PTS Update 44 - Feedback Thread for Two-Sided Battlegrounds

infunite

I tried both 4v4 and 8v8 BGs and they are really fun and combat focused now that it's 2 sided ^_^

The main thing that needs to be modified is a massive reduction to incoming healing and incoming damage shield strength. It's simply too strong right now.

Can't stop people from clumping up and playing like a ballgroup, but it will help to reduce incoming healing and incoming damage shield strength.

I'm talking like 50%+ reduction.

Right now, whichever group has the most healers/supports is most likely going to just one-sidedly dominate.

huskandhunger

Hello. I wanted to share some feedback on the Chaosball 8v8 mode. Currently if you are in werewolf form and you pick up a Behemoth or Vampire Chaos ball, you never get special abilities, you simply continue with your regular werewolf form abilities.

8v8 feels very hurly burly, and will most definitely be lopsided due to current healing and shielding hybridized scaling. Healing should be reduced but this is of course across all game modes as we all know, etc.

I got the map that looks like a carnival from Galen or some such town with flags and rustic stonework architecture, it's very pretty

It is hard to distinguish which Chaos Ball does what though, so maybe some kind of indicator would help the player know what will happen to better strategize.

Thanks

huskandhunger

It might be good to have random generated spawn locations to help pipe players into the match to avoid spawn clustering, and ease of entering the map in case of a smack down etc

huskandhunger

mm, maybe like umm 6v6 or 5v5 might be better fit for the casual mode mm could be good to look into

huskandhunger

maybe mm need to fix queues and times otherwise it goes super long like above screenshot

ForumSavant

ZOS_Kevin wrote: »

Hi all, thanks for the feedback regarding MMR and medals. After chatting with the team, we have a few points just to clarify as you continue testing.

1. MMR is used in matchmaking to pair players with similar experience and skill levels for ESO PvP battlegrounds. So when possible, the game logic will try to avoid putting premades with solo players.
2. Leaderboards have historically been populated based on your medal score, which are earned by completing objectives in Battlegrounds. However we are reviewing your feedback regarding this topic. For now, we will continue to monitor and evaluate your feedback noted here, in addition to watching player behavior as the PTS cycle continues.
3. We have seen some of your feedback regarding MMR Degrade and looking at potential next steps here. Nothing to announce now, but we see the feedback.

Thanks for the continued feedback!

There isn't a single person here who wants COMPETITIVE 4v4 BG leaderboards or matchmaking to be based off medal score. If they want to play BGs in a non competitive way, they will just enjoy the more laid back 8v8s that don't take MMR, whatever is used to calculate it, into play.

The community of players that enjoys PvP and wants a competitive setting has wanted it for years, and it's finally done, but ruining it by basing MMR and leaderboards off of an arbitrary metric like medal score would be like getting a fresh coat of paint on your broken down 200k milage car.

The amount of people that will continue to que and get games on the PTS will be limited to those who schedule it and que into each other, people generally don't want to download the PTS (it's a decent amount of space) and make new builds with friends just to test things. So the vast majority of people here won't get into many games, if any, but the ones who enjoy the competitiveness are those who are echoing the same thing, a real logic based MMR system.

TheLoreMaster420

Hi, thanks for the update and for acknowledging the feedback on MMR. I think shifting MMR to be based on a combination of kills, damage, healing, and/or shielding, rather than just medal scores, would better reflect the skill and contribution of individual players.

Medal score can be influenced by specific objectives, but it doesn’t always represent the overall impact a player has in a match, especially in non-objective-based games. For example, someone dealing or mitigating the most damage might not always earn the top medals, even though they’ve had a significant impact on the outcome. A system that takes into account these key stats could lead to more accurate matchmaking and reward players who consistently contribute to their team’s success.

It would be great to see a more comprehensive approach to MMR that goes beyond just medals alone! Looking forward to seeing how this evolves.

