Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Moonspawn

Balanced matches are the one thing that could draw in newcomers to become interested in PVP itself (not just the daily). Unfortunately what we have right now is the complete opposite. Even with the increased rewards, we're currently experiencing a cycle of self-destruction that starts with lopsided matches, leading to fewer players and increased queue times. If nothing is done the best we can hope for is to end up right where we were before Update 44: A small and loyal BG community that never grows, while the vast majority of players only ever step foot inside a battleground for the daily reward. As disappointing as this outcome would be, I honestly fear we're heading into a much darker place.

Thankfully there is a way to utilize all of the work that has been done so far, without throwing anything away. Not the new BGs, and certainly not the old ones. We start by reducing the existing queue options to only these three:

1) 4v4v4 Objectives Queue, solos only

Most players would come looking for the daily here. In my opinion, the only real way the PVP community will grow is if THESE newcomers become interested in PVP. It would be nice if they weren't met by sweatlords with a personal vendetta against Zenimax for not allowing the existence of the queue option below.

2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

This is the most important step towards balanced matches. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

3)Two-Teams Custom Lobbies (4v4, 8v8, 3v3, 2v2, XvX)

The community has always asked for custom lobbies. The rewards here would probably need to be restricted to bragging rights, perhaps a separate leaderboard with wins and losses. Thanks to the new BGs being originally designed for Group vs Group, the work is mostly done. Countering how hopelessly lopsided most matches are in two-teams BGs will happen when entire teams collectively agree to change builds and strategies midgame. This has always been the domain of Premades, where it belongs. Expecting casual solo players to do this is bound to be disastrous, which is what we're seeing right now.

• Two-Teams BGs in the form of Custom Lobbies.
• Three-Teams BGs for those who want it.
• Only 3 queues, so the population is not spread thin.
• No more mutual hatred between DM sweatlords and objective players.
• No more farming new players all day for lack of alternative.
• A clear progression path through the queues from casual to competitive.
• The community would, after all this time, finally have a chance to grow.

Thumbless_Bot

Moonspawn wrote: »

Balanced matches draw in newcomers to become interested in PVP itself (not just the daily reward), which reduces queue times.

Unfortunately what we have right now is the complete opposite. Even with the increased rewards, we're currently experiencing a cycle of self destruction that starts with lopsided matches, leading to fewer players and increased queue times.

All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game.

These are all great ideas. The highlights above would be my personal tldr. Outside of the specific format suggestions.

gariondavey

@ZOS_Kevin @ZOS_GinaBruno @ZOS_JessicaFolsom @ZOS_MattFiror @ZOS_BrianWheeler @ZOS_RichLambert

Please check this out

Razmirra

I miss the option of excluding the TDM from the team games. If people want to duke it out in TDM, leave me out of it because I'm more interested in team games than being thrown into TDM with some people going 30/40/50 kills to 1-2 deaths..

ketsparrowhawk

I really like these ideas. 3 teams was a way better casual experience. Two teams is a perfect setup for custom lobbies. Zos pls

Chrisilis

Its all gonna come down to numbers. Are the new bg's drawing in new players or not. How many of those new players play more matches than the minimum required for endeavors or to get motif/furnishing then quit. I'm sure the update saw an influx of players interested in the new format but how many of them will stick around for the long haul, especially with the myriad problems we've all noticed. All the suggestions in the world aren't going to matter if the new bg's are more popular than the old ones. I'm still playing them even tho I feel like I should abstain in protest because its my hobby and I'm a BG junkie but my continued participation is actually counterproductive if I want to see the classic format added back.

That being said, I want answers. I want someone from ZoS to tell us if their considering giving 4v4v4 back as an option or if there's no chance in hell and we should just give up. Is that to much to ask? Their silence is so frustrating.

dk_dunkirk

I played one 4x4 for the current "pursuit." It was us 4 randos versus a group that was obviously on comms, and everyone here knows exactly how it went. Mercifully, it only took a few minutes to get obliterated, and I'll never step foot in another. Period.

Why they changed from the Elder Scrolls ouroboros-inspired 3-way battles I will NEVER understand, either from a gaming perspective, nor a branding one, but, hey, they didn't ask me. That format was MUCH more forgiving for people who aren't die-hard PVP'ers.

