Maintenance for the week of December 2:
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 4, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 4, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] Xbox: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 4, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
• [COMPLETE] PlayStation®: NA and EU megaservers for patch maintenance – December 4, 6:00AM EST (11:00 UTC) - 12:00PM EST (17:00 UTC)
Battlegrounds still Deathmatch Only
-
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own? I'll wait for a game mode that I actually want. Besides, we already had plenty enough people to sustain multiple queues before. The TDM-only test left BG's in a "very unhealthy state" according to ZOS themselves.
So, assuming that is true (and I see no reason to doubt it), that means a few things:
1. There are enough people who play BG's who only want objective modes to leave BG's in a "very unhealthy state" from a mere test of having only TDM available, likely even the majority of players. This would align with the many polls posted here on this very forum by TDM-lovers who want to point and say "See! See! In a poll that breaks down every single individual game mode TDM comes out on top, so we're the majority!" while completely ignoring the fact that most objective mode players enjoy most, if not ALL, objective modes and simply have a favorite but just don't want to play TDM more than anything and thus leaves TDM a relative majority but not a simple majority (more people want objective modes than TDM).
In which case, either:
A. The objective queue will have enough people to get consistent games, and TDM will have its own healthy amount of games because it's just sooooo popular, right?
Or:
B. The objective queue will have enough people to get consistent games, and TDM will fall behind because it is not as popular as the loud minority say it is and it would be wrong to force the majority who want objective modes to play TDM just to appease the minority.
Whichever it is, is up to you to decide until it's proven one way or the other, but logically there's no way to look at it except that, going by the states in both player polls and ZOS's own tests, objective modes *when combined together* are the more popular than TDM yet at the moment are statistically being played less than once every 100 BG matches.
If TDM queue suffers, then oh well. I guess that happens when it's the minority game mode, but people who vehemently want to avoid it at all costs should not be forced to play it just to placate the minority of BG players, which WILL put BG's into an even worse state. I was excited to play them again after the TDM-only tests, until last night. Now I'm not touching them again at all until they fix the queues.
I just wish TDM fans could make up their minds. Either it's the most popular game mode, or they need to force objective fans to play it with them just to fill out a game. One or the other. Which is it?Edited by DerAlleinTiger on November 8, 2021 11:42PM7 -
gamma71✭✭✭✭If you just wanna kill people you can do that in any BG mode. Most BG turn into a dm anyways so who cares I have achievements I wanna complete in this lifetime in the other modes.4 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭If you just wanna kill people you can do that in any BG mode. Most BG turn into a dm anyways so who cares I have achievements I wanna complete in this lifetime in the other modes.
That’s what the goal of the first Deathmatch only BG test was: to satiate the players that were treating all BGs as DMs and ruining the experience. ZOS gave em all BGs and then they abandoned BGs all together.
Clearly you can’t win catering to such a crowd.4 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 9, 2021 1:58AM1 -
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes. Every single poll I've seen posted here asking about favorite game mode has had TDM somewhere from 25-35% of the votes... with all of the others broken down into individual modes. You do know what that means, right? It means that anywhere from 65%-75% (depending on poll) of the people like OBJECTIVE modes more. Yes, if you break down every single game mode into its own category, TDM gets 'the most.' That's because there is only 1 deathmatch mode, but 4 different objective modes, spreading the votes out between them. In reality, most people who like objective modes like them in general over TDM. Note I say most, not all. If you combine the people who like an objective mode over TDM together, TDM is washed out several times over. TDM has a 'majority,' but not a simple majority. Yes, there is a difference, and it is massive.
So if TDM has enough for its own queue, objective modes do too. If they don't, then I'm fine with waiting longer for a game mode I actually enjoy, not one I do my utmost to avoid at all costs.
Simple solution: Have 3 queues each for solo and group. TDM-only, objective-only, and true random. True random is the default. Absolutely any game mode. Objectives-only gives you objective modes. TDM-only gives you TDM matches. That way if you don't care and will go for anything, you can contribute to anything. If you absolutely, positively, do NOT want TDM (like many, many, many players out there) then you can jump into the objective queue accepting that maybe it'll be longer than the true random queue, but when you get a match it's a mode you're more likely to enjoy. And then TDM-only queue for those who only want TDM.Edited by DerAlleinTiger on November 9, 2021 4:03AM7 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 9, 2021 4:03AM1 -
NagualV✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes. Every single poll I've seen posted here asking about favorite game mode has had TDM somewhere from 25-35% of the votes... with all of the others broken down into individual modes. You do know what that means, right? It means that anywhere from 65%-75% (depending on poll) of the people like OBJECTIVE modes more. Yes, if you break down every single game mode into its own category, TDM gets 'the most.' That's because there is only 1 deathmatch mode, but 4 different objective modes, spreading the votes out between them. In reality, most people who like objective modes like them in general over TDM. Note I say most, not all. If you combine the people who like an objective mode over TDM together, TDM is washed out several times over. TDM has a 'majority,' but not a simple majority. Yes, there is a difference, and it is massive.
