Why remove a functioning part of the game: BGs

Kaysha · November 2024

I think we probably got all this wrong. We have been asking for map modifications and other incentives to get more players into Cyrodiil for ages. They just did not make BG players think about switching to Cyrodiil in the way we all expected.

fizzylu · November 2024

Kaysha wrote: »

They just did not make BG players think about switching to Cyrodiil in the way we all expected.

It's funny that you say this because I legitimately did try to do Cyrodiil for the first time in years after accepting that BGs just aren't the thing I used to love anymore, haha. Sadly, I was quickly reminded of why I never liked Cyrodiil and ended up logging out to play another game.

gammelscroll · April 22

Bring back old BGs. The new 2 sides is just a big steamroll *** fest

MincMincMinc · April 22

Hard agree here, no reason to not bring back 3 team bgs.

Thumbless_Bot · April 22

Wow. I forgot I made this thread. I read through it and I think it is still 100% valid.

thesarahandcompany · April 24

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.

I wanted and asked for two-team battlegrounds. So maybe let's hold off making statistical claims you factually can't back up. They undermine your entire argument.

I get the frustration with losing 4v4v4, but comparing BG queues to zones, dungeons, or item sets does not really work. Those systems can coexist without needing enough players to simultaneously fill fair matches. Battlegrounds depend on queue health, matchmaking, and population concentration.

The stronger argument is that ZOS should explain whether population, matchmaking quality, or design goals made 4v4v4 unsustainable, and whether it can return as a rotating or limited queue without fragmenting the player pool.

Thumbless_Bot · April 24

thesarahandcompany 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.

I wanted and asked for two-team battlegrounds. So maybe let's hold off making statistical claims you factually can't back up. They undermine your entire argument.

Agree. They might do that. It would depend i guess.

Did i make any statistical references or claims in what you responded to? I didnt see any.

I try to be careful that way but sometimes I might say something based on my experience with my player circles that is anecdotal. It happens.

thesarahandcompany · April 24

gariondavey wrote: »

There are several issues at stake here:

-One issue is there used to be a big bg population. 3 or 4 mass exodus over the years, starting back in 2018, have resulted in a population probably 1/10th of what it was before that.

-Another issue here is the inability to choose game mode. When you could choose modes back before 2019, deathmatch historically had much more interest, as evidenced by the leaderboards (which "worked" back then, unlike for years when they did not). Historically many of us bg players have advocated for objective modes to be reworked or to only have 2 teams BECAUSE zos hasn't given us the ability to queue for specific modes.

When the queue had a deathmatch queue + a "random" queue, the random queue included deathmatch, which resulted in deathmatch games only being played. If zos had actually separated deathmatch from random queue, this set up would have appeased most people.

-Another issue here is massive team imbalance, which is more related to the high skill and theorycraft gaps possible in eso. This is one of the best aspects of eso, of course, it just can result in uneven games.

2 possible solutions exist that are pretty simple:

1) revert all the changes (back to 4v4v4 format), ranked solo deathmatch, ranked group deathmatch, ranked solo objective (with no deathmatch games). This will satisfy around 80 percent of the current existing bg population, maybe more.

2) keep the current system, but do a large overhaul. -4v4 ranked group should only be deathmatch, and should only be 1 round.
-4v4 ranked solo should either be 3 rounds deathmatch, with no respawning during rounds, or to 10 kills (150 points) with no rounds and instant respawns if someone dies.
-8v8 unranked, max 2 person group queue.
This would also satisfy around 80 percent of the bg population.

And of course, mmr should only be from wins, losses. Medal score should be tied to extra rewards, and medals need to be reworked so shielders, necros, both get credit for doing stuff.

I feel your summary is solid. I wanna laser focus on the inability to choose game mode. Our choice options have changed from "choosing your game mode with your best friend in a duo" to "never getting to choose your game mode and always queueing alone." The choice model feels bad now. Can't pick your mode. Can't queue with friends reliably.

In my recollection the BG quality really started to decline when the queues went to "SOLO QUEUE" only in that one patch (which they later changed). That's when it started to feel bad.