It took, like, a year of advertising that this year was going to be PVP-focused, and then towards the end of that year, we got a BG update that few people seem to care for. Given the relatively little feedback on these forums that is actually implemented by the devs, and the length of time that ANY feedback requires to implement... I'm going to be old and grey before anything changes, if it ever does.

Major_Mangle

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Sarannah

As someone who has mostly been casually PvPing on a low level on PC NA to get the daily bonus for leveling a second character to 50 for the skillstyles, the two team BG's are terrible for quite a few reasons:
1: The daily BG bonus is nearly impossible to obtain in two team BG's. With three teams you could atleast focus on becoming second if one team was overpowering everyone, and getting the daily BG bonus still. For two team BG's change this to if you lose, you get 50% of the daily BG bonus added upon what you gained upon completing that first BG, and the other 50% of that daily BG bonus added on your second BG completion bonusses. This way everyone can atleast get the bonus, instead of having to go in 10 or more tries if you are unlucky.

2: Damage distibution/survivability: In two team BG's, you have damage incoming from eight players all at once. This is too much. In 4x4x4 this damage was halved, as it was rare to run into both teams at the same time, while they also targeted you at the same time. Meaning the incoming damage was much lower.

3: As someone who isn't really great at PvP, it sucks that there is no longer any strategy or tactics involved in the two team BG's. Something I am quite good at! With 4x4x4 there could be some nice strategies/comebacks, and everyone had to be strategic thinking about both defense and offense against two other teams at the same time. Only fighting and fighting and fighting and fighting is stupid, feels dumb, and is demotivating. (Note: This weights even heavier if players aren't fully optimized for or skillful in PvP, there is no other option but to fight fight fight even if you can't win.)

4: The tree team BG's in ESO were unique, and a selling point for ESO itself. Doing what everyone else is doing, isn't going to go over well longterm, as every other MMO does this better already and has years of experience with those types of BG's. There is no reason for players to do 2 team BG's in ESO specifically. (Note: This is without even mentioning balance or performance issues.)

Not sure if the OP's ideas would work, as the ESO BG population is really thin. Spreading it out over three queues may already be too much. ZOS needs to get PvE'ers to start PvPing, otherwise PvP will keep failing.

Moonspawn

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

''2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

This is the most important step towards balanced matches. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.''

How can we have a proper MMR if the players participating in the match are not even playing the same game?

Necrotech_Master

Chrisilis wrote: »

Its all gonna come down to numbers. Are the new bg's drawing in new players or not. How many of those new players play more matches than the minimum required for endeavors or to get motif/furnishing then quit. I'm sure the update saw an influx of players interested in the new format but how many of them will stick around for the long haul, especially with the myriad problems we've all noticed. All the suggestions in the world aren't going to matter if the new bg's are more popular than the old ones. I'm still playing them even tho I feel like I should abstain in protest because its my hobby and I'm a BG junkie but my continued participation is actually counterproductive if I want to see the classic format added back.

That being said, I want answers. I want someone from ZoS to tell us if their considering giving 4v4v4 back as an option or if there's no chance in hell and we should just give up. Is that to much to ask? Their silence is so frustrating.

they did say they planned on bringing back the 3 team format for mini events type of thing, so they arent gone forever

as for numbers, i would agree i dont think theres that many more people in the queues for BGs, most new/casual players are probably only doing BGs for the daily and thats about it

i think the populations of BGs spiked for maybe the day or 2 after release and then slowly started to settle back down

i believe that the overall population is probably about equal to slightly higher than it previously was assuming there are more casuals around the clock even if they only queue for their daily win

robpr

If ever happen, for the love of divines, do not make them shared if waiting too long. We had the "DM queue" at some point and people that wanted objective games never been able to get them - game always dropped them into DM queue. And because of that, people wanting objective games stopped queuing altogether, making DM queue unable to fill teams starting the downward spiral until you barely been able to get any match at all.

sshogrin

Yesterday I queued in for a few 4v4s as solo. I got into a group of pugs, the other team was the same exact team every time and they walloped my pug groups. If we're going to have a "4v4 solo" queue, you'd think everybody had to queue solo to get in and that the teams wouldn't be the same every time. It really sucked to be honest, especially into the second match, and I realized the people on the other team were the same exact team I went up against in the previous match. After the 3rd match against the same team in solo queue, I stopped queueing...it just didn't seem fair for solo pugs to go up against a pre-made team.