So if TDM has enough for its own queue, objective modes do too. If they don't, then I'm fine with waiting longer for a game mode I actually enjoy, not one I do my utmost to avoid at all costs.
Simple solution: Have 3 queues each for solo and group. TDM-only, objective-only, and true random. True random is the default. Absolutely any game mode. Objectives-only gives you objective modes. TDM-only gives you TDM matches. That way if you don't care and will go for anything, you can contribute to anything. If you absolutely, positively, do NOT want TDM (like many, many, many players out there) then you can jump into the objective queue accepting that maybe it'll be longer than the true random queue, but when you get a match it's a mode you're more likely to enjoy. And then TDM-only queue for those who only want TDM.
Deathmatch IS the most popular game mode.....please watch this clip if you have any doubts
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrkDerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes. Every single poll I've seen posted here asking about favorite game mode has had TDM somewhere from 25-35% of the votes... with all of the others broken down into individual modes. You do know what that means, right? It means that anywhere from 65%-75% (depending on poll) of the people like OBJECTIVE modes more. Yes, if you break down every single game mode into its own category, TDM gets 'the most.' That's because there is only 1 deathmatch mode, but 4 different objective modes, spreading the votes out between them. In reality, most people who like objective modes like them in general over TDM. Note I say most, not all. If you combine the people who like an objective mode over TDM together, TDM is washed out several times over. TDM has a 'majority,' but not a simple majority. Yes, there is a difference, and it is massive.
So if TDM has enough for its own queue, objective modes do too. If they don't, then I'm fine with waiting longer for a game mode I actually enjoy, not one I do my utmost to avoid at all costs.
Simple solution: Have 3 queues each for solo and group. TDM-only, objective-only, and true random. True random is the default. Absolutely any game mode. Objectives-only gives you objective modes. TDM-only gives you TDM matches. That way if you don't care and will go for anything, you can contribute to anything. If you absolutely, positively, do NOT want TDM (like many, many, many players out there) then you can jump into the objective queue accepting that maybe it'll be longer than the true random queue, but when you get a match it's a mode you're more likely to enjoy. And then TDM-only queue for those who only want TDM.
Deathmatch IS the most popular game mode, and the VAST majority of players are queuing for deathmatch. Want proof, from Rich Lambert himself...??? Watch this clip...
https://clips.twitch.tv/SpookySplendidClipsmomVoHiYo-atKGXjT27MQSozrk
I believe posted today.
I hope they figure out a way to let objective mode people play the games they want, but some of you need to face reality about the BG populations, and the fact that the vast majority of people are queuing for DM.1 -
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.
Rich can say what he wants. He's working completely off of a hypothetical that isn't lining up. I don't know how long you've been playing the game, but we used to have not only a TDM queue and an objective queue, we had TDM queue, flag queue, and relic queue. Somehow, games were started with all three. Yes, TDM was the fastest one. No, the others weren't ungodly long and they did absolutely pop. Now we'd be combining a MAJORITY of the BG playerbase into a single queue, and you're saying suddenly it won't pop when half of it would before? No, I don't buy it, and I don't buy Rich's theoretical.
The test speaks for itself. The majority of players do not rate TDM as their favorite game mode. We know this from polls. We know this from the test. All the hypotheticals and excuses in the world won't change that.
Yes, if no one was queueing for objective modes, people would complain that they weren't getting enough. Except that it's quite clear from the sheer volume of people on the forums alone (which is already a fraction of a minority of the total game's playerbase) that they want and will play an objective queue. It's a sentiment I see popping up in-game in just about every corner I poke into in this game, from social to hardcore. Yes, right now, at this moment, objective queue has no one in it. Why? Because for a while now objective modes weren't available and even now they still aren't getting objective modes. So, no, the people who want to play objective modes aren't playing... because they can't get objective modes when they try. Why would they keep playing if they only ever get 1 single objective mode less than every 100 matches, statistically?
This entire argument is built off a hypothetical. In contrast, a test was conducted. The result was clear. TDM-only did NOT leave the BG playerbase in a healthy state. That means so many people stopped playing because of the lack of objective modes that they had to end the test and quickly patch the objective modes back in with a half-baked "random' queue. You're then going to tell me that a group that large could not possibly hold a healthy enough queue on its own? A group so large that it made the BG population "unhealthy" by simply NOT playing BG's? That one is somehow not enough to keep its own queue?
