Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Decimus · February 11

Haki_7 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

moo_2021 wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

There are multiple ways to distribute these players in a 4v4v4 that would be fun for everyone. All we can do now is dream of what could have been 😢

looks like your team wasn't interested in winning?

I don't think he was either - more so in just inflating his score with the Critical Heal medals

Yes. Which is why I want to reduce the critical heal medals score by 80%. Reverse psychology.

Decimus wrote: »

and then once again complaining the battleground is "lopsided" when his team loses... just another Monday.

This was one of the better BGs. Game usually places me on the winning team, where I don't get to do anything. My plan is to start posting scoreboards after the queue times problem is resolved.

You should post them now, given so far as we know MMR is calculated off of scoreboard score and getting too high of a score via being a dedicated healer just inflates it and causes you to have horrid queue times...

Whinging about bad queue times and saying the matches are lopsided without any evidence to the latter helps few.

Were you a healer? What was your medal score?

What gamemode were you playing at the time? maybe there are certain game-modes that would better suit a random audience?

Even if you've provided insight into those topics somewhere in these 11 pages, it's kinda hard to justify searching through all the video posts for any actually constructive criticism given the deluge of negative fluff.

Everything goes back to the original post:

''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.''

I'm providing evidence that the queue times are enormous even in the most populated queue (8v8 solo), and Decimus is providing evidence that the matches are lopsided.

Except that all of my queue times across 20 characters are less than 10 minutes 99% of the time since I don't try to queue in middle of the night after playing one character and one character only abusing critical healing medals and inflating my scores, and then post some weeks old video complaining about a long queue time.

As for matches being lopsided... that's always been the case? It's just that some of us are not only good at 3rd partying, but also fighting equal numbers.

Just the stamblade stats from back when old PvpMeter worked:

Look how different compared to current BGs! /s

I'm sorry your sorc healer/killstealer feels less efficient this patch Haki, having to heal 4 additional targets with heals affecting 1-2 people at a time has that effect... as does not having a 3rd team do the damage for your Mage's Wrath to steal the kill.

It is what it is, it's a lot easier to adapt than spam a forum thread with some irrelevant videos and try create some impression most people don't like the Team vs Team format when the opposite is the case.

You've just repeated a bunch of stuff that has already been answered. I guess I'll tackle the new information. I don't play nights, and I don't have enough skillslots for mage's wrath. Even if I had several additional slots, my build is uniquely unsuited for executing.

So this is not you? https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2367755161?t=00h27m31s

6pm UTC +2 = 11am ET, 8am PT... this is hardly "prime time" for queueing into battlegrounds, yet you were getting instant pops just like I was on my NA character... so long queues are definitely an anomaly, being disingenuously misrepresented as something common to drive an agenda here.

Also quite wild that I'm the one "repeating a bunch of stuff" when you're just posting the same video over and over again to bump this thread.

Haki_7 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

As for matches being lopsided... that's always been the case?

I think this is new. Sure, no one is denying that some of the old BGs were lopsided, but it has already been formally demonstrated multiple times HOW the three-teams BGs could have been balanced. The issue is that we have been unable to identify a way to do the same for two-teams BGs.

When I think about a balanced two-teams BG, only two possibilities come to mind:
Grueling stalemate- No comment.
Teams somehow killing each other in alternation- Technically possible in group queue, if premades keep changing things up. Impossible in solo queue.

Do you have another possibility?

Yes, at the risk of repeating myself: look at any other competitive game out there (99% of which do team vs team format).

You are the one unable to identify the problems and solutions, don't attribute that to other people who have provided plenty of constructive feedback on the topic.

Are there problems with ESO's current matchmaking and BG format? Yes.

Is there easy solutions to fix a lot of them? Yes.

Easiest fix however is changing the mentality and adapting to each battleground - I believe 90% of them in 8v8 can currently be fun... and I approach every single one of them with the mentality that I'm going to try to win, no matter how stacked the enemy team is - and if my team is stacked... such is rng sometimes, it's time to just chill and go next.

The few problems of the 8v8 format can be attributed to game mode issues, such as deathmatch turning into a spawn camp since winning team's only objective is to kill people jumping down - again, no different from how it was in the past, except the team jumping down isn't fighting two teams waiting downstairs like hyenas, trying to get the last hit on the people jumping down. Having a sigil spawn in the base of the team that is trailing as a comeback mechanic would help, but this game mode is hard to fix without shuffling teams.