HatchetHaro

2-team 4v4 BGs are an absolute disaster. 3-team lobbies have always been much more dynamic and fun. I fully support re-implementing 3-team objective modes as default.

That being said, I'm not sure about having a deathmatch-only mode. I have a gripe for people who are only interested in deathmatch, because all objective modes can be deathmatch if you actually focus on objectives. Perhaps BG rewards should also scale with your objective score at the end of the game (up to a limit like 1500) to encourage people to stand on flags more. Oh, and add score for defending your relic, even just standing next to it.

kiwi_tea

HatchetHaro wrote: »

2-team 4v4 BGs are an absolute disaster. 3-team lobbies have always been much more dynamic and fun. I fully support re-implementing 3-team objective modes as default.

That being said, I'm not sure about having a deathmatch-only mode. I have a gripe for people who are only interested in deathmatch, because all objective modes can be deathmatch if you actually focus on objectives. Perhaps BG rewards should also scale with your objective score at the end of the game (up to a limit like 1500) to encourage people to stand on flags more. Oh, and add score for defending your relic, even just standing next to it.

The inherent problem with objective modes in competitive queue is that a HUGE number of people run away from an objective to a different one if there is any fighting whatsoever, leaving their teammates in a 1v3 or 1v4.

I want to like flag games, but with the small BGs community, and the sheer number of non-PVPers clogging up the queues, flag games *encourage* PVErs (and I would classify nearly all tank builds as PVErs) to run away from contested objectives just *constantly* if they have the option to. They are much better suited to 8v8 than 4v4.

Basically, the problem is that so many "objective" players *don't fight* for the objectives.

Khressandra

what do you mean no balance? this looks perfectly balanced. it's fine, we're all fine here. How are you?

kiwi_tea

Khressandra wrote: »

what do you mean no balance? this looks perfectly balanced. it's fine, we're all fine here. How are you?

If MMR worked, we wouldn't see so many matches like this. But, without a lot more details than just K/D, it's impossible to tell what went wrong in this match, really.

Aldoss

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Agreed.

I love the new format. For the first time ever, I actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat. Defending a relic feels amazing. Capturing and running one does, too.

The fact is that ZOS fumbled the delivery of this update worse than I've ever seen. It's actually shocking that they released this patch at all. The broken queue, the faulty ready ups, the lack of an MMR, the misguidedness of objective modes in 4v4, the solo vs group queue failure... and then you throw in the fact that combat balance is in one the worst spots it's ever been in, and I'm just left here thinking... what are their meetings like right now?

I've asked this several times on these forums and have yet to get a reply, so I'll ask it again:

Is this patch something ZOS is proud of? Is the experience of their players sitting in empty matches something that they think is worth the money they charge their players?

I'm currently writing this reply while 3.5min deep into a 8v7 lobby that is all but guaranteed to not happen because so few people solo queue into the group queue. This is just really dumb.

Edit - Yup. Wasted 5min again. No wonder the queuing pop is so low now...

dk_dunkirk

Aldoss wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Agreed.

I love the new format. For the first time ever, I actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat. Defending a relic feels amazing. Capturing and running one does, too.

The fact is that ZOS fumbled the delivery of this update worse than I've ever seen. It's actually shocking that they released this patch at all. The broken queue, the faulty ready ups, the lack of an MMR, the misguidedness of objective modes in 4v4, the solo vs group queue failure... and then you throw in the fact that combat balance is in one the worst spots it's ever been in, and I'm just left here thinking... what are their meetings like right now?

I've asked this several times on these forums and have yet to get a reply, so I'll ask it again:

Is this patch something ZOS is proud of? Is the experience of their players sitting in empty matches something that they think is worth the money they charge their players?

I'm currently writing this reply while 3.5min deep into a 8v7 lobby that is all but guaranteed to not happen because so few people solo queue into the group queue. This is just really dumb.

Edit - Yup. Wasted 5min again. No wonder the queuing pop is so low now...