Either there's a flaw in Rich's argument, or BG's are done for regardless of the queues.7 -
NagualV✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.
Rich can say what he wants. He's working completely off of a hypothetical that isn't lining up.
But you arent, correct? You have MORE data and facts available to you than Rich Lambert, is that correct?
2 -
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.
Rich can say what he wants. He's working completely off of a hypothetical that isn't lining up.
But you arent, correct? You have MORE data and facts available to you than Rich Lambert, is that correct?
Yes, because I'm working off what ZOS themselves have told us, and what the playerbase has voiced countless times before.1 -
NagualV✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.
Rich can say what he wants. He's working completely off of a hypothetical that isn't lining up.
But you arent, correct? You have MORE data and facts available to you than Rich Lambert, is that correct?
Yes, because I'm working off what ZOS themselves have told us, and what the playerbase has voiced countless times before.
Right.........
You watched the video clip, right?
I guess theres nothing left for me to say in this thread....1 -
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.
Rich can say what he wants. He's working completely off of a hypothetical that isn't lining up.
But you arent, correct? You have MORE data and facts available to you than Rich Lambert, is that correct?
Yes, because I'm working off what ZOS themselves have told us, and what the playerbase has voiced countless times before.
Right.........
You watched the video clip, right?
I guess theres nothing left for me to say in this thread....
I did, yes. Rich still is working off a hypothetical. He is, essentially, saying "If no one queues for the objective modes, then it won't pop and people will complain that the queue is broken."
As the famous laconic response goes: "If."
There is absolutely no reason to believe that the objective mode queue wouldn't be just as popular, if not more so, than team deathmatch. The only reason it might be so, would be that the players of objective modes may be more casual and thus not queue as often. We, however, do not know that for certain. It may be true, it may be quite the opposite, or it may simply be false and they're about even.
What we do know, however, is that in just about any poll posted here asking about favorite game modes, the objective modes - COLLECTIVELY - earn a simple majority of the votes, while deathmatch earns a relative majority or plurality. That is to say, as individual game modes, TDM gets the most. However, if you split it as TDM versus non-TDM, then non-TDM winds handedly.
We know this. Everyone has seen the polls where TDM lovers who don't understand how statistics work use them to gloat, ignoring the fact that a majority of the players voting do NOT vote for TDM. Well, since the only modes besides TDM are objective modes, it means the majority voted, in some form or another, for objective modes.
We know this. Anyone can see it.
We also know that ZOS conducted a test wherein the only game mode available was TDM. The only mode available. Absolutely no one could play objective modes. What was the result again? In case you missed it, the OP quoted it at least once, if not several times. I believe the term "UNHEALTHY STATE" was thrown in for good measure. This means that so many people stopped playing when TDM was the only game mode available that it tipped the entirety of BG's into an unhealthy state. Yes, yes. The usual excuses. Muh broken sets. Muh lack of balance. There have always been broken sets in PvP, especially BG's. There has always been a lack of balance. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. People still played BG's because at the end of the day BG's were fun.
So we have the actual fact, the event, the statement - straight from ZOS themselves. The logical conclusion is that enough people do not want to play TDM that they can make or break the state of BG's as a whole. As a group, that amount of people can make BG's either healthy or unhealthy.
We have all of this, versus a big "If."
Rich can give us all a great big "if" but not even the biggest "if" can outsize the events, experiences, and history of the community - some of it straight from ZOS themselves. I think I'll take the measure of the company as a whole, over the off-hand words of a single person in a Twitch stream, no matter how high up they might be, especially when their argument boils down to "if."
Yes. If, indeed.7 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
Except DM isn't, and we know it's not by numbers both here and with ZOS's test. They literally tested this, and the results are pretty clear-cut: The BG population dropped off MASSIVELY when they took away objective modes.
Well according to Rich's reports...Like we could totally split it out, like I said, and say "Random is everything but Deathmatch." But then, randoms just won't ever start up because people are still going and queuing for Deathmatch. So, right, like how do you want to do it? WoW has the exact same problem with Battlegrounds. When they do, you know, Warsong Gultch. People back in the day hated Warsong Gultch and never queued up. And people were like "Hey, your queue is broken. Warsong Gultch never pops," and it's like "yeah, because nobody is queuing up for Warsong Gultch." Like, I'm not sure how to fix that. At least this way Deathmatch is playing the objectives instead of everything being Deathmatch. It's one of those things, it's glass half full, glass half empty kind of weirdness there.
