Do you think 4v4 is good "competitive" BG gameplay?

Aldoss

No

Amottica wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

I guess I'm just confused by this statement because you phrase it as if it's a bad thing.

For people who genuinely enjoyed the 4v4v4 gameplay, it is.

Ah, so they're staying it out loud that the thing that some people enjoyed from the 4v4v4s was that the game modes (minus DM) allowed a weaker team to win?

Seems like poor design. This new one is much better.

I am curious. @Aldoss, your answer to the poll was "No," which means the 4v4 is not good for competitive gameplay, yet this post seems to suggest this new 4v4 is much better than what we have.

I figure there is a reason for the contradiction, which is why I ask. Granted, it is odd that "no" comes before "yes."

Poll originally had poor set up. "No" reflected the best choice because the leaderboard system is awful and the mechanics of the modes are poorly designed.

DM is plagued by the issue that each player has lives, not the team. ZOS was informed from week 1 in PTS that the team should have lives, not players.

4v4 Domination is actually worse than 4v4v4 Domination.

Crazy King can be fun, but every match I've played of it so far has been a blow out on both ends. Never seen a match yet where it's actually close.

The MMR needs to be published and needs to be explained by ZOS what goes into it if they want to call something "competitive".

The format is 100% better than what we had, but these issues needed to be addressed in the PTS or well before the PTS. It was really stupid of ZOS to not declare what they had in the works and coordinate player feedback. This patch is 100% a beta test and it will last at least 4 months until they debut U45 PTS because that's how ZOS chooses to fix their game.

I just got out of a crazy king that lasted 15 minutes and one of the enemy players went 0-34. I felt bad the entire time. It didn't feel fun.

4v4 competitive should just be an arena imo. Best of 3 rounds, no lives. Get in, get out style, with an MMR leaderboard showing wins and losses.

Team vs Team is proving to be way more fun, even with all these issues, than 4v4v4's ever were. I actually like playing the objective now because it feels rewarding to do so.

fizzylu

No

Aldoss wrote: »

Poll originally had poor set up. "No" reflected the best choice because the leaderboard system is awful and the mechanics of the modes are poorly designed.

I seriously wrote in the first post that this poll wasn't supposed to be about MMR, leaderboards, or bugs within the first hour it was up (even included that in bolded lettering to make it as clear as possible).... but okay, haha.

But sounds like "no" was the right answer anyway if you also think that 4v4 should have been an arena.... because again, this poll isn't about if 2 teams or 3 teams is better, it's specifically asking if 4v4 (NOT 2 teams) is a good gameplay format for the only competitive/ranked battlegrounds (which is also why there is a separate option for people who just want three team BGs back).


To summarize what stance I wrote this thread and created this poll from:

• 8v8 is a nice casual mode for those who didn't like 4v4v4 or want a change of pace, and I think it fits well into the game.
• 4v4v4 should never have been removed and should have stayed as the competitive/ranked battlegrounds.
• 4v4 should have been it's own PvP feature (most logically as a PvP arena) with it's own leaderboards, etc and not shoehorned under battlegrounds.

DreamyLu

Other and may explain

My answer is "No", however, I voted "Other" because I don't want to tell that it's "bad". It's not bad, it's just that I don't like it because there are - for me - not enough players to feel good participating.

I generally don't like to fight against real players because I feel like aggressing someone real and it makes me feel bad. The only type of PvP I enjoy (in another game), is when we are several squads of each 50 persons, fighting in huge open fields. In that case, the fact that we're such a big amounts of players sort of "erase" the feeling of aggressing someone real. Weird, but can't help it...

xTrick

No

No.

They should've just let old BGS but instead we should be able to choose which mode we want to play because some of them are just a drag to play, they take too much time and are not fun at all.