Clearly, you're in the minority on loving this new format, or else you wouldn't be sitting in a queue like you say you are. So... why? Why do you -- for the first time ever -- actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat? Why does defending a relic, or capturing and running one, feel amazing? What's different about the 2-team format that makes these things any different versus the 3-team format? Why does this land so hard for you, when so many others consider it a miss?

Jierdanit

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Agreed.

I love the new format. For the first time ever, I actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat. Defending a relic feels amazing. Capturing and running one does, too.

The fact is that ZOS fumbled the delivery of this update worse than I've ever seen. It's actually shocking that they released this patch at all. The broken queue, the faulty ready ups, the lack of an MMR, the misguidedness of objective modes in 4v4, the solo vs group queue failure... and then you throw in the fact that combat balance is in one the worst spots it's ever been in, and I'm just left here thinking... what are their meetings like right now?

I've asked this several times on these forums and have yet to get a reply, so I'll ask it again:

Is this patch something ZOS is proud of? Is the experience of their players sitting in empty matches something that they think is worth the money they charge their players?

I'm currently writing this reply while 3.5min deep into a 8v7 lobby that is all but guaranteed to not happen because so few people solo queue into the group queue. This is just really dumb.

Edit - Yup. Wasted 5min again. No wonder the queuing pop is so low now...

Clearly, you're in the minority on loving this new format, or else you wouldn't be sitting in a queue like you say you are. So... why? Why do you -- for the first time ever -- actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat? Why does defending a relic, or capturing and running one, feel amazing? What's different about the 2-team format that makes these things any different versus the 3-team format? Why does this land so hard for you, when so many others consider it a miss?

Because some people actually like to have PvP in their PvP. Instead of waiting for others to do PvP to then sneak to the objectives.

Also i dont get where you get that "clearly" the majority dont like the new format. Most of the people i know definitely prefer the new format, they just dont come to write on the forums, because they dont have as much to complain about.

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote: »

Because some people actually like to have PvP in their PvP. Instead of waiting for others to do PvP to then sneak to the objectives.

Also i dont get where you get that "clearly" the majority dont like the new format. Most of the people i know definitely prefer the new format, they just dont come to write on the forums, because they dont have as much to complain about.

@Jierdanit you seem to hate how the old objective modes discouraged PVP. Figuring out this problem is the third and final step to making a proper MMR, but more on that later. How would players go about bypassing the need to fight if old bgs were revamped in this way? https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670577/revamping-three-teams-battegrounds#latest

dk_dunkirk

Jierdanit wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Agreed.

I love the new format. For the first time ever, I actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat. Defending a relic feels amazing. Capturing and running one does, too.

The fact is that ZOS fumbled the delivery of this update worse than I've ever seen. It's actually shocking that they released this patch at all. The broken queue, the faulty ready ups, the lack of an MMR, the misguidedness of objective modes in 4v4, the solo vs group queue failure... and then you throw in the fact that combat balance is in one the worst spots it's ever been in, and I'm just left here thinking... what are their meetings like right now?

I've asked this several times on these forums and have yet to get a reply, so I'll ask it again:

Is this patch something ZOS is proud of? Is the experience of their players sitting in empty matches something that they think is worth the money they charge their players?

I'm currently writing this reply while 3.5min deep into a 8v7 lobby that is all but guaranteed to not happen because so few people solo queue into the group queue. This is just really dumb.

Edit - Yup. Wasted 5min again. No wonder the queuing pop is so low now...

Clearly, you're in the minority on loving this new format, or else you wouldn't be sitting in a queue like you say you are. So... why? Why do you -- for the first time ever -- actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat? Why does defending a relic, or capturing and running one, feel amazing? What's different about the 2-team format that makes these things any different versus the 3-team format? Why does this land so hard for you, when so many others consider it a miss?

Because some people actually like to have PvP in their PvP. Instead of waiting for others to do PvP to then sneak to the objectives.

Also i dont get where you get that "clearly" the majority dont like the new format. Most of the people i know definitely prefer the new format, they just dont come to write on the forums, because they dont have as much to complain about.

Well, I wasn't really talking to you, and I'd still like to hear from the person I responded to.

I'm guessing you and your guildies are hardcore PVPers, and winning even more easily in the new format?