It's not that you'd wait a little longer. Is that you wouldn't get a match at all. Separate queue don't work because most people want to play at least some Deathmatch.
Rich can say what he wants. He's working completely off of a hypothetical that isn't lining up.
But you arent, correct? You have MORE data and facts available to you than Rich Lambert, is that correct?
Yes, because I'm working off what ZOS themselves have told us, and what the playerbase has voiced countless times before.
Right.........
You watched the video clip, right?
I guess theres nothing left for me to say in this thread....
Clip. It’s a fast breeze through a point he clearly doesn’t want to talk about. Rich has a huge problem on his hands and it’s shown this way:
1) Prior to their BG test players queued and entered into all BG modes without issues.
2) The BG live test was started with the given explanation that it was done to examine the Deathmatch wanting population and explore how to get them to stop playing flag games like DMs AND appease them. https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/586410/upcoming-changes-to-battleground-queues/p1
3) The BG test ends with the population in an unhealthy state. The test resulted in a small initial bump in participation which quickly plummeted. ZOS pledges to bring back modes and the ability to better choose what mode to engage in https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/586410/upcoming-changes-to-battleground-queues/p1
4) DEADLANDS goes live. Players complain virtually all of their matches are Deathmatches
First Issue: Players clearly aren’t getting what they were promised in more of a choice
5) Someone does some math, points out that it’s 99% likely that a player gets a Deathmatch. Rich over a live Twitch stream briefly notes the way the system works in doling out tickets for each match type. That video and the math is at the beginning of this forum thread.
Second Issue: Rich has now stated how the queue system supposedly works and it’s clearly biased against putting players into anything but BGs
6) Tonight, during another livestream Rich in a few seconds states that BGs are working correctly and that he’s gone to his internal teams who have confirmed that the vast vast majority of players are queueing for just Deathmatch. What @NagualV posted above.
Third Issue: Somehow BGs are no longer in an unhealthy state and the players engaging somehow all really want DMs
Something isn’t adding up here. Either the current playing population is messed up as a result of ZOS driving away players with their test. Or the current queue is messed up because there are virtually no flag games going on despite players clearly queueing and wanting them. Or the metrics by which ZOS is measuring the success of the test are off and flawed.
The likely answer is that ZOS scared the previously functioning BG population away with their test, implemented the new queue system, and is measuring its success with the current player population. A population that is now overwhelmingly DM focused yet problematic because they left BGs in an unhealthy state prior to this. And if Rich is correct with how the ticket allocation system is that same population is further ruining any subsequent data gathered because now you no longer have a sample testing population that’s representative of what players were but rather what you corrupted it into.
The current situation just seems very very wrong.11 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »I did, yes. Rich still is working off a hypothetical.
He literally pulled a data report on screen. BG is also now split into both solo and group. So the queues needed would be double what was needed before.
Like...solutions offered should just accept the data he has given us because they are gonna trust their data over our perceptions (and they should).
I don't think they can guarantee everyone gets the mode they want. But they could improve things from where they are now.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 9, 2021 5:37AM0 -
M0ntie✭✭✭✭✭So, for a while BGs are DM only, they drove away the people who didn't want DM all the time.
It can take a while for the word to get out that BGs are back to being all modes. Combine that with threads like this that say BGs are still almost entirely DM, you're going to keep the people who liked the other modes to a minimal number.
Now that "random" BGs can technically be any type, but you have the hardcore DM people requesting DM all the time, and the DM queue will also fill from the few people who have come back wanting a random, it seems we are stuck in the situation where BGs are still almost entirely DM. Which continues to drive away people who don't want only DM.
Suggestion:
Enforce that the the random BG queue only allocates the same number of people to each BG mode.
eg. if 100 people queue for DM only, and 50 people queue for a random BG, make the game ensure that of the 50 people queuing for a random 10 get each of the 5 possible game modes. A maximum of 10 random queuers will get added into the DM only queue to top up numbers there.
Yes this will mean that people queuing for a random queue will wait a bit longer, but I'd be happy to queue longer for an even distribution of random BG types.2 -
trackdemon5512✭✭✭✭✭
✭So, for a while BGs are DM only, they drove away the people who didn't want DM all the time.
It can take a while for the word to get out that BGs are back to being all modes. Combine that with threads like this that say BGs are still almost entirely DM, you're going to keep the people who liked the other modes to a minimal number.
Now that "random" BGs can technically be any type, but you have the hardcore DM people requesting DM all the time, and the DM queue will also fill from the few people who have come back wanting a random, it seems we are stuck in the situation where BGs are still almost entirely DM. Which continues to drive away people who don't want only DM.
