a new player. I would personally like an override, my suggestion was trying to be something they can implement simply to fix this issue.

jle30303

Whatever they pick, we need a FAIR chance of having non-Deathmatch battlegrounds.

The current system simply does not allow a non-Deathmatch battleground to be picked for the people in the Random pool while there is ANYBODY queueing for Deathmatch in the Deathmatch pool.

SkaraMinoc

CyberOnEso wrote: »

(https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1198116853) , he starts talking about the BG queue sitation at around 4 hours in.

Well that explains everything.

It was good to hear the reference to the WSG issue because I distinctly remember that happening.