Also, how many threads and pages and comments do people need to conclude that the response to a change has been overall negative? I wouldn't have thought my "clearly" is even controversial on this topic. I was referencing the terrible queue times the other person was talking about, which specifically speaks to how few people are playing, and therefore "enjoying" the new format. I hardly ever PVP, so I'm not paying a lot of attention, but week after week, I see people complaining about the BG changes. I don't understand why so many people dismiss an obvious overall reaction about a change on these forums because they and a couple people they know like it.

Stamicka

I think most problems relating to BGs right now point to a larger demographic problem. ZOS has been trying to lower the skill ceiling for years and it’s brought us bad balance and low skill builds. This sort of thing makes anyone who’s serious about PvP quit and it stops people from other skill based games from giving eso a shot.

In ESO’s early years I would run into a lot of pvpers who played competitive shooters or other competitive games. Most of those people quit shortly after One Tamriel. I feel that the 4v4 BG format is sweaty by nature. The format itself is kind of best suited for the crowd that enjoys sweatier quick play games like Valorant or Overwatch. ESO no longer pulls any of that crowd because the game is so deeply uncompetitive in its current state.

I think that higher participation rates in general would lead to better matchmaking since there’s more likely to be diverse skill levels. Any game that’s out for a long time with low participation suffers from the same issue: the new players get paired against the most dedicated veterans (cause that’s all who’s left). The problem is that so much of ESO’s current demographic hates any PvP no matter what. The small portion of people that are still around for PvP seem to prefer Cyrodiil where there’s keeps they can siege and they can outnumber others instead of having equal teams.

It’s kind of a head scratcher why ZoS released such a sweaty PvP format despite making changes to make the game far more casual and less skill based. The core game needs to be better balanced and skill based if any pure PvP content is going to succeed in the future. We need some serious reworks and overhauls.

Jierdanit

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

I'm guessing you and your guildies are hardcore PVPers, and winning even more easily in the new format?

Well it is PvP.
I don't think the reactions of PvE players who wont like it either way should be particularly important.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Also, how many threads and pages and comments do people need to conclude that the response to a change has been overall negative? I wouldn't have thought my "clearly" is even controversial on this topic. I was referencing the terrible queue times the other person was talking about, which specifically speaks to how few people are playing, and therefore "enjoying" the new format. I hardly ever PVP, so I'm not paying a lot of attention, but week after week, I see people complaining about the BG changes. I don't understand why so many people dismiss an obvious overall reaction about a change on these forums because they and a couple people they know like it.

Obviously people are more likely to write on the forums if they have something to complain about. You barely ever see threads actually saying something is good.
Just looking at what I've seen on the forums I would also not think its controversial, but in game I've noticed a very different sentiment from lots of players.
Most people I know who mainly play PvP like the new BGs more than the old ones.

Also I have no idea where the idea of "terrible queue times" comes from. If anything the queues have been faster for me this patch than the were last patch. Especially in group queue.
For solo I hardly ever wait over 5 minutes and for group (duo) its usually between 5-15 minutes, while last patch group queue could easily take 20 minutes or more.

Jierdanit

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit you seem to hate how the old objective modes discouraged PVP. Figuring out this problem is the third and final step to making a proper MMR, but more on that later. How would players go about bypassing the need to fight if old bgs were revamped in this way? https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668974/battlegrounds-how-to-make-objective-modes-more-fun-than-deathmatch-ever-was/p1?new=1

Those changes would probably make fighting more necessary in general, but they would also still have other issues that are mainly due to the 3 team format.

Deathmatch and CtR would both result in the weakest team getting bullied by the 2 stronger teams.

Chaosball would be a bit better maybe but still lead to the win most likely going to the team that takes the ball and tries to avoid fighting. (And most people are not going to go for an objective if the fight is somewhere else, because there is absolutely no incentive for winning BGs)

CK and Domination does sound like a good change in general and would certainly lead to more people fighting on flags.

All of that would pretty much also be better in the new BGs, if ZOS could manage to make teams actually balanced.

CrazyKitty

I'm averaging less than 50% success rate at getting into a BG since they went to 2 team format. So many bugs with queuing and then even if you get in more than half the time the BG gets cancelled for some reason. And then there are many weird bugs even if you get to play the entire BG through.