Shuffling teams is also the easiest solution to fixing 4v4, which can be miserable if you get 3 18k health Pale Order users in your team & even average skill level opponents.

Keep in mind, none of this is going to lead to "perfect balance" since that doesn't exist - there simply isn't enough players at the top of the top when it comes to skill level to entirely fill lobbies... and the differences in this game can be huge.

And if you manage have 2-4 people of an extremely high skill level in a battleground, they're just going to ignore each other and kill the squishy 20k health players over and over again because that's what a smart/good player does - this has always been how the game works.

You're also always going to have people who perform exceptionally well, but this is the same in other games (and sports) as well at the top end - it just takes longer to reach the top end in other games due to larger amount of players, i.e. you have more people to go through before you're put against the ultimate sweats.

Haki_7 · February 11

Decimus wrote: »

6pm UTC +2 = 11am ET, 8am PT

If my math is correct, and it probably isn't, that would be 1 PM for me. As I said, I don't play nights.

Decimus wrote: »

The few problems of the 8v8 format can be attributed to game mode issues, such as deathmatch turning into a spawn camp since winning team's only objective is to kill people jumping down - again, no different from how it was in the past, except the team jumping down isn't fighting two teams waiting downstairs like hyenas, trying to get the last hit on the people jumping down. Having a sigil spawn in the base of the team that is trailing as a comeback mechanic would help, but this game mode is hard to fix without shuffling teams.

Shuffling teams is also the easiest solution to fixing 4v4, which can be miserable if you get 3 18k health Pale Order users in your team & even average skill level opponents.

Keep in mind, none of this is going to lead to "perfect balance" since that doesn't exist - there simply isn't enough players at the top of the top when it comes to skill level to entirely fill lobbies... and the differences in this game can be huge.

And if you manage have 2-4 people of an extremely high skill level in a battleground, they're just going to ignore each other and kill the squishy 20k health players over and over again because that's what a smart/good player does - this has always been how the game works.

You're also always going to have people who perform exceptionally well, but this is the same in other games (and sports) as well at the top end - it just takes longer to reach the top end in other games due to larger amount of players, i.e. you have more people to go through before you're put against the ultimate sweats.

You are right. You have found the third possibility for a balanced two-teams BG.

Grueling stalemate: No comment
Teams killing each other in alternation: Impossible in solo queue
''Good/smart PVPers'' ignoring one another and spawncamping players who have no chance of fighting back. I'll style this one ''The perversion of everything Battlegrounds are supposed to be''.

The first two possibilities are so unlikely to happen that they might as well be discarded. Regarding the third possibility (and putting aside how nauseating it is), can you explain how is it that player shuffling would change anything there? Won't they simply high five each other after the shuffling and continue spawncamping?

Decimus · February 11

Haki_7 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

6pm UTC +2 = 11am ET, 8am PT

If my math is correct, and it probably isn't, that would be 1 PM for me. As I said, I don't play nights.

Decimus wrote: »

The few problems of the 8v8 format can be attributed to game mode issues, such as deathmatch turning into a spawn camp since winning team's only objective is to kill people jumping down - again, no different from how it was in the past, except the team jumping down isn't fighting two teams waiting downstairs like hyenas, trying to get the last hit on the people jumping down. Having a sigil spawn in the base of the team that is trailing as a comeback mechanic would help, but this game mode is hard to fix without shuffling teams.

Shuffling teams is also the easiest solution to fixing 4v4, which can be miserable if you get 3 18k health Pale Order users in your team & even average skill level opponents.

Keep in mind, none of this is going to lead to "perfect balance" since that doesn't exist - there simply isn't enough players at the top of the top when it comes to skill level to entirely fill lobbies... and the differences in this game can be huge.

And if you manage have 2-4 people of an extremely high skill level in a battleground, they're just going to ignore each other and kill the squishy 20k health players over and over again because that's what a smart/good player does - this has always been how the game works.

You're also always going to have people who perform exceptionally well, but this is the same in other games (and sports) as well at the top end - it just takes longer to reach the top end in other games due to larger amount of players, i.e. you have more people to go through before you're put against the ultimate sweats.

You are right. You have found the third possibility for a balanced two-teams BG.
Grueling stalemate: No comment

Teams killing each other in alternation: Impossible in solo queue

''Good/smart PVPers'' ignoring one another and spawncamping players who have no chance of fighting back. I'll style this one ''The perversion of everything Battlegrounds are supposed to be''.