Suggestion:
Enforce that the the random BG queue only allocates the same number of people to each BG mode.
eg. if 100 people queue for DM only, and 50 people queue for a random BG, make the game ensure that of the 50 people queuing for a random 10 get each of the 5 possible game modes. A maximum of 10 random queuers will get added into the DM only queue to top up numbers there.
Yes this will mean that people queuing for a random queue will wait a bit longer, but I'd be happy to queue longer for an even distribution of random BG types.
Better suggestion:
Reset the queues to how they were originally and build back the BG player population so that it can be properly tested again. Equal chance of any game mode which means DMs have a 1/4 chance of coming up.
Let that occur for 3 months and then test again. Next time restrict it to Flag Games for the same amount of time as the previous DM test.
Do another 3 month reset, then test another variable. Regardless the BG population needs to be shored up for any data to be properly gleaned from it.3 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭Read the whole thread to this point.
I'm shocked at how many players still don't understand just how bad the Hrothgar and DC terror-meta was for the BG population. We thought the procalypse of Crimson/Unfathomable was bad... that was like 5 weight classes below what we suffered through the last couple months.
ZOS even called it! They released a set calling it "game breaking"... Congrats! It broke the game.
I'm not alone in saying that I LOVED the DM only test, but stopped playing entirely for the last three weeks of the test because I couldn't do it anymore. Playing "run from 8 DC procs" for 10 minutes was the most unenjoyable experience.
As someone who like this game's combat, I have full faith in requesting ZOS split the queue so non-deathmatchers can get a game. The issue is that ZOS isn't okay with it because, as hard as it is to accept, objectives just aren't that popular. They never have been. If ZOS gives into these requests, objective queue will suffer from 30min+ queue times. There are some in this thread saying they don't care. ZOS seems to currently not agree with them and thinks that it would result in no games.
As someone with a semblance of empathy, I understand the frustration objective players are having right now. I would go 20-30 games without getting a DM prior to the DM-only test. It was terrible. I don't get any satisfaction knowing that you all are now in the same boat.
I can't help but think of this as some sort of analogy to the cabbage and grape monkey experiment and everyone is so focused on arguing who likes what more. But you know what? A few of us are here going "Why not both?! Why are we submitting to this zero-sum, mutually exclusive experiment?!"
This argument shouldn't be DM vs Objective.
This argument should be a unified riot: ZOS needs to improve their BG content to make something suitable for ALL players.
That's it. There's no way ZOS can't put some brain power into this conundrum and come up with something that makes DMers like objectives and Objective players tolerate combat.
The easiest way to do it, in my limited perspective, is to stop having 3 teams for objectives. I think I'd actually like Domination the most of any mode if it were only 2 teams. As is, it's the absolute dumbest mode in my opinion. I also don't think I'm alone in this. I think many DMers identify as DMers only because that mode is the only mode currently offered that highlights ESO's superior combat system, in relation to other MMOs. I'm sure there are dozens of other good ideas their employees can brainstorm to solve this.
I pay this game a lot of money. I like cabbage, but I also like grapes. I refuse to subjected to choosing one over the other. I want it all! Why don't you?
Edited by Aldoss on November 9, 2021 7:57AM3 -
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »I did, yes. Rich still is working off a hypothetical.
He literally pulled a data report on screen. BG is also now split into both solo and group. So the queues needed would be double what was needed before.
Like...solutions offered should just accept the data he has given us because they are gonna trust their data over our perceptions (and they should).
I don't think they can guarantee everyone gets the mode they want. But they could improve things from where they are now.
There were two data points he pulled up:
1. Barely any objective modes are being played, the reasoning for which has been very clearly explained ad nauseum in here and quite thoroughly by the OP. Not for lack of people wanting them, but for the way the system is.
2. That 'most players' (how much is 'most?' Is it 51%? Is it 90%? It could be anything between and even above) are queuing for deathmatch right now. Except that he himself admits in almost the same breath that it's likely because deathmatch is the default choice. Combine that with the fact that we JUST got off the TDM-only test a week ago and most of the player population don't pay attention the way some do. I guarantee you in several months some people will still say "Wait, objective modes are back again?" I know people who don't even realize changes were made years ago to certain parts of the game, and they've been playing the entire time. On top of that, the players who would be queuing for random modes probably have stopped bothering like I have now because all they ever got was TDM, so why bother if you don't want to play TDM?
