What I noticed in Battlegrounds...

Alharion

I'm sick of it, I play BG every day and 90% of the time [Snip], people just doing PVP without playing the objective + one who stays at the spawn and doesn't play and that's it too often, rarely do I find myself with a group that's trying to play the objective, let alone teamplay... [Snip]?

Also, couldn't something be done about inactive players in PVP arena?



[Edited title and content for baiting/bashing]

jtm1018

I am so sorry, I think I was in your group.
0kill, 999 death, 0assist.
Again, I am so sorry!!!

rpa

Peple who are into sweaty pvp often like to deathmatch regardless of objectives, people who do not pvp are there for endeavor and not because vore fetish.

jtm1018

rpa wrote: »

Peple who are into sweaty pvp often like to deathmatch regardless of objectives, people who do not pvp are there for endeavor and not because vore fetish.

This, pvp and/or bg, is always deathmatch.

I try to take flag but I am the only one there.

Just rename bg weekend to deathmatch weekend, to avoid confusion to players.

StaticWave

I'm a DM player and I don't like objective game modes but for some reason they are always the maps I get. Don't blame the players, blame ZOS for not separating objective and DM queues. I would personally never queue for anything but DM if that was reimplemented.

But we all know that isn't going to happen because the majority of BG players favor DM and the moment ZOS separates the queue again the majority will only queue for DM and the forums will complain just like before.

SandandStars

your frustration is shared, op.

i do bgs a lot and to keep it semi entertaining i strive to both win the objective match while also maintaining a solid K/D ratio.

it’s very satisfying when i manage to do both, and also very challenging.

i do get some petty satisfaction when a ganker or dk with almost no match points but a high K/D still gets a lower K/D than me, and I also have 3000 more match points than them

SkaraMinoc

Hmm let's see.

1. Incentivize daily battlegrounds for players that don't want to be there
2. Force deathmatch players into objective battlegrounds that don't want to be there

The result is a mix of players..

• AFK at spawn
• Dying instantly with 19k health and no armor
• Sweaty deathmatchers farming players and ignoring objectives
• One or two mid-tier PvPers who actually want to win (this is you)

This is why you have this [Snip] group in Battlegrounds.

[Edited for removed content]

wilykcat

In most groups there is always the one person who has no clue what's going on the whole time... I have to admit that's me when it comes to battlegrounds.

I don't afk though. I just mostly run around.

Danikat

I agree that it's mainly people who want to be playing Death Match treating every game like it is DM and ignoring the objectives.

I've only had one time I thought my group was doing something genuinely stupid and even then it could be an honest mistake from first time players (it was during an event or weekly endeavour week or something). We were playing Capture the Relic and the other two teams were mostly playing DM so they'd sometimes kill the person carrying a relic but then ignore it. Twice someone from my team picked it up then took it to the enemy base and tried to return it.

When I told them they were at the wrong base they said the colours matched (which is why I think it could be a genuine mistake) and I literally had to stand there and type out instructions - tell them to go to our base and where and what colour that was. Then I had to tell them to actually walk right up to the altar, not just stand in the general area of the base.

shadyjane62

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Hmm let's see.

1. Incentivize daily battlegrounds for players that don't want to be there
2. Force deathmatch players into objective battlegrounds that don't want to be there

The result is a mix of players..

• AFK at spawn
• Dying instantly with 19k health and no armor
• Sweaty deathmatchers farming players and ignoring objectives
• One or two mid-tier PvPers who actually want to win (this is you)

This is why you have this [Snip] group in Battlegrounds.

This stupid person would be me if I was ever stupid enough to enter a battleground. When one is an endeavor I see people say just go in afk and live ( or die ) through it.

PvP should not be part of endeavors.

[Edited quote]

derkaiserliche

Both ways are sadly very annoying often:

1. People just battle around without caring about flags
2. People skipping every single battle and just run from flag to flag

The golden middle is often the right way

Kisakee

And then there are people who don't care about PvP at all but need to earn Alliance Points to unlock skills like Warhorn and Barrier for PvE. That would be me sitting in a corner or even actively feeding the enemy to end the rounds as fast as possible.

gariondavey

shadyjane62 wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Hmm let's see.

1. Incentivize daily battlegrounds for players that don't want to be there
2. Force deathmatch players into objective battlegrounds that don't want to be there

The result is a mix of players..

• AFK at spawn
• Dying instantly with 19k health and no armor
• Sweaty deathmatchers farming players and ignoring objectives
• One or two mid-tier PvPers who actually want to win (this is you)

This is why you have this [Snip] group in Battlegrounds.

This stupid person would be me if I was ever stupid enough to enter a battleground. When one is an endeavor I see people say just go in afk and live ( or die ) through it.

PvP should not be part of endeavors.

PvE should not be part of endeavors.

[Edited quote]

CameraBeardThePirate

The solution would be:

1) Bring back separate queues (only actually separate them this time instead of pulling from the objective queue to fill the DM queue)

2) Balance the objective modes to actually encourage engagement between teams instead of funneling players in every which direction.