The first two possibilities are so unlikely to happen that they might as well be discarded. Regarding the third possibility (and putting aside how nauseating it is), can you explain how is it that player shuffling would change anything there? Won't they simply high five each other after the shuffling and continue spawncamping?

Who is talking about spawn camping? Spawn camping doesn't get you a good win rate in battlegrounds, quite the opposite.

You know what else gets you a terrible win rate? Spending the entire BG 1v1'ing (or worse: trying to Xv1/1vX) another good player somewhere while other people run to objectives and play the match as they should.

Nor should you intentionally prioritize the target most likely to survive in a team fight over 20k health full damage PvE specs that can actually dish out a lot of damage to you if you let them.

This is known as common sense - it's just how the game is played, and not just in battlegrounds: you kill the people least likely to survive first in Cyrodiil/IC as well.

Rounds & shuffling teams is something that would make the game playable in some 8v8 deathmatches, but especially in 4v4s - no one likes spending time in queue and then being stuck in an unwinnable lobby, just waiting for it to be over.

Losing a round is preferable to guaranteed losing the match, and if individual performance can make you win more rounds than not in a lobby thanks to shuffling, that lobby isn't a pointless waste of time.

Moonspawn · February 12

Decimus wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

6pm UTC +2 = 11am ET, 8am PT

If my math is correct, and it probably isn't, that would be 1 PM for me. As I said, I don't play nights.

Decimus wrote: »

The few problems of the 8v8 format can be attributed to game mode issues, such as deathmatch turning into a spawn camp since winning team's only objective is to kill people jumping down - again, no different from how it was in the past, except the team jumping down isn't fighting two teams waiting downstairs like hyenas, trying to get the last hit on the people jumping down. Having a sigil spawn in the base of the team that is trailing as a comeback mechanic would help, but this game mode is hard to fix without shuffling teams.

Shuffling teams is also the easiest solution to fixing 4v4, which can be miserable if you get 3 18k health Pale Order users in your team & even average skill level opponents.

Keep in mind, none of this is going to lead to "perfect balance" since that doesn't exist - there simply isn't enough players at the top of the top when it comes to skill level to entirely fill lobbies... and the differences in this game can be huge.

And if you manage have 2-4 people of an extremely high skill level in a battleground, they're just going to ignore each other and kill the squishy 20k health players over and over again because that's what a smart/good player does - this has always been how the game works.

You're also always going to have people who perform exceptionally well, but this is the same in other games (and sports) as well at the top end - it just takes longer to reach the top end in other games due to larger amount of players, i.e. you have more people to go through before you're put against the ultimate sweats.

You are right. You have found the third possibility for a balanced two-teams BG.
Grueling stalemate: No comment

Teams killing each other in alternation: Impossible in solo queue

''Good/smart PVPers'' ignoring one another and spawncamping players who have no chance of fighting back. I'll style this one ''The perversion of everything Battlegrounds are supposed to be''.

The first two possibilities are so unlikely to happen that they might as well be discarded. Regarding the third possibility (and putting aside how nauseating it is), can you explain how is it that player shuffling would change anything there? Won't they simply high five each other after the shuffling and continue spawncamping?

Who is talking about spawn camping? Spawn camping doesn't get you a good win rate in battlegrounds, quite the opposite.

You know what else gets you a terrible win rate? Spending the entire BG 1v1'ing (or worse: trying to Xv1/1vX) another good player somewhere while other people run to objectives and play the match as they should.

Nor should you intentionally prioritize the target most likely to survive in a team fight over 20k health full damage PvE specs that can actually dish out a lot of damage to you if you let them.

This is known as common sense - it's just how the game is played, and not just in battlegrounds: you kill the people least likely to survive first in Cyrodiil/IC as well.

Rounds & shuffling teams is something that would make the game playable in some 8v8 deathmatches, but especially in 4v4s - no one likes spending time in queue and then being stuck in an unwinnable lobby, just waiting for it to be over.

Losing a round is preferable to guaranteed losing the match, and if individual performance can make you win more rounds than not in a lobby thanks to shuffling, that lobby isn't a pointless waste of time.