So yes, "most players," whatever that means exactly, are right now queuing for the default game mode that just had a month-long monopoly on BG's and is literally eating up over 99% of all games, statistically, while everyone who wants literally any other game mode has given up bothering with it because all they ever get is the default because they're being forced into the same queue for it and it's the only mode with a 'guaranteed' queue to drag them all in. What a shocker. It couldn't be that this measurement is insanely unbalanced and that if we reversed this by 2 or 3 months that the data would be completely different and more in-line with both ZOS's own results from the test period and the community's own voiced opinions and polls.5 -
DerAlleinTiger✭✭✭✭✭I want it all! Why don't you?
No. I don't. I want objective modes without TDM. Period. End of. Nothing will make me like TDM. It's boring, unoriginal, and highlights the worst aspect of the game: the horribly unbalanced PvP combat.
However, I do not want to take the choice away from people who do enjoy it. On the contrary. I absolutely, 1000% want there to be a TDM-only queue. Maybe not for the same reasons, but I still want one so that the TDM players can go have their fun in their own queue and leave the objective modes alone. I just want an objective queue that doesn't force me to join TDM too. It would be a lot better off for everyone involved if TDM players got their TDM, and objective players got their objectives without having to be sucked into constant TDM matches. In addition, objective players wouldn't have to see their games filled with people treating it like TDM, and TDM players wouldn't have to see their games filled with people who would rather be playing literally any other game mode and thus don't put as much effort in or aren't specced and geared for direct combat.
In that sense, sure, have everything... as options.
I still stand by my solution of 6 queue options, and 4 actual queues.
TDM only, objective only, true random. Both solo and group variants of each.
Random wouldn't be a real queue so much as a queue option, which puts them in both the TDM and objective queues. In essence we would have just as many queues as we have right now, but with greater ability to choose what you want. Randoms would fill in both TDM and objective matches, whichever is most in need of them at the given moment, and people who only want one or the other can get their choice.
It eliminates the excuse of objective modes "not having enough" with the true random queue feeding into both, and since there would actually be guaranteed objective matches in the pipeline, unlike now, they would actually be be thrown into some objective modes. It's not breaking up the queues anymore than they already are. It's just providing more choice.Edited by DerAlleinTiger on November 9, 2021 10:41AM3 -
spartaxoxo✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »2. That 'most players' (how much is 'most?' Is it 51%? Is it 90%? It could be anything between and even above) are queuing for deathmatch right now. Except that he himself admits in almost the same breath that it's likely because deathmatch is the default choice.
It is likely that the majority is larger than it should be because of it being the default choice, which is why I suggested random be the default choice.
I think there's a pretty large chance that randoms don't get filled at all except during peak hours if it was truly a separate queue, as he says.
I think there needs to be way to offset that rather than allowing MM to just not make matches. Putting people into DM if a long enough time has passed seems like it would mostly be an objective mode when the population can sustain it, and making dm games when it can't.Edited by spartaxoxo on November 9, 2021 11:10AM1 -
ThePedge✭✭✭✭✭Finally I can join a PvP game mode and fight people instead of teams winning by not fighting and capturing whichever relic is unguarded.0
-
Xairvaiss✭✭✭So it's explains a lot why i got 10/10 time DM... Thanks ZOS, almost 2 months i can't finish achievements for other bg modes...2
-
the1andonlyskwex✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Read the whole thread to this point.
I'm shocked at how many players still don't understand just how bad the Hrothgar and DC terror-meta was for the BG population. We thought the procalypse of Crimson/Unfathomable was bad... that was like 5 weight classes below what we suffered through the last couple months.
ZOS even called it! They released a set calling it "game breaking"... Congrats! It broke the game.
I'm not alone in saying that I LOVED the DM only test, but stopped playing entirely for the last three weeks of the test because I couldn't do it anymore. Playing "run from 8 DC procs" for 10 minutes was the most unenjoyable experience.
I think you're greatly underestimating the effect DM-only had in creating your so-called "Hrothgar and DC terror-meta". Previously, BGs had a mix of hardcore DMers, hardcore objective players, and more casual players. All of those groups geared and played differently, which helped prevent any particular meta from becoming too overwhelming. Now, with basically only the hardcore DM crowd playing, a single overwhelming meta was allowed to develop. Additionally, DMs in general became more "competitive" because all of the previous cannon fodder basically stopped playing.
Frankly, it sounds to me like you should be hating the DM-only "test" as much as anyone here. It drove you away from BGs entirely by changing the meta (and level of competition) to something you couldn't handle.Edited by the1andonlyskwex on November 9, 2021 12:23PM2 -
Joy_Division✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭If only ZOS cared about Battlegrounds as much as the people posting in this thread.
Deadlands is Update 32. The last time a new Battleground map got added was Update 21 (Eld Angavar).