BG's seriously messed up now days.

Aldoss

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Agreed.

I love the new format. For the first time ever, I actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat. Defending a relic feels amazing. Capturing and running one does, too.

The fact is that ZOS fumbled the delivery of this update worse than I've ever seen. It's actually shocking that they released this patch at all. The broken queue, the faulty ready ups, the lack of an MMR, the misguidedness of objective modes in 4v4, the solo vs group queue failure... and then you throw in the fact that combat balance is in one the worst spots it's ever been in, and I'm just left here thinking... what are their meetings like right now?

I've asked this several times on these forums and have yet to get a reply, so I'll ask it again:

Is this patch something ZOS is proud of? Is the experience of their players sitting in empty matches something that they think is worth the money they charge their players?

I'm currently writing this reply while 3.5min deep into a 8v7 lobby that is all but guaranteed to not happen because so few people solo queue into the group queue. This is just really dumb.

Edit - Yup. Wasted 5min again. No wonder the queuing pop is so low now...

Clearly, you're in the minority on loving this new format, or else you wouldn't be sitting in a queue like you say you are. So... why? Why do you -- for the first time ever -- actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat? Why does defending a relic, or capturing and running one, feel amazing? What's different about the 2-team format that makes these things any different versus the 3-team format? Why does this land so hard for you, when so many others consider it a miss?

"Clearly" to you is based on your sampling bias. You see complaints that confirm your opinion, so you assume that that represents a "majority". The only people who have the data to know whether or not more players enjoy this format is ZOS and they don't seem keen on sharing that data.

If there were enough data to prove to them that more people love the 4v4v4, then why did they invest a year's worth of salaries to change them? In the first two weeks of the patch, I saw more names than I ever have queuing BGs nearly every day for the last 4 years. Those names are gone now and, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with the fact that ZOS chose to stop the 3-sided battles and way more to do with the issues I listed in my post that you quoted.

You're asking a question that's been answered literally thousands of times over the last couple years and I'm not really interested in typing all that out. If you really care, you're welcome to sift through my post history and see the dozens of times I've answered your question to other people over the years. 3-team BGs are fundamentally flawed and would have needed a massive overhaul to try to correct them. It wouldn't have been impossible, but I suspect the changes that I would implement to correct those issues, you also likely wouldn't have enjoyed, because they would have been focused on bringing combat back to the forefront of the BG experience.

The team vs team format is a massive win for me. BGs are finally focusing on PvP first and then enhancing that by adding objectives that change the pace and dynamic of that combat.

The problem with low pop, in my opinion, has more to do with the complete failure to plan for the launch of this content and their inability to address issues on the fly. Again, I listed those issues above.

I'm fully convinced that nothing will change about this patch until U45, which will be the wrong call. The damage has already been done. U44 has been one of the worst patch deliveries I can remember since starting this game in 2019. It's really no wonder so many content creators are calling it quits on this game. This patch doesn't inspire confidence in me for this game's future.

dk_dunkirk

Jierdanit wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

I'm guessing you and your guildies are hardcore PVPers, and winning even more easily in the new format?

Well it is PvP.
I don't think the reactions of PvE players who wont like it either way should be particularly important.

The emphasis was on the *hardcore*, and while I admitted I wasn't much of a PVPer, I wasn't voicing an opinion about the implementation of the new BG's either way. But that's the beauty of ESO! PVE and PVP are very distinct things... but all mashed together with the same skills and gear, each side paying the price for the limitations of the other. So you get all the comments regardless of whether or not they play either one, because they each affect the other.

dk_dunkirk

Aldoss wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

People are mixing up the format for "poor balance/matchmaking". I personally prefer the new format of 2 teams since it actually incentivize you to fight, even during the objective modes. For the first time since BG´s came out I find myself actually care to play the objectives. No more avoiding the two other teams and run between point A and B (which didn´t require any tactical genius to execute to anyone who wanna claim it did) undisturbed.

What the main problem right now is (which people pointed out during the PTS), is that there is no proper ranking/mmr system that separates players based on their performance/skillevel (medel score is an awful way in any mode to dictate how "good" you´re).