Lets keep the focus on 8v8 solo. I'm still not clear on how, exactly, would player shuffling stop the ''Good/smart PVPers'' from ignoring each other as they farm the players who have no chance of fighting back.

moo_2021 · February 12

don't care about winning unless it's so lopsided I have to try to win the game in order to get something for not feeling like a waste of time.

1vs1 is FUN!

why even have rounds? let's just kill each other for 30 minutes straight. They can throw a dice to decide the winner for all I care.

Haki_7 · February 12

Decimus wrote: »

And if you manage have 2-4 people of an extremely high skill level in a battleground, they're just going to ignore each other and kill the squishy 20k health players over and over again because that's what a smart/good player does - this has always been how the game works.

If this is what a smart/good player does, then I guess I will remain a dumb/bad player forever.

Haki_7 · February 13

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 35: Waiting 25 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbZxtTZ_6pQ

Aldoss · February 13

Pixiepumpkin wrote: »

I honestly do not understand why PVP in eso is so borked.

I have tried to queue with my wife at least 5 separate times in the past couple days, with not a single pop. We have to queue solo in order to get queue pops and even that is borked.

Queued solo tonight about 3 seconds before her. Both DPS, queued for the same BG (8v8 solo). Her game popped, she had the 3 minute wait timer waiting for more people to join...and here I am, in queue waiting for a pop.

Her game eventually fills up, she plays the match, I never see a pop.

The issue is, this is not the first time this has happened.

It causes me to log off out of frustration, I then goto a different game that respects my time. A player should never be pushed to the point of logging out of frustration by a system that does not work only to spend their money elsewhere.

I've posted this numerous times, but I'm willing to restate to help you and your wife:

My wife and I also play together. We exclusively play BGs and have for the last 4 years. Since the group queue got fractured, queue times have always been abysmal, especially for a game that continues to boast and claim that they have "millions" of players (which is completely misleading).

That was all fine, until U44 when they unveiled 2-team BGs. Never before was there a virtual lobby that players sat in while people loaded in. The lobby was the length of the queue acceptance time (60 seconds) and if someone missed the queue, whoops! Your team started down 1 player. 4v4v3 wasn't awful, but personally, I hated 3-team anyway and at least we got to play.

In U44, ZOS made the massive mistake of creating the lobby. A 5 minute purgatory where anyone who did accept the queue, got placed in the lobby and waited until the lobby was full. Games will not start until there is a full lobby and if, after 5 minutes, the game is not full, the lobby will close.

This is usually fine in the solo queue because there's enough players queuing and if your lobby is down 1, you only need 1 player to queue up to fill it. This is the fundamental failure of the group queue. By definition, people are queuing together, at minimum.

So why does it happen that someone doesn't make it into the lobby?

SO MANY REASONS: potty breaks, snack breaks, phone alerts, combat, minimized game, staring off into the distance contemplating the point of existence...

Each player has exactly 60 seconds to make the ready up and if they miss it, the entire lobby is basically guaranteed to fail. 15 players who were ready, now get held hostage for 5 minutes while they wait for a unicorn to save them (a solo player who purposefully chose to queue into the group queue as a solo, which rarely happens). If any player drops, they get hit with a deserter penalty and can't join the queue again, which actively hurts the queuing population because the queue is so small that 1 player getting a deserter penalty means that them AND their partner is not out of the queue for 10+ minutes.

This honestly so infuriating for us because the logic system isn't even new for ZOS. Group dungeon queue already solved this issue but for some reason, they changed it for BGs. In the group dungeon queue, if someone in the ready up misses it, the ready up fails and all players get sent back into the queue, sometimes to an instant second pop. Why they didn't do this for BGs is beyond me.

I was extremely vocal about this during PTS and immediately on patch drop. ZOS doesn't care.

My wife and I are done gambling our short and precious game time on this game and on this company. It won't be fixed until at minimum U46. The damage has been done. The populations are back to where they were pre-U44 and sometimes worse. The group queue is in shambles.

It's been really tough watching ZOS stab itself like this. We loved this game. We loved 2-team BGs. But we're done spending 90min of our game time and getting 1 successful lobby and 8 failed ones.

Haki_7 · February 14

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 36: Waiting 27 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AuPs-zqzRQ

licenturion · February 14

LOL some of you guys are very persistent waiting around for so long for so many days.

I think there are just a handful players interested in this mode.

They should just make 1 solo queue, drop the 3 others and only start up the match and transfer people when all the people have accepted the ready prompt.