CameraBeardThePirate

@ZOS_Kevin

I want to once again stress the fact that Necros and Shielders do not earn any Medal Score or scoreboard damage/healing numbers for a majority of the things they do. Medal Score has its issues inherently, but if Medal Score isn't changed, Pet Damage, Pet Healing, and Shielding done needs to count for something on the scoreboard.

SalamanNZ

Please make the 4v4 an E-sport type event where you can either have premade teams or join other random players. Two separate score charts for each player base and no MMR.

ForumSavant

SalamanNZ wrote: »

Please make the 4v4 an E-sport type event where you can either have premade teams or join other random players. Two separate score charts for each player base and no MMR.

E-sports and no MMR? Aside from the fact that ESO doesn't back it's game anywhere near enough for it to ever be an esport, every single decent esport has MMR for their ladder/ranked games.

TheLoreMaster420

SalamanNZ wrote: »

Please make the 4v4 an E-sport type event where you can either have premade teams or join other random players. Two separate score charts for each player base and no MMR.

You can't be series, right? Esports type event without a MMR ladder? Pretty much every esports has a ranking or ladder system in place to determine seeding and even participation to events.

Spin

I feel like there's less chaos around it. Was Battlegrounds that bad that it had to have this rework?

The MMR is always weird, but with 3 teams, you could still have the other 2 team fighting for the 2nd place, in case the 1st place was difficult to fight for.

The 4v4, 8v8 feels like a resource fight in Cyrodiil, but with less LoS.

2 teams also makes it more frustrating for those who are getting stomped.

8v8 gets boring when one team has at least 2 dedicated support players and I feel like the sheer amount of cross-healing on top of it makes it difficult to enjoy. Yeah just focus that target, but the other players are also protecting him and sharing their heals with them. Too many skills being shared, too many buffs around plus...The tank meta works in non-CP too.

4v4 makes it more sweaty, most Battlegrounds players play it casually, those who want to try hard tend to use the group-queue in the Live server.

Overall I think this rework shouldn't be there. 4v4 feels too little, too try-hardy and 8v8 feels too much and everlasting.

Please, keep 4v4v4. Battlegrounds is good as it is, when it comes to PvP on-demand.

Overall BG's problems are the PvP one's, can't solve it without taking a deep look into PvP as a whole.

Better rewards, better sets, better MM would easily solve it when it comes to BG problems.

Now, if you want to delve into PvP problems... Tanks, non-group cross-healing, Tarnished Nightmare, lag, delays, desync...

acastanza_ESO

Please don't get rid of Stormlords, just have it randomly pick two of the teams instead of getting rid of what is my (and probably other's) favorite team.

ForumSavant

Spin wrote: »

I feel like there's less chaos around it. Was Battlegrounds that bad that it had to have this rework?

The MMR is always weird, but with 3 teams, you could still have the other 2 team fighting for the 2nd place, in case the 1st place was difficult to fight for.

The 4v4, 8v8 feels like a resource fight in Cyrodiil, but with less LoS.

2 teams also makes it more frustrating for those who are getting stomped.

8v8 gets boring when one team has at least 2 dedicated support players and I feel like the sheer amount of cross-healing on top of it makes it difficult to enjoy. Yeah just focus that target, but the other players are also protecting him and sharing their heals with them. Too many skills being shared, too many buffs around plus...The tank meta works in non-CP too.

4v4 makes it more sweaty, most Battlegrounds players play it casually, those who want to try hard tend to use the group-queue in the Live server.

Overall I think this rework shouldn't be there. 4v4 feels too little, too try-hardy and 8v8 feels too much and everlasting.

Please, keep 4v4v4. Battlegrounds is good as it is, when it comes to PvP on-demand.

Overall BG's problems are the PvP one's, can't solve it without taking a deep look into PvP as a whole.

Better rewards, better sets, better MM would easily solve it when it comes to BG problems.

Now, if you want to delve into PvP problems... Tanks, non-group cross-healing, Tarnished Nightmare, lag, delays, desync...

There is very little competitive aspect to a 4v4v4 when one team can just choose to not engage in PvP at all and end the game in 30 seconds by doing objectives while the other 2 teams attempt to kill each other. Managing keeping the 3rd team from running objectives while also trying to engage in combat with the other team and not get thirsted down while trying to keep the game in play is too much of a chore most times.