There's also the third option of ZOS doing a better job teaching their players the fundamentals of PvP to not get shredded by the turbo-DM crowd, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

OBJnoob

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

The solution would be:

1) Bring back separate queues (only actually separate them this time instead of pulling from the objective queue to fill the DM queue)

2) Balance the objective modes to actually encourage engagement between teams instead of funneling players in every which direction.

There's also the third option of ZOS doing a better job teaching their players the fundamentals of PvP to not get shredded by the turbo-DM crowd, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

I think if your #1 happens (and it should,) then #2 probably won't be necessary. Or at least leave us OBJ enjoyers to decide.

I've never understood that complaint. The only logical place to fight is on objectives. Having multiple objectives doesn't discourage fighting it just spreads it out. I enjoy not having to run around as a 4-man at all times. Let's not kill diversity, hmm?

I would perhaps agree that Domination has 1 too many flags. The rest seem fine to me. The only real problems I see with OBJ BGs is that in CtR you can sometimes be immune to interruptions and in Chaosball you can sometimes stand on a ledge that probably shouldn't even exist where nobody can hit you.

Kartalin

shadyjane62 wrote: »

SkaraMinoc wrote: »

Hmm let's see.

1. Incentivize daily battlegrounds for players that don't want to be there
2. Force deathmatch players into objective battlegrounds that don't want to be there

The result is a mix of players..

• AFK at spawn
• Dying instantly with 19k health and no armor
• Sweaty deathmatchers farming players and ignoring objectives
• One or two mid-tier PvPers who actually want to win (this is you)

This is why you have this [Snip] group in Battlegrounds.

When one is an endeavor I see people say just go in afk and live ( or die ) through it.

Maybe the bg endeavor should be modified to match the daily bg exp reward --- must finish 1st or 2nd to receive it. That would definitely disincentivize the poor behavior some are seeing.

[Edited quote]

SandandStars

My favorite battleground bug seems to happen most often in Eld Angavar. The one where you suddenly take 30,000+ environmental damage because someone hit you with scalding rune, or some other innocuous spell, and the game incorrectly calculates that you have suddenly fallen to your death, from a 1-foot drop.

It’s a neat bug because it’s been around for at least the three years I’ve been playing.

gariondavey

Yeah someone hit me with leap and bam, 42k environmental damage, insta dead on eld angavar yesterday. Should be fixed by now...been years. Come on zos.

JanTanhide

I don't do BGs much but yeah, sorry, that would be me doing the Deathmatch thing.

Auldwulfe

I think the most difficult people are the "social distancers"... the bg starts, and they each scatter in a different direction
Mind you, I am not young, or fast, I will attempt to stay with at least someone who appears to be working for whatever objective we have --- and while I have picked up the chaos ball a few times, I tend more towards running defense for the runners in other objective fights....

I don't tend to do artifact grabs, because I am in my mid-50's, and I am NOT as fast as I used to be on reaction... I can delay, fight, and slow the enemy.... but I tend to not react as fast as I used to....

I am also not an avid BG runner - I join in for fun, and I do my best, but I am not going to stick around if it isn't fun.
And when your group seems to think it's their holy mission to put as much distance between themselves, and ANYTHING else in the field.... there is only so much you can do against a group that actually is working together.

Auldwulfe

Joy_Division

Just make BGs 6v6 rather than 4v4v4.

Three faction small scale doesn't work because it's not an optimal strategy to actually fight the enemy in any objective base game unless one team is so strong they know they can just brush anyone aside. The very format encourages non PvP, which frustrated the people who actually want to PvP.

If it was 6v6, then there is no other tag team to worry about, so it's now optimal to always attack and set the initiative. So the sweaty DM players can head straight for the objectives where the objective players are and they can PvP.

Six years of problems and complaints can be solved EZ.

Syrusthevirus187

Joy is correct. The weird cyro 3-way makes no sense in bgs.
Objectives modes could work if it was 2 teams.

OBJnoob

The chaotic nature of having 3 teams is what some people enjoy and find original about the game.

There's nothing wrong with it. It allows for some people to capture objectives without fighting-- yes. It also allows for one team to spend the whole time spawn-camping another team. What is "allowed" has little to do with the game and more to do with the people.

Objective modes are supposed to be different than deathmatches. The optimal tactic isn't supposed to always be fighting. That's what the aptly named DEATH match is for where the only tactic is fighting.

If you play an OBJ BG and you focus on the objectives then you will be fighting. The only exception to this rule is when some teams ignore the objective. How ironic that those are the people who complain.

Arcanasx

OBJnoob wrote: »

The chaotic nature of having 3 teams is what some people enjoy and find original about the game.

There's nothing wrong with it. It allows for some people to capture objectives without fighting-- yes. It also allows for one team to spend the whole time spawn-camping another team. What is "allowed" has little to do with the game and more to do with the people.

Objective modes are supposed to be different than deathmatches. The optimal tactic isn't supposed to always be fighting. That's what the aptly named DEATH match is for where the only tactic is fighting.