Yes the game´s PvP balance isn´t perfect, but it´s not like it was better with the 3 team format either. I also think it´s a bad idea to put endeavors/golden pursuit activates connected to BG`s. People just go in there to get it done and either sit at spawn doing minimum activities to not get kicked and/or don´t bring a proper PvP setup and then complains why the new BG´s aren´t as good as before.

So overall I prefer the new format, but we need a proper matchmaking/ranking system that doesn´t put people of vastly different skillevels against one another.

Agreed.

I love the new format. For the first time ever, I actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat. Defending a relic feels amazing. Capturing and running one does, too.

The fact is that ZOS fumbled the delivery of this update worse than I've ever seen. It's actually shocking that they released this patch at all. The broken queue, the faulty ready ups, the lack of an MMR, the misguidedness of objective modes in 4v4, the solo vs group queue failure... and then you throw in the fact that combat balance is in one the worst spots it's ever been in, and I'm just left here thinking... what are their meetings like right now?

I've asked this several times on these forums and have yet to get a reply, so I'll ask it again:

Is this patch something ZOS is proud of? Is the experience of their players sitting in empty matches something that they think is worth the money they charge their players?

I'm currently writing this reply while 3.5min deep into a 8v7 lobby that is all but guaranteed to not happen because so few people solo queue into the group queue. This is just really dumb.

Edit - Yup. Wasted 5min again. No wonder the queuing pop is so low now...

Clearly, you're in the minority on loving this new format, or else you wouldn't be sitting in a queue like you say you are. So... why? Why do you -- for the first time ever -- actually feel motivated and rewarded for fighting on a flag or for choosing to stay in combat? Why does defending a relic, or capturing and running one, feel amazing? What's different about the 2-team format that makes these things any different versus the 3-team format? Why does this land so hard for you, when so many others consider it a miss?

"Clearly" to you is based on your sampling bias. You see complaints that confirm your opinion, so you assume that that represents a "majority". The only people who have the data to know whether or not more players enjoy this format is ZOS and they don't seem keen on sharing that data.

If there were enough data to prove to them that more people love the 4v4v4, then why did they invest a year's worth of salaries to change them? In the first two weeks of the patch, I saw more names than I ever have queuing BGs nearly every day for the last 4 years. Those names are gone now and, in my opinion, it has nothing to do with the fact that ZOS chose to stop the 3-sided battles and way more to do with the issues I listed in my post that you quoted.

You're asking a question that's been answered literally thousands of times over the last couple years and I'm not really interested in typing all that out. If you really care, you're welcome to sift through my post history and see the dozens of times I've answered your question to other people over the years. 3-team BGs are fundamentally flawed and would have needed a massive overhaul to try to correct them. It wouldn't have been impossible, but I suspect the changes that I would implement to correct those issues, you also likely wouldn't have enjoyed, because they would have been focused on bringing combat back to the forefront of the BG experience.

The team vs team format is a massive win for me. BGs are finally focusing on PvP first and then enhancing that by adding objectives that change the pace and dynamic of that combat.

The problem with low pop, in my opinion, has more to do with the complete failure to plan for the launch of this content and their inability to address issues on the fly. Again, I listed those issues above.

I'm fully convinced that nothing will change about this patch until U45, which will be the wrong call. The damage has already been done. U44 has been one of the worst patch deliveries I can remember since starting this game in 2019. It's really no wonder so many content creators are calling it quits on this game. This patch doesn't inspire confidence in me for this game's future.

I was responding to someone who *is* a PVPer, and who wasn't happy. My "clearly" was in response to someone *his* anecdata, and you and I are using the same sampling bias on the forums. I don't understand your dismissal of that data we can both see, but I don't have to.

Also, companies throw money down the drain all the time. Imagining rationality at ZOS -- especially after the last year -- is perhaps... generous.

Moonspawn

@Aldoss , @Jierdanit , @Major_Mangle Its good some people like the new BGs so much. Proves the work hasn't gone to waste. Looking forward to seeing you in the Two-Teams Custom Lobbies

Haki_7

Jierdanit wrote: »

Also I have no idea where the idea of "terrible queue times" comes from. If anything the queues have been faster for me this patch than the were last patch. Especially in group queue.
For solo I hardly ever wait over 5 minutes .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jjoP7c9OU