A lot of groups have been asking for this since the game's inception, I mentioned in another thread it would be nice to keep 4v4v4s around for the people that want it, but the playerbase isn't big enough to have 4v4s and 4v4v4s along with 8v8s, separate ques for DM/ non DM, etc.

jaws343

Big fan of the team v team change, as that was something I, and others, was promoting a few years ago when the whole objective verse deathmatch discussion was taking place. The team v team adjustment will make the objective mode games far more competitive.

But, pre-mades in the queue with solos is just a terrible idea. Especially if this BG change doesn't drastically increase the population of people participating. It is going to end up being the same problem we had before the solo queue was returned. Players are going to end up repeatedly facing the same teams over and over again, in back to back matches. And, when you continually get dropped into matches that you just cannot win, the solo players are going to leave the queue for the day, or the week.

I remember a day where I went 5 straight matches against the same pre-made group, and neither of the other teams came close to winning in any of the matches. By the 3rd or 4th match, there were players from the other matches that immediately dropped from the match once they saw they were pitted against the pre-made again.

That is going to happen here. No matter how much weight against it in the MMR is happening, if the participation is low, solo players are going to be tossed into a meatgrinder that is going to kill the game mode.

Sublime

I didn't yet manage to get into a battleground and probably won't because there aren't enough people on PTS. So, I'll have to base my feedback on what I read from the patch notes, heard on the stream and from the in-game UI. First off, it's great to see PvP getting some love!

UI

• The text specifies "Champion abilities are disabled". For me and most people here it is probably clear what this means but I can imagine new players thinking that there are active abilities and it's just these that are disabled. -> I would instead write "Passives from the Champion Points are disabled.
• I like the MMR being displayed in the 4v4 UI. This helps me estimate whether it makes sense queuing with a friend and also gives some bragging rights (or not, we'll see how good I actually am once it hits live).

Matchmaking
I think the general strategy to split between competitive and casual is smart. This is an important distinction that most likely significantly determines how much somebody will enjoy the fight. However, there will (as always) be some players trying to exploit it and smurf on new players. Players don't just play the game how it is meant to be played, they also try to game the system of the game itself. Correspondingly, the final quality of casual versions will be depend the games ability to protect new players from more proficient ones.

The number of premade group members significantly determine a sides strength. Therefore, I would suggest at the very least two type of queues for each mode: Solo/Duo and Group. In the 8v8 I would suggest to also include a 4 or 8-member queue. I think enabling smaller premades to queue for larger ones would be of little harm. However, without the ability of explicitly excluding groups of 3 or more from ones queue, many experiences will be quite one-sided.

If I remember correctly, Brian Wheeler metioned on the live stream that the MMR is calculated from a base value, the highest AvA rank on an account and some other variables. I do understand that constructing a solid MMR indicator can be difficult and, you definitely put some thought into it. Still I would not consider the highest AvA rank. Back when the first players were getting Grand Overlord there was some correlation (but even then it would not have been sufficiently reliable), but now it means basically nothing. If I had to suggest a starting point, I would recommend to start with the win/loss ratio and points contributed (to the 500). The medals do have some good starting points but there needs they lack a punishment for loosing and favor some classes over others.

Competitive 4v4
The game modes are mainly about being the best fighter and have no strategic depth. While this is certainly one way to do it. I personally would have preferred a more complex system for the competitive game. For example, ESO has all the assets and mechanics to build a small keep capture scenario.

As others have already indicated, the proposed leaderboard (and the one on live) are not a leaderboard in the sense of ranking the most skilled players, but in the sense of ranking the most active players. As especially the competitive crowd (which I consider myself to be part of) is less about frequency and more about skill, I would also favor a skill-based ranking. Personally, the main reason is that I perceive leaderboards as an indicator for bragging rights, which I find fun to pursue and other competitive players probably too.

chessalavakia_ESO

Could siege weapons that deal extra damage the more people that are hit be built into the spawn areas on 8 v 8 to deal with spawn camping/clumping?