It is not perfect but it will be miles better than it is now.

xylena_lazarow · February 14

Haki_7 wrote: »

If this is what a smart/good player does, then I guess I will remain a dumb/bad player forever.

It's smart to pick off squishies when they're free kills. It's dumb to go after squishies when it gives your stronger opponents a free opening to attack your team or the objective.

This isn't a big deal in 2-sided, but it's a huge deal in 3-sided, where winning the match means attacking the correct target in any given engagement, something that many PvPers in this game have neither the interest nor the skill for.

If my teammates in 3-sided aren't attacking the correct target, I find the match an unfun waste of time. This doesn't happen as much on the Cyro field because the map is so big, but it does ruin attempts at campaign scoreboard play.

Haki_7 · February 14

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 37: Waiting 40 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYr1iBcgGiU

Moonspawn · February 15

Decimus wrote: »

Fun Battlegrounds Chapter 4: Waited 1 minute 7 seconds for a fun match (Solo 8v8 PC/EU)

https://youtu.be/g2QIOk0qcl8

Here's how this lopsided snoozefest could have been a balanced match:
Pink (Fire Drakes), Yellow (Pit Daemons), Blue (Storm Lords)

The remaining 6 player slots could be filled with any combination of newcomers gunning for the daily. The fight would be unpredictable, chaotic and actually fun for everyone involved.

Dragonnord · February 15

If you add CUSTOM LOBBIES you'll kill Battlegrounds as you would be removing a huge amount of players that would never queue again for public matches, and so waiting in queue would be eternal.

So it's a big NO to custom lobbies.

Major_Mangle · February 15

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 37: Waiting 40 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYr1iBcgGiU

May I suggest playing another character? That character due to being a healer has super inflated mmr values (since you accumulate an enormous amount of points with matriarch heal) which leads to longer queues. It was exactly the same in the old 3 team format, especially in group queue scenarios where 25+ min waiting time for a duo was the norm.

Also from what I can gather from this thread you play outside of the primetime on NA (I can be wrong), which would also explain why you get long queue times. Also, if you get a "ghost queue" going on for more thant 5-10 minutes it´s common knowledge to reset the queue and try again.

The problem in this case isn´t the format but rather how you play and when you play, and I say this in the least toxic way possible.

xylena_lazarow · February 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

The fight would be unpredictable, chaotic and actually fun for everyone involved.

The "chaos" comes from players ignoring the objective to deathmatch, bullying the easy target in 3rd place, or not knowing how to win at 3-sided PvP to begin with. Doesn't matter how good you are if your teammates aren't playing the same game as you, and aren't interested in coordinating. The randomness of tactics and results may appeal to a certain demographic the way "Smash with all items and hazards turned on" appeals to some, but it leaves me feeling like I could've just gone afk or literally facerolled my keyboard. At least in an uneven 2-sided match, I feel like there's an outside chance I can carry.

Here is a fight in which my team worked together to win 2-sided despite being overmatched in combat. Myself and the 7-7 were able to successfully interfere with the opponent's ability to move between flags, affording our 0-X teammates enough chances to stand on flags in between getting farmed. If this were 3-sided, my team would've had its attention split and accomplished nothing.

Personally I can take more pride in 6-2'ing a match like this than X-0'ing most deathmatches, you are completely wrong that good players will always "leave each other alone" and never go after kill farmers. I regret not being able to get the 7-0 Warden but I had to choose either him or the 9-1 Templar I got in my team's one actual decent push.

Decimus · February 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

The fight would be unpredictable, chaotic and actually fun for everyone involved.

The "chaos" comes from players ignoring the objective to deathmatch, bullying the easy target in 3rd place, or not knowing how to win at 3-sided PvP to begin with. Doesn't matter how good you are if your teammates aren't playing the same game as you, and aren't interested in coordinating. The randomness of tactics and results may appeal to a certain demographic the way "Smash with all items and hazards turned on" appeals to some, but it leaves me feeling like I could've just gone afk or literally facerolled my keyboard. At least in an uneven 2-sided match, I feel like there's an outside chance I can carry.

Here is a fight in which my team worked together to win 2-sided despite being overmatched in combat. Myself and the 7-7 were able to successfully interfere with the opponent's ability to move between flags, affording our 0-X teammates enough chances to stand on flags in between getting farmed. If this were 3-sided, my team would've had its attention split and accomplished nothing.

