Why remove a functioning part of the game: BGs

Thumbless_Bot

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

Cooperharley

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

Thumbless_Bot

Cooperharley wrote: »

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps. There was no reason for this. Other games are still there and people can go play them. Also 2 sided bgs will still be there and people can go play those. There was no reason to remove 4v4v4 bgs or the maps... none whatsoever.

Cooperharley

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Cooperharley wrote: »

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps. There was no reason for this. Other games are still there and people can go play them. Also 2 sided bgs will still be there and people can go play those. There was no reason to remove 4v4v4 bgs or the maps... none whatsoever.

I see what you're saying - you mean removing 4 v 4 v4 as an option. Yea they mentioned it was because they didn't want to split up the playerbase a lot, but I agree, it would at least give people the option, but given the already annoying feature where the game drops if you don't have full teams of 8v8, that'd exacerbate that problem unless they fix that.

Chilly-McFreeze

Then they should rotate game mode (4v4v4 / 4v4 / 8v8) on a weekly/ daily etc basis. Every format has it’s downsides so there is no „arguably better“ Variation. With that you also wouldnt split up the playerbase

Thumbless_Bot

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Then they should rotate game mode (4v4v4 / 4v4 / 8v8) on a weekly/ daily etc basis. Every format has it’s downsides so there is no „arguably better“ Variation. With that you also wouldnt split up the playerbase

This is another option but I do not agree with it personally. Extending this logic we should round Robin cp and no cp cyro and IC because there aren't enough people to keep each full.

Why not just let people... drum roll... play the way they want?

Chilly-McFreeze

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Then they should rotate game mode (4v4v4 / 4v4 / 8v8) on a weekly/ daily etc basis. Every format has it’s downsides so there is no „arguably better“ Variation. With that you also wouldnt split up the playerbase

This is another option but I do not agree with it personally. Extending this logic we should round Robin cp and no cp cyro and IC because there aren't enough people to keep each full.

Why not just let people... drum roll... play the way they want?

Fundamentally I agree with you in keeping all options open all the time. But the ones claiming that we don't have enough participants to fill up all the ques in reasonable time have a point as well.
Personally, I'd be fine if we return to BGs from last week.

fizzylu

Realistically, most people who liked 4v4v4 and not 4v4 or 8v8 are simply going to barely queue for them in the long-run and possibly quit the game entirely.

The idea that "we can't split up the queues too much because there's not enough players" is already kind of bs when you realize that they already have split the queues up even more than they were before the update anyway.

At the end of the day though, Zenimax just went about this update the worst way possible. It would have made more sense to keep 4v4v4 BGs as the main and competitive/ranked version then added the solo and group queue 8v8 for players who didn't like 4v4v4, those trying to learn/adjust to smaller scale PvP, and just for a change of pace if one wants it. This would have divided the BG queues into the same exact amount we have now, btw.

THEN, 4v4 should have been released as an entirely new PvP feature (most logically PvP deathmatch arenas) and not shoehorned into the BG category. That way it could have also been expanded on to 2v2s or even 1v1 aka the desired ranked dueling some players have wanted brought to the game.
But no.... instead they removed a gameplay mode some players loved, replaced it with a version that puts everything wrong with ESO combat on full display, and limited themselves on what could have been an entirely new form of PvP.

Thumbless_Bot

fizzylu wrote: »

Realistically, most people who liked 4v4v4 and not 4v4 or 8v8 are simply going to barely queue for them in the long-run and possibly quit the game entirely.

The idea that "we can't split up the queues too much because there's not enough players" is already kind of bs when you realize that they already have split the queues up even more than they were before the update anyway.

At the end of the day though, Zenimax just went about this update the worst way possible. It would have made more sense to keep 4v4v4 BGs as the main and competitive/ranked version then added the solo and group queue 8v8 for players who didn't like 4v4v4, those trying to learn/adjust to smaller scale PvP, and just for a change of pace if one wants it. This would have divided the BG queues into the same exact amount we have now, btw.

THEN, 4v4 should have been released as an entirely new PvP feature (most logically PvP deathmatch arenas) and not shoehorned into the BG category. That way it could have also been expanded on to 2v2s or even 1v1 aka the desired ranked dueling some players have wanted brought to the game.
But no.... instead they removed a gameplay mode some players loved, replaced it with a version that puts everything wrong with ESO combat on full display, and limited themselves on what could have been an entirely new form of PvP.