As the areas have a kick out after a period of time people wouldn't be able to sit on the siege all day but, it could force people to move back a bit or to not group up too much to avoid getting nailed by siege.

ruskiii

Hi, not posted here before but a lot of you will probably know me if you play battlegrounds on PCNA or EU. Like a lot of us I have tested the new 4v4 / 8v8 battlegrounds on PTS, and found it is a lot of fun. There were a lot of problems with 4v4v4 BGs, which we all recognise, there are problems with the new modes too. It is genuinely refreshing to see that the devs are taking player feedback into account in this PTS in a way that values the views of BG players, new and old; and I hope that it translates into us seeing the best small scale pvp mode possible.

That being said, the one glaring hole in the new 2-team system, is a complete lack of a solo queue. We are all aware that splitting queues leads to lower populations, and while I accept that would be an issue in the more casual 8v8s, for the competitive 4v4s there should be an option to queue as group or solo. 4 random people making their own comp (or not) on the fly is a totally different game than 4 people in voice comms who co-ordinated their builds.

BG queues have never let grouped players load into a solo queue, at least not in my playtime, letting solo players queue to fill groups is totally different than the two queues being merged. There is a considerable population of the BG community who just want to chill and have fun fights with people in our MMR. We are all fighting the same 20-30 people everyday anyway, we are happy having random combinations of us on teams. Sometimes we get support sometimes we don't. It's the game we are all used to.

Please @ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno , the ideal solution here would be to keep the 8v8 queue as it is with this "prioritised MMR" to match solos together, but make an altogether seperate solo/group 4v4 queue. This would give competitive solo players a place to play while giving the competitive groups a place to arrange matches reliably without ruining both of our days.

Thanks for reading

darvaria

Too many changes in gear in PTS. I don't want to learn a new meta. I really wanted these BG's but I'm not going to test them or even try them out. And the scribing. This is something that wasn't needed. Too many changes to actually try out and enjoy the content.

Thanks for trying but I'm not giving them a chance, even though I repeatedly asked for them Just too many other changes to deal with.

Just reading the above makes me certain I will not ever que for one of these. Some of above comments paint a horrible scenario. I don't want to go to PTS and have to deal with all the other changes and the new BG's. And all the premades. Like the comment about every game being lopsided with dominating team camping everyone at spawn. NTY.

Just give us a classic version of ESO that will NEVER change. See if there are enough players? I'm not sure which but maybe stop at U42 and don't change anything. Make it where players could play both versions.

When you add something like this, you should NOT make one single change to anything else in the game. Let players try them out without changing their builds. All these changes have become too much like "work".

Syiccal

Anything better than is now, just been put in to a BG where I had a lvl 150 on my team and that's it, the other 2 teams were full with decently leveled players..how does that work for balance

MincMincMinc

I'm surprised nobody brought up the idea of roles in bg ques. Disregarding premade groups. Solo que games can entirely be determined by which team has a healer.

Granted not enough players play already to have the que system work....so hard role based que would be impossible. I suppose they could soft balance teams based on healing role selection.

CameraBeardThePirate

Please please please take a look at Medal Score again.

Leaderboards/MMR either need to be split off from Medal Score entirely, or Medal Score needs to be reworked.

I enjoy playing Necromancer and Shielder support builds. Both of those playstyles earn very little in Medal Score because Pet Damage, Pet Healing, and Shielding Done do not count for anything on the scoreboard and do not earn medal score.

Most of Necro's damage and healing comes from Blastbones and Intensive Mender, meaning most of what they do does not earn them Medal Score or scoreboard damage and healing.

Shielder supports have very little true healing, but tons and tons of damage absorbed through shields - none of this earns them Medal Score or scoreboard healing.

On top of all of that, medals like the Crit Heal Medal can be cheesed very easily to skyrocket your Medal Score.