Personally I can take more pride in 6-2'ing a match like this than X-0'ing most deathmatches, you are completely wrong that good players will always "leave each other alone" and never go after kill farmers. I regret not being able to get the 7-0 Warden but I had to choose either him or the 9-1 Templar I got in my team's one actual decent push.

9-1 player ran to a lot of flags (he's top score in opponent team), so you probably did a valuable job going for him... but for example if you had that templar (assuming it's not some kamikaze build that just somehow managed to not die a lot) on a flag next to a few nightblades with 20k health that'd die in one global, you'd always deal with the nightblades first of course.

To do otherwise is just bad target prioritization... this is what I was trying to convey earlier when saying good players would just ignore each other largely in battlegrounds: part of being a good player is knowing the right targets at the right times.

Besides target prioritization, good players tend to ignore each other because good players know what fights they can take and what they can't... they also know how to stalemate with LOS and survive for a long time if outnumbered. I've won multiple battlegrounds for my team simply by having multiple people from opponent team either follow me outside of objectives or spending a lot of time on one flag desperately trying to get a kill, wasting time and usually just dying while my team is capturing flags or relics.

It's very important to know whom to focus and where to be, and that's what I love about the team vs team format since that actually matters now.

xylena_lazarow · February 15

Decimus wrote: »

9-1 player ran to a lot of flags (he's top score in opponent team), so you probably did a valuable job going for him... but for example if you had that templar on a flag next to a few nightblades with 20k health that'd die in one global, you'd always deal with the nightblades first of course.

That's exactly how it went, look at the bottom 3 players on green, all NBs. I also went after the 10-4 Arc because most Arcs run up their stats against unprepared players, but are the lowest threat if you know how to counter them.

moo_2021 · February 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

That's exactly how it went, look at the bottom 3 players on green, all NBs. I also went after the 10-4 Arc because most Arcs run up their stats against unprepared players, but are the lowest threat if you know how to counter them.

How? Major expedition and run...?

xylena_lazarow · February 15

moo_2021 wrote: »

How? Major expedition and run...?

Yes, you can simply run out of the way as the Arc spins around trying to hit you, the beam and tentacle will rarely land. I run Major and Minor Expedition on my DK plus 2 Swift and passives, so I can race to objectives, outmaneuver other brawlers, and keep pace with those elusive Blades and Sorcs. Speed kills.

StaticWave · February 15

ZOS has repeatedly shot themselves in the foot over the past couple years with poor balancing, introduction of new broken sets and mechanics, almost zero PvP content, and basically false promises (remember performance fixes?). The hardcore PvPers got fed up and left ESO for another experience. The PvP community steadily dwindled and is now reduced to a state where not even a proper MMR system can provide a fun BG experience. Not enough try hards => queues mix up ppl of different skill levels => disaster experience.

To solve this mess, you first need to get enough sweat lords and people interested in PvP to participate. That requires actually fixing the years of poor combat balance changes. Then you also need to fix the game’s lag. All of this will take lots of work, and even then people may not come back at all.

Moonspawn · February 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The "chaos" comes from players ignoring the objective to deathmatch, bullying the easy target in 3rd place, or not knowing how to win at 3-sided PvP to begin with. Doesn't matter how good you are if your teammates aren't playing the same game as you, and aren't interested in coordinating.

Original post:
''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.''

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The randomness of tactics and results may appeal to a certain demographic the way "Smash with all items and hazards turned on" appeals to some, but it leaves me feeling like I could've just gone afk or literally facerolled my keyboard. At least in an uneven 2-sided match, I feel like there's an outside chance I can carry.

If you're more experienced than your teammates and they don't know what to do, then you should try to teach them. And if they don't listen to you, then you should help them do whatever it is that they are trying to do, even if you don't think it is the best strategy.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Here is a fight in which my team worked together to win 2-sided despite being overmatched in combat. Myself and the 7-7 were able to successfully interfere with the opponent's ability to move between flags, affording our 0-X teammates enough chances to stand on flags in between getting farmed. If this were 3-sided, my team would've had its attention split and accomplished nothing.