The very fact that ZOS has resorted to testing with the ques is because the pool of players queing in is small too begin with because even the people who do happen to play Battlegrounds actually find core features of the system unenjoyable.
Rather than address the core issue of the problem (small population that is divided on what modes are enjoyable and which aren't) and updating/reforming/improving the Battleground system based on experience and feedback, which ZOS cannot do because it does not have a single developer devoted full time to PvP (hence the last update being literally years ago), the only thing ZOS can do to change the situation is to use its customers to test on Live and alter the choice of the game modes they can select. How this would make an appreciable difference I fail to see because the actual Battleground system has not changed and thus the root cause of the small population to begin with.
I didn;t stop playing BGs because I kept getting into a Deathmatch mode which I don;t prefer or got frustrated because half my teammates in objective play just did there own thing chasing down enemies or because a specific proc gear knocked the balance out of whack. I stopped playing because ZOS stopped devoting developmental resources into PVP, so things got stale, old problems were left unaddressed, nothing new was ever added, and the only updates PvP did receive was radical armor sets implemented to fix perceived meta problems and an influx tests conducted to alter player behavior because they no longer devoting developmental resources to improve PvP (the more traditional means games use to alter player behavior). In short, since ZOS stopped investing in PvP, why should I?
Changing how people que in for BGs or changing what option is listed first is not going to change the greater problems facing BattlegroundsEdited by Joy_Division on November 9, 2021 11:46PM3 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »
No. I don't. I want objective modes without TDM. Period. End of. Nothing will make me like TDM. It's boring, unoriginal, and highlights the worst aspect of the game: the horribly unbalanced PvP combat.
Really? You can't come up with any possible creative solutions that might make you enjoy PvP combat? Like I said before, I would love to play objective modes that are actually thought out in a way that promotes competitive play. I hate the current objective modes. You hate the current TDM. I want this million dollar company to create something that makes this "I win, you lose" argument into a win win for all of us.the1andonlyskwex wrote: »
I think you're greatly underestimating the effect DM-only had in creating your so-called "Hrothgar and DC terror-meta". Previously, BGs had a mix of hardcore DMers, hardcore objective players, and more casual players. All of those groups geared and played differently, which helped prevent any particular meta from becoming too overwhelming. Now, with basically only the hardcore DM crowd playing, a single overwhelming meta was allowed to develop. Additionally, DMs in general became more "competitive" because all of the previous cannon fodder basically stopped playing.
Frankly, it sounds to me like you should be hating the DM-only "test" as much as anyone here. It drove you away from BGs entirely by changing the meta (and level of competition) to something you couldn't handle.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.
I'm in one of the largest BG centered guilds, with more than 90% of its 500 members preferring TDM exclusively. We're not all on at the same time, nor queuing at the same time, but when we do, 90% of us are queuing for TDM not because it's first on the list, but because that's what we want. It's what we wanted all along.
I don't know of any BG guilds that are centered around objective only play. I don't know of any BG tournaments that were created to compete around relics or land-grabs, but there have been numerous tournaments orchestrated around TDM. I'd be easier to convince on your points if there were.
Speculating over what causes metas is a non-starter. The crimson/unfathomable meta occurred during a time when TDM could not be queued for. I don't really care what caused DC to be used by 75% of BGers more than I care that ZOS released a broken set after being told for weeks on the PTS forums that it was broken and 100% should not have been released.
Now that DC has been fixed and no one is using it on PCNA, my wife and I have started playing BGs again and it's honestly the most enjoyable experience. It's what the start of the DM-only test felt like.
I'm happy that I'm happy. I'm not happy that you're not happy and I will be an advocate for you to convince ZOS to step up their game and start treating us like a source of revenue that they actually care about.
Edit- FWIW, my wife and I have started queueing for random instead of DM only. We have yet to get anything but TDM, but I just want you to know that we are attempting to be more proactive in balancing this out for those that HATE TDM more than we dislike objectives.
Edited by Aldoss on November 9, 2021 5:13PM2 -
lillybit✭✭✭✭✭
✭DerAlleinTiger wrote: »
No. I don't. I want objective modes without TDM. Period. End of. Nothing will make me like TDM. It's boring, unoriginal, and highlights the worst aspect of the game: the horribly unbalanced PvP combat.