Yes, this is the way it works on Live, but Live doesn't have a competitive queue, so most serious PvPers do not care about the leaderboard on Live as it doesn't give good rewards and has little bearing on matches and skill level. Having the leaderboard tied to cumulative medal score essentially means it amounts to # of games played, with Necros and Shielders needing to play far more games to climb it.

@ZOS_Kevin The medal score system either needs to be separated from the leaderboard and MMR, or needs to be completely overhauled to give Necros and Shielder builds a fair chance.

gariondavey

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

Please please please take a look at Medal Score again.

Leaderboards/MMR either need to be split off from Medal Score entirely, or Medal Score needs to be reworked.

I enjoy playing Necromancer and Shielder support builds. Both of those playstyles earn very little in Medal Score because Pet Damage, Pet Healing, and Shielding Done do not count for anything on the scoreboard and do not earn medal score.

Most of Necro's damage and healing comes from Blastbones and Intensive Mender, meaning most of what they do does not earn them Medal Score or scoreboard damage and healing.

Shielder supports have very little true healing, but tons and tons of damage absorbed through shields - none of this earns them Medal Score or scoreboard healing.

On top of all of that, medals like the Crit Heal Medal can be cheesed very easily to skyrocket your Medal Score.

Yes, this is the way it works on Live, but Live doesn't have a competitive queue, so most serious PvPers do not care about the leaderboard on Live as it doesn't give good rewards and has little bearing on matches and skill level. Having the leaderboard tied to cumulative medal score essentially means it amounts to # of games played, with Necros and Shielders needing to play far more games to climb it.

@ZOS_Kevin The medal score system either needs to be separated from the leaderboard and MMR, or needs to be completely overhauled to give Necros and Shielder builds a fair chance.

1000 percent this.

Skoomah

Overview
Thank you to ZOS for the hard work and care that’s gone in with the new PVP content launching next patch. My guildmates in Ulfhednar, the largest Battlegrounds guild on PC NA, are pumped for the next patch and have been trying our best to check out the PTS and share feedback. We are seeing sustained higher volumes in player online rates, the return of old long-time players, and a whole bunch of new players participating in Battlegrounds. Here’s a summary of the biggest ticket items that I believe should be considered for the health and success of the Battlegrounds game mode.

Fun Factor and Replay-ability

Match Opponents Based on Skill and Not Time Played - The sentiment around what makes for a fun experience has a lot to do with facing off against opponents around the same skill level. If the opponent you’re facing off against is not as strong a player as you, the matches aren’t fun because the pvp experience is not challenging enough. On the flip side, if the opponent you’re facing off against is much stronger a player than you, the matches aren’t fun because the pvp experience is too challenging. That’s why an MMR system that is based on wins and losses rather than an MMR system that is based on time spent playing is needed. The assumption around wins and losses is that higher skilled players will win more often so those more skilled players should face off against each other as they rise to the top rankings. The assumption around time spent playing allows for lesser skilled players to accumulate medals because they simply play more. In my experience, time spent playing does not equate to higher skill.

Match Opponents Based on Group Complexity - There are distinct player pools in Battlegrounds. There are the solo players and then there are the small group players (duos, quads). The level of sophistication in terms of coordination and level of play increases exponentially as you go from solo players, duo groups, to quad groups. Players start to coordinate more on set selection, skill selection, buff/debuff coverage, communications, etc. The vast majority of players are solo players, with some duos, and nearly extinct number of quads. The quads most often completely wipe the floor with duos or solo players. The 4v4 game mode is going to turn into a Deathmatch game mode which is amazing, but one queue for solo players, and another queue for duos/quads would support better player experiences and long-term replay-ability.

Long Term Incentives to Play Battlegrounds by Increasing Transmute Stones Daily Reward - The expansion and increase in rewards (item sets, style pages, alliance points) for Battlegrounds is an excellent change. I would also recommend for replay-ability, please increase the daily reward of transmute stones from 1 to 10. It takes about 15 minutes to finish a Battleground match and the same for a random normal dungeon run. This change in the number of transmute stones will incentivize a large part of the entire player base, PVE and PVP included, to participate in this game mode.