I believe that no battleground should be about running around empty flags. It was a problem in the old BGs, and it is still a problem now. Your ''0-x teammates'', the future of PVP itself, did not learn anything. They had a terrible experience obtaining the rewards for which they came for, successfully renewed their prejudice against PVP, then promptly went on their merry way. The community WILL NEVER GROW at this rate.
I know that my solution to turn the land grab modes into ''escort the payload'' seems... forceful, but it would certainly get the job done. One way or another, progress would always be made towards teaching the newcomers how to play a 3-sided BG. And that's what matters in the end.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Personally I can take more pride in 6-2'ing a match like this than X-0'ing most deathmatches, you are completely wrong that good players will always "leave each other alone" and never go after kill farmers. I regret not being able to get the 7-0 Warden but I had to choose either him or the 9-1 Templar I got in my team's one actual decent push.

I never said that ''good players will always leave each other alone''. It is a shame that a significant number of people embrace this misguided belief. It is also the reason why team shuffling wouldn't work to make two-teams BGs less lopsided, predictable, stale, and boring as all hell.

xylena_lazarow · February 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

If you're more experienced than your teammates and they don't know what to do, then you should try to teach them. And if they don't listen to you, then you should help them do whatever it is that they are trying to do, even if you don't think it is the best strategy.

Moot point because this isn't a problem in 2-sided. I'll briefly explain strats in matches if I need to, but there isn't exactly much opportunity. If I'm in a 3-sided match and my teammates want to ignore the objective so they can deathmatch, should I be helping them do this? If they want to bully the last place team, should I help them do that?

Moonspawn wrote: »

Your ''0-x teammates'', the future of PVP itself, did not learn anything. They had a terrible experience obtaining the rewards for which they came for, successfully renewed their prejudice against PVP, then promptly went on their merry way. The community WILL NEVER GROW at this rate. I know that my solution

How do you know this? At the end everyone said gg and seemed to have had fun. Those 0-X players hung in there, got to work together and WIN instead of randomly running around a chaotic 3-sided match getting farmed on their way to last place. And sorry to say but professional devs aren't interested in elaborate "solutions" layperson players present.

Moonspawn · February 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moot point because this isn't a problem in 2-sided.

What isn't a problem in 2-sided?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

If I'm in a 3-sided match and my teammates want to ignore the objective so they can deathmatch, should I be helping them do this?

Yes. Think about what would happen next. The objective would get done uncontested, the fight would be boring (4v1-4) and the match would end quickly. The overwhelming feeling of wasted time would teach them that they should either play the objective or go to the DM queue instead.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

If they want to bully the last place team, should I help them do that?

The alternatives are usually worse. We can go down this particular rabbit hole if you want, but then you would have to provide me with more details. Do you want to go over what would happen in every mode?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

How do you know this? At the end everyone said gg and seemed to have had fun. Those 0-X players hung in there, got to work together and WIN instead of randomly running around a chaotic 3-sided match getting farmed on their way to last place.

I don't understand. The way you phrase this makes me think that you believe running around empty flags in 2-sided and winning was good, but somehow doing the exact same thing in 3-sided would be bad and land them in last place. You do know that 16 people running around 5 flags means that some Domination matches are ending well before the 3 minutes mark, right?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

And sorry to say but professional devs aren't interested in elaborate "solutions" layperson players present.

Do not hesitate to bring up any concerns you may have about my solutions, so that I may refine them further. Which one is too elaborate?

xylena_lazarow · February 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do not hesitate to bring up any concerns you may have about my solutions, so that I may refine them further. Which one is too elaborate?

Your ideas are fine, but devs are not going to read them, nor would they be taken seriously.

There are no arguments over which enemy to attack in 2-sided. Everyone is pointed at the correct target whether they do objectives, deathmatching, or kill farming. The toxicity that ruined 3-sided was solved by going 2-sided, a significant motivator for me to defend the 2-sided format. No I'm not helping my teammates ignore objectives so they can turn a 3-sided match into random nonsense, I'll bail and eat my deserter penalty rather than waste my time.

Moonspawn · February 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do not hesitate to bring up any concerns you may have about my solutions, so that I may refine them further. Which one is too elaborate?

Your ideas are fine, but devs are not going to read them, nor would they be taken seriously.

There are no arguments over which enemy to attack in 2-sided. Everyone is pointed at the correct target whether they do objectives, deathmatching, or kill farming. The toxicity that ruined 3-sided was solved by going 2-sided, a significant motivator for me to defend the 2-sided format. No I'm not helping my teammates ignore objectives so they can turn a 3-sided match into random nonsense, I'll bail and eat my deserter penalty rather than waste my time.