Thank you. You put it way better than I could have.

bladenick

Can't disagree, 4v4v4 shall keeped for most casual player.

leave the 4v4 to those try hard one... it MMO, need grinding for gear.. it will dramaticlly limit the overall PVP population and make large scale balacne cross class and gear totoally impossible... may there small number of try hard prefer competivie PVP. just let them fight each other, just dont farm casual player/

colossalvoids

There's no players to have a population for both, iirc they have said already that those might return for the events and such as they're existing, but unaccessible content.

Thumbless_Bot

bladenick wrote: »

Can't disagree, 4v4v4 shall keeped for most casual player.

leave the 4v4 to those try hard one... it MMO, need grinding for gear.. it will dramaticlly limit the overall PVP population and make large scale balacne cross class and gear totoally impossible... may there small number of try hard prefer competivie PVP. just let them fight each other, just dont farm casual player/

Really good idea imho. This would prevent newer players from being turned off from bgs because they're getting overwhelmed and give us sweaties a place to slap each other around. This could have a long term effect of increasing bg population which is good for the game and everyone who plays it.

colossalvoids wrote: »

There's no players to have a population for both, iirc they have said already that those might return for the events and such as they're existing, but unaccessible content.

Not sure how others feel but I would rather get one good bg every 30 minutes than 3 unfun, completely lopsided bgs every 30 minutes.

Jaimeh

I miss the old BG modes and maps too, I wish they would have kept them (also because you can't really choose what mode you want to play now, only the group size), and I don't find the new ones that interesting in comparison. Most of the 4v4 ones end up being a game of hide and seek between two LOS points and it gets repetitive, while the 8v8 are usually one group steamrolling everything, no tactical play whatsover, just a giant mosh pit. The previous maps were much nicer, especially the ones with multiple levels and the instant port sigils. I'm really disappointed they didn't keep them, and I really hope they will bring them back @ZOS_BrianWheeler

IndigoDreams

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

All the complaints i have read and have been shared on my own post are due to the PLAYERS, not the map, 3 team format, etc.....(excepting maybe how the flags work but i already suggested an easy fix to make that exciting)

all i hear is a compilation of [snip] videos screeching "3rd party"
no one can change the format to make you better or the other worse but its easy to remove an entire team which CRUSHES the spirit of the game

[edited for baiting]

huskandhunger

If some of the long-standing issues in hybridized healing, cross-healing could be addressed and some of the issues with the maps (you can attack players in their own spawn / maybe adding more relics, chaosballs picked up while transformed etc) maybe the current battlegrounds could be more fun.

I still think the system should be additive and just have each form 4v4 or 4v4v4 as optional. This way players can choose the mode they enjoy most and still play in the old maps too.

IndigoDreams

im thinking that this is it for bttlegrounds

excepting massive pushback, i doubt they will bother.
a tiny percentage of the population got the DM only battleground thing to happen, and that failed spectaculary

they wont consider changing it unless if fails.

Amottica

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Cooperharley wrote: »

They didn't remove BGs. Changing the team format is not the issue - it just drew more attention to all of the extremely annoying underlying problems:

- Heal staacking coupled with 45k health tank-healer combos
- Insanely large skill gap largely in part to overland being brain dead easy and no new players having to learn their class, joining BGs and getting waffle stomped, leaving and not coming back
- Little to no reward structure

Every PvP game virtually ever is 1 team versus another and always worked. It's ESO's underlying issues here that's the problem.

They removed a functional part of the game and the associated maps. There was no reason for this. Other games are still there and people can go play them. Also 2 sided bgs will still be there and people can go play those. There was no reason to remove 4v4v4 bgs or the maps... none whatsoever.

I suggest that the game's population interested in BGs is insufficient to support queues for both 3-team and 2-team BGs.

I forgot about the failed DM-only queue until I saw @IndigoDreams's post. The 3-team format could not support two queues without the DM-only queue pulling from the random queue. Either there was a severe lack of interest in the DM-only queue, or there were not enough players to support both.

Thumbless_Bot

IndigoDreams wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

All the complaints i have read and have been shared on my own post are due to the PLAYERS, not the map, 3 team format, etc.....(excepting maybe how the flags work but i already suggested an easy fix to make that exciting)

all i hear is a compilation of [snip] videos screeching "3rd party"
no one can change the format to make you better or the other worse but its easy to remove an entire team which CRUSHES the spirit of the game

Removing part of the game that people log into enjoy has absolutely nothing to do with the players... well, except for the players now not being able to enjoy part of the game they once did.