If you play an OBJ BG and you focus on the objectives then you will be fighting. The only exception to this rule is when some teams ignore the objective. How ironic that those are the people who complain.

Except the optimal tactic for objective gameplay in ESO is to often ignore other players and instead play the wait, watch, and react game instead of fighting them over objectives while built for survivability and or speed. You simply go where the opposing team isn't at all, or only attack when you outnumber them which often leads to one sided results. This is greatly amplified and incentivized by the three team format.

Two full teams are punished for fighting over objectives (except chaos ball) if the third team is somewhere else taking other objectives. And if you think that's solved by splitting up and attempting to go for and defend multiple objectives at once, that doesn't work as well as you think it does in a three team format. Especially if that third team decides to stick together, because that's just setting yourself up on a platter for divide and conquer. You even capture flags faster if your whole team is on it rather than by yourself, and you should easily push away lone defenders away from flags or relics.

One team splitting up against two full teams will usually either lose to them attempting to contest objectives outnumbered...or they can simply avoid them (and avoid PvP) and capture the rest of the map or capture the unguarded relic(s) if those two teams are engaged fighting over an objective.

Again, the team that waits until the other two teams are engaged is given the advantage, and the team that decides to take the initiative and attempts to contest what the PvP avoidant third team is doing, will have whatever objectives they hold often taken by the other team they were just fighting with...totally fair and fun right? At least in deathmatch, this can be somewhat mitigated to an extent by the two teams having awareness of where the third team is located, because the win condition is actually based on kills.

Trying to play optimally and winning by choosing to mostly ignore the other teams and playing as if you're "always on the run" isn't fun for anyone who actually wants to PvP, especially after waiting in a long queue, and it isn't that fun either for those who are only treating BG's as a daily reward dispenser.

There's a reason why other games design objective modes with only two opposing teams in mind, and the three team format doesn't make ESO's BG's interesting or unique in a good way. If anything, the current sad state of ESO BG's serves to highlight why you should never design battlegrounds with a three team format, especially with capture the relic or flag domination objectives.

OBJnoob

I mean I know what you're saying-- yes all of those instances happen sometimes-- but so do so many good ones. You can propose hypothetical scenarios with hypothetical actions and reactions but that's hardly going to change what I've seen for like 6 years straight. I play for the objectives, sometimes 4stacked sometimes duo sometimes solo-- as I see the situation depends-- and that's how I win games. And there is a lot of fighting involved in it.

Yes I sometimes cap unoccupied flags. I also win 1v2s, 1v1v1s, 2v2v3s, blahblahblah. It's chaotic and it's fun and I absolutely feel as though after a well played game of tactics and killing my odds of winning are GREATLY improved. Oh and by the way I lose fights too the point is just the myriad combinations available with 3 alliances not how I'm bragging.

I'm not lying and I'm not blind. That's all I can say. Xbox NA. For 6 years (not much compared to some I know,) if all 3 teams play OBJ there are more good games than bad games. Some are nailbiting and amazing.

People are the problem.

katanagirl1

I haven’t done BGs in a while, but even as someone who prefers DM I did try to play the objectives.

However, there was always at least one archer standing up above somewhere sniping me constantly regardless of what was going on, so I had no choice but to try to kill him.

Often as someone said above, other team members go solo instead of sticking together. Almost never win in that situation.

TwiceBornStar

I see a player. I hit a player. It's not because I don't like players.. But yeah, PvP.

No?

Redguards_Revenge

The objective based ones,

Remove class diversity, Remove set diversity. Stop anybody from being killed.

Make us use 5 slots with 1 damage, 1 heal,1 stuns, 1 roots 1 purge.

The only person who can die is the holder. Stuns and roots to slow him from getting to the objective, the only damage skill to hurt him and kill him off.

Make it stackable, so if all 4 team members hit, the holder dies instantly in 3-5 seconds. If they can't purge it due to low resource pool.

Aurielle

I recently returned to ESO after a four year break. I loved deathmatch BGs, and they became my primary focus for a while before I quit. It’s disappointing to return and NEVER get DM… I hate flag games with a passion. I’ve gotten deathmatch exactly ONCE when it wasn’t the DM weekend.

I still play the objective, of course, but I understand why some folks treat every match as DM. Who wants to waste their time building ultimate on some cheese tank holding the chaosball every single match?

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

After further review we have decided to move this thread to a category we think is more appropriate for this topic.

Thank you for your understanding.

Alharion

So here I am, I found myself banned for 72 hours for the nature of this message, so I grant it, my message was not very "aesthetic" by some word used, but it is a problem that exists too frequently and for a regular player who faces this type of unpleasant experience too often it ends up being annoying to be exposed to this problem too often and the only response we receive from Zenimax is to be banned without having taken any part in the subject, I am baffled to see how the TESO community is treated here!

In addition to completely distorting the title of the subject and the very body of the subject, to say something that has nothing to do with what was mentioned in the beginning...

Apparently, the approach between the players and the team of an MMORPG is lost nowadays...

We are entitled to express ourselves on the problems encountered in the game and to banish so brutally for so little, is clearly not a solution!!!