They seal clubbers are pointed at the newcomers gunning for the daily, same as always. Except now it is a lot easier to avoid one another, and they can commit to the clubbing without fear of the third team getting in the way. I'm glad you think there is some merit to the new format. I wish more people believed it would survive even after the return of 3-teams BGs.

xylena_lazarow · February 17

Moonspawn wrote: »

they can commit to the clubbing without fear of the third team getting in the way

You mean without a 3rd team to run interference for them.

Once all the seals have been clubbed, it's the seal clubbers that are the weakest targets on the field, and I enjoy going after them here without any seals to get in my way. No 3rd team to save them from a better player.

Moonspawn · February 17

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

they can commit to the clubbing without fear of the third team getting in the way

You mean without a 3rd team to run interference for them.

Once all the seals have been clubbed, it's the seal clubbers that are the weakest targets on the field, and I enjoy going after them here without any seals to get in my way. No 3rd team to save them from a better player.

You're describing what happens after the optimal order of targets has been identified.

''Slightly lopsided: The superior team is determined within the initial clashes, then it becomes a matter of pointlessly going through the motions until the end of the game.''

No third team to change things up 😪

Thumbless_Bot · February 17

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

they can commit to the clubbing without fear of the third team getting in the way

You mean without a 3rd team to run interference for them.

Once all the seals have been clubbed, it's the seal clubbers that are the weakest targets on the field, and I enjoy going after them here without any seals to get in my way. No 3rd team to save them from a better player.

You are, in so many words, saying that you like these new bgs because they are easier and more straightforward. You want to be able to parse on someone who you perceive as weaker without anyone getting in the way. This makes you the seal clubber... That is cool by me i just find this aspect of new bgs, and seal clubbing in general, boring and dull. Going 30-0 becomes prosaic... like, who cares... you clubbed a bunch of seals, even competent pvp seals... but they're still seals. And it is never just you, the self-described better player. unless you are dueling. If your teams kills the seals, or vice versa, it's 4v1 and you either get to 4v1 the seal or get 1v4d as the seal.

I like the old ones because it was not possible to parse without watching your back. This is exciting and dynamic... You could still get to 30-0,but it was a lot harder.

Reasonable people will disagree. However, I do see a theme emerging here. It seems those that luke 2 teams are more inclined to enjoy overpowering weaker opponents, over and over again, without a pesky third party making their ability to parse more difficult, while those that prefer three teams like the complexity that a third team adds to the game.

Also, you can have the best two overall players on one team in a 4v4 dm and that team can still lose to a competent opponent...especially if they have a healer and you don't. So you can be the best and still be hunted down. No mmr will fix this.

You can also be the only competent player out of all 8. Ive gone 12-0 in dm, both rounds, while my teammates wilted under a soft breeze. This was not fun. It was stupid.

Rigjt now these bgs are catering to seal clubbers. If they bring back three teams I'll start playing bgs again and those who wish to join me can. Those that wish stick with two teams can.

Tinyfangs · February 18

Ok, so I have come to play Battlegrounds a lot now. I read through some of the thread, but not all posts, so apologies if this has been mentioned.

I think the objectives are fine, I think the teams are ok, however - Battlegrounds miss incentive for players to actually learn the tactics (which can end frustrating me to no end). This could be remedied by creating rare, tradable rewards, that could end being sold for good coins.

I would suggest adding a new achievement first, that requires to obtain a good amount of medals. Only once this achievement has been completed, will on rare occasions an additional box drop, containing this rare reward, and one must have achieved a reasonably high (not too easy, but also not super sweaty) amount of medals within a single game, to be eligible for this additional rare box. Every game holds that chance, win or lose, but won games increase the rng.

This way, players have an incentive to learn. Nothing motivates like very rare valuable drops which can additionally be sold.
It would also reward players dedicated to Battlegrounds, with a chance to earn something extra beyond completing dailies. I got all motives now, and yes, we can have furniture dropped and some sell ok, but tying special rewards to medals earned will get players to learn instead of just hoping to be carried by others.

And also, oh goodness please.. have queues pop over landscape combat, as well as duels. As is, for dungeons as well as Battlegrounds and Cyro/City, we have to stand around waiting, worried to engage with landscape activities like killing dragons and what not, as we could miss the pop. It is an extremely bad and unfun design in my view, and not sure why it was implemented like that. This alone could increase participants for battlegrounds, I believe.