Tell us what it is before we accept BG Queue

Giraffon

I think everyone would benefit from this. They should set it up so when you queue for a solo random battleground it tells you what type of match you will be in BEFORE you accept it. That way you can make any armory adjustments or just not accept it if it's a type of match you don't want to do.

Anyone back me up or disagree?

propertyOfUndefined

I think this would be a good change, though might not be trivial to implement. There are a few players I know who’ll drop as soon as they see it’s a Death Match. I don’t mind, because it certainly beats being in the match but not participating at all. The problem is there are times it takes a while to find a replacement, and so you start out a player short.

newtinmpls

Then you have the players who drop as soon as they see it's NOT a death match. Frankly I still would like a "no death match queue"

Merforum

Honestly there is no reason why they don't have a PREFERENCE CHECKBOXES. Where the queue is still totally random but you only get the match that you put a check by. So obviously if you check all match types you will always get in the next match. And the fewer matches you select the longer you have to wait. This way you can change it on the fly, you never get in a match you don't want, and it is AUTOMATIC. Also since you know if you only pick ONE type you already know you might have a long wait.

Also I think they can change the logic so for instance as soon as 12 people who have the same check hits it automatically puts then in a match. As soon as 12 people who all select DM only are in queue it pops, for example.

Amottica

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

Syrusthevirus187

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

Or the opposite. Have no penalty so we can quit and then requewe until we get the match we want seeing as there is no way to choose.

_adhyffbjjjf12

There is no population to support quitting for either DM/Objective/Both PVP lovers. The only fair answer as ever is randomisation of BG selection, weighted on player preference selected once a BG group is formed but before map is selected. for e.g if 60% of a formed group wants DM then game rolls a dice with a 60% chance of DM, 40% other etc

Giraffon

The problem is well known. Death match players are generally pretty good at one specific element of PvP and that's killing other players. While this is an important element to any PvP match it is not necessarily the objective. When these players channel their energies to the task that their team is pursuing, it's an almost guaranteed win, but when they run off and do their own thing the team can easily end up in third place.

It's really hard to explain it too. Regardless of where they are, they are killing players on other teams so it seems logical that in some way they must be helping. On paper that sounds indisputable, but that's not been my experience. I've seen it many times where a team will absolutely crush everyone with kills, but they ignored the objectives and ended up in 3rd place.

I would prefer to avoid those players.

exeeter702

Giraffon wrote: »

The problem is well known. Death match players are generally pretty good at one specific element of PvP and that's killing other players. While this is an important element to any PvP match it is not necessarily the objective. When these players channel their energies to the task that their team is pursuing, it's an almost guaranteed win, but when they run off and do their own thing the team can easily end up in third place.

It's really hard to explain it too. Regardless of where they are, they are killing players on other teams so it seems logical that in some way they must be helping. On paper that sounds indisputable, but that's not been my experience. I've seen it many times where a team will absolutely crush everyone with kills, but they ignored the objectives and ended up in 3rd place.

I would prefer to avoid those players.

And many others would prefer to engage in pvp activity where you actually have to outplay another player/s instead of actively avoiding confrontation to optimize the win condition in say CTF. DM only players are generally better at actual pvp yes, but dont presume that they are not good at objective play. There is no 5head strategic depth to the various objective game modes, not that I'm saying you are implying this but often times around here, you have people that like to make up distinctions along the lines of objective players are better team players and DM players are just better PKers, which is a gross ad innacurate generalization made to try and embellish objective mode bgs to be something more intelligent than they really are.

That being said, I would love to see your suggestion put in the game, if only to demonstrate the reality that you will find the majority of your queues will take MUCH longer to pop and thus letting natural selection take its course

The only reason ZOS has settled with the current queuing standard for BGs is becuase

1. They know there are not enough players to justify deviding the pool of players between different BG modes.

2. Doing so reveals the objective truth that non DM bgs have not been successfully implemented and they need to populate the content by forcing all bg participants into game modes they dont want to play. Except that DM is up against 4 obj modes.

exeeter702

Successful and well made battleground that have existed in numerous mmorpgs over the years have always adhered to 3 designed philosophies.