Really? You can't come up with any possible creative solutions that might make you enjoy PvP combat? Like I said before, I would love to play objective modes that are actually thought out in a way that promotes competitive play. I hate the current objective modes. You hate the current TDM. I want this million dollar company to create something that makes this "I win, you lose" argument into a win win for all of us.the1andonlyskwex wrote: »
I think you're greatly underestimating the effect DM-only had in creating your so-called "Hrothgar and DC terror-meta". Previously, BGs had a mix of hardcore DMers, hardcore objective players, and more casual players. All of those groups geared and played differently, which helped prevent any particular meta from becoming too overwhelming. Now, with basically only the hardcore DM crowd playing, a single overwhelming meta was allowed to develop. Additionally, DMs in general became more "competitive" because all of the previous cannon fodder basically stopped playing.
Frankly, it sounds to me like you should be hating the DM-only "test" as much as anyone here. It drove you away from BGs entirely by changing the meta (and level of competition) to something you couldn't handle.
You're entitled to your opinion. I'm entitled to mine.
I'm in one of the largest BG centered guilds, with more than 90% of its 500 members preferring TDM exclusively. We're not all on at the same time, nor queuing at the same time, but when we do, 90% of us are queuing for TDM not because it's first on the list, but because that's what we want. It's what we wanted all along.
I don't know of any BG guilds that are centered around objective only play. I don't know of any BG tournaments that were created to compete around relics or land-grabs, but there have been numerous tournaments orchestrated around TDM. I'd be easier to convince on your points if there were.
Speculating over what causes metas is a non-starter. The crimson/unfathomable meta occurred during a time when TDM could not be queued for. I don't really care what caused DC to be used by 75% of BGers more than I care that ZOS released a broken set after being told for weeks on the PTS forums that it was broken and 100% should not have been released.
Now that DC has been fixed and no one is using it on PCNA, my wife and I have started playing BGs again and it's honestly the most enjoyable experience. It's what the start of the DM-only test felt like.
I'm happy that I'm happy. I'm not happy that you're not happy and I will be an advocate for you to convince ZOS to step up their game and start treating us like a source of revenue that they actually care about.
Edit- FWIW, my wife and I have started queueing for random instead of DM only. We have yet to get anything but TDM, but I just want you to know that we are attempting to be more proactive in balancing this out for those that HATE TDM more than we dislike objectives.
That's a circular argument: deathmatches must be more popular because your hard-core BG guild that is designed to cater to people that enjoy deathmatches, mostly attracts people that enjoy deathmatches.
That's like saying trading is the only thing in the game that most people like to do because most of the members of my trade guild like to trade.PS4 EU7 -
Amottica✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭spartaxoxo wrote: »DerAlleinTiger wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »spartaxoxo wrote: »After x timeframe, then automatically priotize DM. They can figure out which timeframe is the most realistic, as of course they aren't gonna want to have situations where people don't get a match or have people wait half an hour.
No, thx, I'd better wait. Just. Separate. Dm and Objective. And give an option to choose both. This is the simpliest solution with no need of "testing". But ZOS did this in the worst way ever possible.
There's not enough people for that. You might get games if you play at a high pop time, but they want everyone to be able to get any game over none. And that's pretty reasonable
I'd rather have none than a TDM. Besides, if TDM is so popular, why don't they have enough to fill out their queue on their own?
DM does, Objective does not. That's part of the problem. Being put into a DM queue is to ensure that a match is always eventually made. Right now though it's over aggressive about it.
Objective only queue is simply unrealistic atm. But they could definitely do better than what they are doing now by hard forcing DM so aggressively just because it's the most popular.
I don’t think we know which queue being specific unto itself is unrealistic. Considering that Zenimax saw DM only BGs experience a reduction in usage that was unhealthy it seems more likely that it’s the DM only queue that would be unrealistic and would likely have king queue times.
Players seeing DM pop more than anything else doesn’t suggest more players queue for DM than random.Edited by Amottica on November 9, 2021 5:59PM2 -
Aldoss✭✭✭✭✭
✭That's like saying trading is the only thing in the game that most people like to do because most of the members of my trade guild like to trade.
False equivalence. We know that trading isn't the only thing in the game, on the basis of guild existence, because we know that RP guilds exist, social guilds exist, hardcore pve guilds exist, and cyro guilds exist.
If you know of a guild with 500 members that was created and caters to relic runners and domination players, I'd be happy to learn of their existence. As is, I know of none.
I'm only using the point of my guild's existence to suggest that I know that there are at least 400 accounts that choose to queue for TDM specifically, and would continue to queue for it, regardless of if there were an exp bonus attached to it.
0 -
thesarahandcompany✭✭✭✭Rich himself said objective games would never pop because an overwhelming number of players queue deathmatch.
Objective games have never been popular in any MMO and this queue nonsense is old.
We should just delete objective modes and move on from queues and start creating more deathmatch content.Sarahandcompany
She/Her/Hers2