It is absolutely about the maps... they literally removed them.

This post has nothing to do with skill. It's about how zos has taken a dynamic and exciting part of the game and made it two dimensional and dry.

I understand your thoughts but I don't think they are in response to this particular set of concerns about removing a functioning part of the game.

[edited to remove quote]

IndigoDreams

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

IndigoDreams wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Why would zos remove a part of the game just to replace it with another? It seems like a forceful attempt at getting players to try something zos cooked up without any known player feedback.

You sequestered yourselves away and spent God knows how much time and money planning, developing, and implementing these two sided battlegrounds that no one wanted or asked for. Then you drop them on us without giving us the option to keep playing the game we love.

I understand the battleground population may not be that high and dispersing that population across different queues might result in less bgs for those that play it, but it would definitely prove out which were preferred. Then zos can realize efficiencies by not supporting static servers of unused game modes or save the compute of spinning up ephemeral servers for bgs that no one will fill.

When you implemented IC you didn't remove cyrodiil.

When you add new arenas you don't remove old ones.

When you add new zones you don't remove old ones

When you add new dungeons you dont remove old ones.

When you add new sets you don't remove old ones

You are telling us to play a format that we didn't want.

Why not engage your paying customers before you invest in something to inform your roadmap?

Be Agile... in both a development perspective and in general.

This game is literally a theme park where users can take or leave any part of the game that they want. You have removed part of the game that people enjoy and there really isn't any discernable reason for this. Please reconsider.

All the complaints i have read and have been shared on my own post are due to the PLAYERS, not the map, 3 team format, etc.....(excepting maybe how the flags work but i already suggested an easy fix to make that exciting)

all i hear is a compilation of [snip] videos screeching "3rd party"
no one can change the format to make you better or the other worse but its easy to remove an entire team which CRUSHES the spirit of the game

Removing part of the game that people log into enjoy has absolutely nothing to do with the players... well, except for the players now not being able to enjoy part of the game they once did.

It is absolutely about the maps... they literally removed them.

This post has nothing to do with skill. It's about how zos has taken a dynamic and exciting part of the game and made it two dimensional and dry.

I understand your thoughts but I don't think they are in response to this particular set of concerns about removing a functioning part of the game.

thanks for understanding, i might have misread some of this.
Yea i started a different forum post that got 1 green text response.
I hear ya, removing the maps burns.
They could have made news maps with the 3 team format, to stay in spirit of the game.

battlegrounds is small and faster paced, updating maps periodically makes a lot more sense.
imperial city and cyrodill stay the same, for good reason.

battlegrounds are places to get into combat fast, we dont need maps to stay the same like the others.
I am somewhat glad to hear the responses, because if it fails, we get a shot at them fixing it...

[edited to remove quote]

fizzylu

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Removing part of the game that people log into enjoy has absolutely nothing to do with the players... well, except for the players now not being able to enjoy part of the game they once did.

Yeah, I've had zero desire to do BGs for days now-- which is sad since after this game first released and I quit within the first week, the only reason why I ever gave this game a chance again was because I heard they added BGs. I quickly fell in love with them, but without BGs I know I would have never given this game a second look. Now I am attached to my character, my house, and have grown to like the more casual style of the entirety of ESO.... but I can see the new BGs making me play way less consistently than I already have been for the last couple years.

Now, I don't think 8v8 is terrible.... but it just doesn't leave me with the same feelings 4v4v4 did. I don't find myself working hard to reach/accomplish an objective. I'm not playing tactically to work in my teams favor and to take advantage of an opening one other team left. I don't find myself laughing, being amazed by how someone played, it's just.... what it is? And it's not great.

Solo 4v4 is by far the worst experience on the planet on the other hand; just one-sided fights on top of one-sided fights. No matter which side I'm with, the winners or losers, I don't find it fun.

So yeah.... safe to say I won't be doing BGs very much and ESO might as well be the Sims for me now (love my house, but come on). And I already know quite a decent amount of people who are standing in this line with me, just waiting for the game that finally gives us our official door out (some have already found theirs).

IndigoDreams

The further changes only reinforce my desire to avoid playing battlegrounds....