1. Proper incentive for achieving the win condition by way of relevant rewards that contribute to character progression or desirable appealing rewards for social status ranks, titles, cosmetics etc.

2. Intelligent design that organically combines pvp conflict with objectives. Achieved by crafting geographically appropriate maps to explicitly adhere to a specfic game/objective modes instead of (almost) one size fits all maps that will need to facilitate multiple different game mode types.

3. Strictly adhering to a modestly sized 2 team format. Not small enough where objective play would be difficulty to do, but not large enough to create too much of a concentrated power by x number of players stacking without resulting in a quick loss from objective failure. 2 teams of mid size combined with #2 above, results in a well rounded objective and pvp encounter design while simultaneously creating a reasonable degree of burden of performance for each player in the match while allowing newer, less experienced players still able to meaningful contribute to the win condition.

Zos has, in my honest opinion failed at every one of these cardinal rules and no amount of queue / matchmaking wizardry is going to address the foundational flaws of ESO battle grounds.

Ezorus

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

Yes, sort it out.. nothing like a game starting with only one full team that wipes everyone. Would rather just waited longer

Giraffon

This threat of long queue times is not valid to me. I'd rather be allowed to choose the match type and wait 40 minutes. As it is now, I'm prepared to drop out of the match if I queue in with a bad build for the match type or if team is not pursuing objectives. I don't care about the 15 minutes. I'd just waste 15 minutes in the match anyway under those circumstances.

TheS1X

Locking people out for 30 mins is not the solution to this problem. Problem is that people are forced to play BG where they do not want to play. It should be like it was ages ago where u had 3 choices.

WordsOfPower

With the queue system reverted to what is was a couple of years ago, when you could tick boxes for Deathmatch, Relics or Flag Games, the DM queue would be instapop, the Flag would be a few minutes, and considerably longer for Relics.

Ethically, there is no reason for forcing people who want to play DM into game modes they don't enjoy just because the other players aren't happy to wait.

Imagine the PvE equivalent of this kind of 'nudging' -

Game: Oh, I see you've queued for vDoM... I'm sorry but we don't have the population to support that, so here's nFG1 instead.

The player base would be in uproar of they did that.

The only reason they're getting away with right now is the BG population is smaller, and the forum population is overwhelming comprised of objective players.

If ZoS don't split the queues, BGs will die altogether. That's just the way it is

_adhyffbjjjf12

WordsOfPower wrote: »

With the queue system reverted to what is was a couple of years ago, when you could tick boxes for Deathmatch, Relics or Flag Games, the DM queue would be instapop, the Flag would be a few minutes, and considerably longer for Relics.

Ethically, there is no reason for forcing people who want to play DM into game modes they don't enjoy just because the other players aren't happy to wait.

Imagine the PvE equivalent of this kind of 'nudging' -

Game: Oh, I see you've queued for vDoM... I'm sorry but we don't have the population to support that, so here's nFG1 instead.

The player base would be in uproar of they did that.

The only reason they're getting away with right now is the BG population is smaller, and the forum population is overwhelming comprised of objective players.

If ZoS don't split the queues, BGs will die altogether. That's just the way it is

Its catch 22, splitting the queues will kill BG as there is not enough players. Until ZOS fixes the underlying problems with gameplay and performance new players will not come and stay. Very similar problem in cyrodill.

The only other fair to all answer in the interim is to do what's successfully implemented in other AAA mmorpg - 1. form a BG group, 2. ask that group what their preferences are, 3 roll a dice but weight the result, so if 80% want DM, there is a 80% chance of rolling for DM etc. In that order.

xDeusEJRx

I agree that it should it let you know what game you're going to be queued into

Dem_kitkats1

Giraffon wrote: »

This threat of long queue times is not valid to me. I'd rather be allowed to choose the match type and wait 40 minutes. As it is now, I'm prepared to drop out of the match if I queue in with a bad build for the match type or if team is not pursuing objectives. I don't care about the 15 minutes. I'd just waste 15 minutes in the match anyway under those circumstances.