Theist_VII

Not a fan of the reused Vampire Lord and Werewolf Behemoth, why not add new transformations that are related to the teams present.

Sublime

Skoomah wrote: »

Overview
Long Term Incentives to Play Battlegrounds by Increasing Transmute Stones Daily Reward - The expansion and increase in rewards (item sets, style pages, alliance points) for Battlegrounds is an excellent change. I would also recommend for replay-ability, please increase the daily reward of transmute stones from 1 to 10. It takes about 15 minutes to finish a Battleground match and the same for a random normal dungeon run. This change in the number of transmute stones will incentivize a large part of the entire player base, PVE and PVP included, to participate in this game mode.

Just the reinforce the point on increasing the transmutation stones reward: To me none of the current or the new sets are an incentive to play/win battleground matches. Their stats and perks are simply not strong enough to be viable options. However, the one thing I currently look at when playing and I can also see motivating myself to play more are transmutation stones.

taugrim

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

But even then, pvp is overwhelming for players who don't spend a lot of time pvp'ing. It has a steep learning curve and requires a quite different approach from pve, and particularly from more casual content.

It is not very rewarding for low-skilled players or those who might pvp casually... ie: popping in for a couple quick BG matches, but not really looking to spend time coming up with builds, optimizing their gear, and keeping up with the ever-changing meta.

The reality is that across every MMORPG I've played, here are segments of players:
1. some will never, ever enjoy PVP, no matter what happens. It's too intense, stressful, is unforgiving, etc
2. some on their own will sweat through and eventually become competent, because they want to do well in PVP and find they enjoy it
3. some with the proper nurturing become hooked on PVP. I used to lead PVP guilds in other games (e.g. WAR, SWTOR, WildStar, etc), and with teaching and support, I've gotten dozens of other players totally enjoying PVP. But it relies on players mentoring other players (which also happens in PVE of course)

#1 tends to be the largest bucket. It's too stressful to learn proper keybinds, skill selection, gear set selection, timing, breaking free fast, awareness, positioning, counters, aiming (for some abilities), line of sighting, etc.

A context like Cyro can stimulate the #2 population. People try it and find it a rush, want to do better, gradually improve.

valenwood_vegan wrote: »

Our limited experiences in pvp often involve getting stomped on by elite players or cheese builds, while perhaps trying to follow guides but lacking an understanding of why our builds or skills aren't working. Constantly getting matched up against players who wipe the floor with us and having a feeling of complete uselessness. Watching others farm us and rack up unfathomable (to us) amounts of pvp currency and buy the best of the rewards while we bang our heads against the wall getting scraps. Constantly getting matched against players who are much better, who know the right gear to use this patch on the right class and right build, who coordinate in comms... it's an *immediate* turn-off.

Yep, plenty of players predicted 8v8 is going to be casuals getting farmed by skilled players. It's really not a great experience on either side.

I posted this shortly after watching the livestream on 8v8:
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/665493/8v8-no-mmr-is-going-to-be-a-very-unpleasant-experience-for-casuals

Decimus

Besides the already mentioned issues on no separate solo/group queue, medal score, no MMR degradation based on performance etc, I think one thing that'd be a solid quality of life improvement while simultaneously reducing queue times is being able to queue for multiple battleground types at the same time.

What do I mean by that? Well, what if I don't care too much if I queue into 4v4 or 8v8?

There should be the option to queue for both at the same time, and the first queue to pop would get you in the corresponding battleground. This can already be done on Live between solo/group battlegrounds with the BetterScoreboard addon: you get boxes for both solo/group that you can tick before queueing.

ForumSavant

I sure would love a win/loss MMR

Tcholl

I am reading those comments and they are not good. It seems that new BGs will be just like old BGs. A very niche content, with few players that really enjoy and some others looking for daily xp.

The main issue imo is: few players queue for BGs, therefore they cannot avoid joining solos and premades (by their current and new system anyways). This causes solo players to dislike the content and not come back. We have then few players to queue and it's a never ending cycle.