IMO the purpose of BGs is to get into a PvP match quickly, so a long queue time is very valid concern. Waiting 40 mins for a max 15 min match will get stale for many players. Especially if they're still not guaranteed getting into the mode that they want. At that point players will just accept whatever match just to get some play time, and then what would've been the point of inplementing a system like that? If you're waiting for DM the wait time could be even longer than that for it to even pop up. Once you get into a match, then what? You have to wait another 40 mins. Personally, I would rather be doing something rather than a whole lot of nothing. So the effort of implementing something like this really wouldn't change much of anything for me.

Necrotech_Master

_adhyffbjjjf12 wrote: »

WordsOfPower wrote: »

With the queue system reverted to what is was a couple of years ago, when you could tick boxes for Deathmatch, Relics or Flag Games, the DM queue would be instapop, the Flag would be a few minutes, and considerably longer for Relics.

Ethically, there is no reason for forcing people who want to play DM into game modes they don't enjoy just because the other players aren't happy to wait.

Imagine the PvE equivalent of this kind of 'nudging' -

Game: Oh, I see you've queued for vDoM... I'm sorry but we don't have the population to support that, so here's nFG1 instead.

The player base would be in uproar of they did that.

The only reason they're getting away with right now is the BG population is smaller, and the forum population is overwhelming comprised of objective players.

If ZoS don't split the queues, BGs will die altogether. That's just the way it is

Its catch 22, splitting the queues will kill BG as there is not enough players. Until ZOS fixes the underlying problems with gameplay and performance new players will not come and stay. Very similar problem in cyrodill.

The only other fair to all answer in the interim is to do what's successfully implemented in other AAA mmorpg - 1. form a BG group, 2. ask that group what their preferences are, 3 roll a dice but weight the result, so if 80% want DM, there is a 80% chance of rolling for DM etc. In that order.

the only problem i see with that, is due to the lower queue population, you would never see a deathmatch if every match is 70-90% voted for as deathmatch, so back to the original complaint of not seeing the other modes

in a lot of those other games, you vote on the map, not the game mode, for example when i played CS:GO, you queued in for a specific game mode (death match, planting bomb, etc) and then you voted on the map between matches, not the game mode

Amottica

Syrusthevirus187 wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

Or the opposite. Have no penalty so we can quit and then requewe until we get the match we want seeing as there is no way to choose.

The idea is to fill the BGs. Not continuously empty them out. If people want to do BGs, let them do it. If they want to keep dropping BG after BG because it was not what they wanted they are also choosing to have a penalty. Zenimax should not cater to these people.

Vaoh

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

Amottica

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

Vaoh

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

Necrotech_Master

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

i think the 2 biggest changes that could improve BGs would be smaller map sizes, like the colosseum or map with the lava are about the right size for a 4v4v4

the other one would be to just have ability to queue into specific game modes, if every game mode had represented queue, and random could pull from all of the above, then that would be similar to what we have on dungeons, and random queue would still be needed for the big xp bonus (like dungeons), but would allow people to queue into specific modes to work on achievement (or preference such as DM)

Amottica

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

a 15-minute account-wide lockout would be fine. It does need to be account-wide though.

I do agree that the BG design is lacking in ESO. When "capture the flag" does not really include defending the flag or any real reason or reward to do so there is a problem. I also think that a three-team design may be creating complications with how the designs play out. An 8v8 could bring more interesting and beneficial designs. The 4v4 design can remain for DM matches.

Sticking the capture the flag BG, we should be required to hold multiple locations to gain more points than other teams and maybe even to gain points at all. There should be rewards for players who take time to defend a point in addition to rewards for players in the current design. This creates a solid objective-based BG while also having players engage in combat.

This is just one example or idea I have.

Necrotech_Master

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

a 15-minute account-wide lockout would be fine. It does need to be account-wide though.

I do agree that the BG design is lacking in ESO. When "capture the flag" does not really include defending the flag or any real reason or reward to do so there is a problem. I also think that a three-team design may be creating complications with how the designs play out. An 8v8 could bring more interesting and beneficial designs. The 4v4 design can remain for DM matches.

Sticking the capture the flag BG, we should be required to hold multiple locations to gain more points than other teams and maybe even to gain points at all. There should be rewards for players who take time to defend a point in addition to rewards for players in the current design. This creates a solid objective-based BG while also having players engage in combat.

This is just one example or idea I have.

so the idea you have is basically 100% exactly the same as domination mode right now, you have to capture flags for points, you get points for defending flags, more flags is more points

capture the relic is ESO variant of capture the flag and that does need some work for defending, because you only get points (combat medals) for killing someone carrying your relic, and returning your relic than preventing someone from taking it in the first place

Amottica

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

Vaoh wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think it should remain as it is. The only change I would make is if someone drops then they get a 15-minute account-wide lockout. Maybe 30 minutes.

1. Can’t choose game mode
2. Can have a bad match due to BGs having too few players, such as a 1v4v4 where it’s a waste of time
3. Game can simply crash

But yeah, lock someone out of their account for 30min right? 😂

To the question, yes; Very much so if and when they abandon a match. People abandoning matches contribute to taht 1v4v4 example provided.

To the rest, I never said there was no room for improvement It is clear from these attempts Zenimax has made there is not a population for choosing what BG we want, and the last iteration that heavily used those that queued for a random BG to fill the DM matches was the second-worst design we have had. The worst was the DM-only period.

I did say back then that the separate DM queue would be fine if it did not draw from those that choose a random queue even if the DM queue was notably long, but that is not a direction Zenimax chose to go.

I don’t disagree with everything you’re saying but a 30-min account wide lockout is strict even for competitive ranked PvP-only games.

Games with popular PvP are successful because they have proper balance, fun game modes + map design, often unique ways to play, etc. I usually think back to Halo 3.

With BGs the issue is that ZOS does everything the opposite. Poor combat balance within BGs, poorly implemented game modes + map designs, and no unique ways to play unless you want to be useless. I could write paragraphs detailing what I mean but don’t want to bore you - point is almost no one cares to play it anymore.

Massive changes are needed to turn BGs into something special that tens of thousands of players per server would regularly enjoy. A new penalty isn’t even in the same ballpark of what is needed imo.

a 15-minute account-wide lockout would be fine. It does need to be account-wide though.

I do agree that the BG design is lacking in ESO. When "capture the flag" does not really include defending the flag or any real reason or reward to do so there is a problem. I also think that a three-team design may be creating complications with how the designs play out. An 8v8 could bring more interesting and beneficial designs. The 4v4 design can remain for DM matches.

Sticking the capture the flag BG, we should be required to hold multiple locations to gain more points than other teams and maybe even to gain points at all. There should be rewards for players who take time to defend a point in addition to rewards for players in the current design. This creates a solid objective-based BG while also having players engage in combat.

This is just one example or idea I have.

so the idea you have is basically 100% exactly the same as domination mode right now, you have to capture flags for points, you get points for defending flags, more flags is more points

capture the relic is ESO variant of capture the flag and that does need some work for defending, because you only get points (combat medals) for killing someone carrying your relic, and returning your relic than preventing someone from taking it in the first place

That is an oversimplification of it which does leave out part of the overall idea. So basically, no it is not like capture the flag where people just run around capturing points and avoiding PvP. I was also using thE very specific "capture the flag" which is not the relic BG.

To simplify the overall message I was presenting is that we need better-designed BGs. That is basically a point the person I quoted as saying and I was in agreeing with them.