Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Haki_7 · February 25

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 43: Waiting 21 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_W0gz6g9mk

Tinyfangs · February 25

Desiato wrote: »

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Again, people already ignore the objectives without getting points for doing so. Not only that, people already chew out BGers who don't ignore the objectives in favor of getting a high kill count. It's happening repeatedly in this very thread (ref: the screenshots of the "worse" team winning because they played the objectives, which is treated like cheating for some reason). Other games may not have this issue, but ESO absolutely does.

The key word in my response was choice. Players won't buy into a mode they dislike and didn't choose.

When the event is over, and probably before, I won't step foot in BGs for a long time because I truly hate every minute I spend in a chaosball match. I don't want to be a ww or vamp and I don't want to avoid the enemy or be a healbot to get points.

I might just start leaving every chaosball match because it makes me question why I am even playing eso if I'm spending time doing something I hate.

Let players choose which modes they play and you won't have to twist their arms for them to play it properly.

I would agree. Add just one solo 8v8 deathmatch, can't imagine it would take too much programming time, and see how that affects overall queues. I somehow think it would not do too much damage to queue time, as that mode would draw a specific subset of players, that might not bg much because they don't want to play objectives, compared to many players who just don't get the objectives and related tactics.

Both of these player types are frustrating to me, as someone who loves the strategy of BGs, but at least those endlessly fake deathmatching would be removed from the other BGs. That alone could bring some improvement, as I think many other players just run after the deathmatch addicts, likely unaware that's not even what they are meant to be doing.

BGs, played properly are an extremely fun challenge. They require more than to just cycle through pvp rotations. Instead they require to think on your pixel feet, so to speak, to lure the other team, to seek openings. I fully appreciate some just don't want that additional layer of challenge, and that others might also not be capable of working out the best strategy against another team, all fair, so give those player one 8v8 solo deathmatch mode, and we all might end happier.

Moonspawn · February 25

Tinyfangs wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Again, people already ignore the objectives without getting points for doing so. Not only that, people already chew out BGers who don't ignore the objectives in favor of getting a high kill count. It's happening repeatedly in this very thread (ref: the screenshots of the "worse" team winning because they played the objectives, which is treated like cheating for some reason). Other games may not have this issue, but ESO absolutely does.

The key word in my response was choice. Players won't buy into a mode they dislike and didn't choose.

When the event is over, and probably before, I won't step foot in BGs for a long time because I truly hate every minute I spend in a chaosball match. I don't want to be a ww or vamp and I don't want to avoid the enemy or be a healbot to get points.

I might just start leaving every chaosball match because it makes me question why I am even playing eso if I'm spending time doing something I hate.

Let players choose which modes they play and you won't have to twist their arms for them to play it properly.

I would agree. Add just one solo 8v8 deathmatch, can't imagine it would take too much programming time, and see how that affects overall queues. I somehow think it would not do too much damage to queue time, as that mode would draw a specific subset of players, that might not bg much because they don't want to play objectives, compared to many players who just don't get the objectives and related tactics.

Both of these player types are frustrating to me, as someone who loves the strategy of BGs, but at least those endlessly fake deathmatching would be removed from the other BGs. That alone could bring some improvement, as I think many other players just run after the deathmatch addicts, likely unaware that's not even what they are meant to be doing.

BGs, played properly are an extremely fun challenge. They require more than to just cycle through pvp rotations. Instead they require to think on your pixel feet, so to speak, to lure the other team, to seek openings. I fully appreciate some just don't want that additional layer of challenge, and that others might also not be capable of working out the best strategy against another team, all fair, so give those player one 8v8 solo deathmatch mode, and we all might end happier.

Since it is extremely unlikely that Zenimax would fix any of the problems that 3-teams BGs had, I would settle for 4v4v4 DM solos only. It's not ideal, but once they understand that players would keep choosing the old format, now matter how much money they throw at the 2-teams BGs, the (obvious) way forward would finally become apparent to everyone.

Tinyfangs · February 25

Moonspawn wrote: »

Since it is extremely unlikely that Zenimax would fix any of the problems that 3-teams BGs had, I would settle for 4v4v4 DM solos only. It's not ideal, but once they understand that players would keep choosing the old format, now matter how much money they throw at the 2-teams BGs, the (obvious) way forward would finally become apparent to everyone.

I can not tell what the majority of players would prefer. Forums are not always a good place to gauge such things. I have not played many 4v4v4 bgs, I got into bgs more recently, and generally enjoy the 8v8 format, and I also think many casual players might feel less self-conscious in a bigger group than a smaller team, where they may feel any of their failings are more obvious and open to scrutiny. Therefore I personally would say a 8v8 solo deathmatch mode, to catch a broader range of players, not just the more hardcore type.

Zenimax will have the numbers, whether the new 8v8 mode has increased numbers, but I have a feeling it possibly has, for that scrutiny reason I mentioned above. A bigger team should help increase player confidence.

Either way though, I would definitely like to see one Deathmatch only queue introduced, to see if this helps with the overall quality of bgs played for objectives.

Thumbless_Bot · February 25

Moonspawn wrote: »

Tinyfangs wrote: »

Desiato wrote: »

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Again, people already ignore the objectives without getting points for doing so. Not only that, people already chew out BGers who don't ignore the objectives in favor of getting a high kill count. It's happening repeatedly in this very thread (ref: the screenshots of the "worse" team winning because they played the objectives, which is treated like cheating for some reason). Other games may not have this issue, but ESO absolutely does.

The key word in my response was choice. Players won't buy into a mode they dislike and didn't choose.

When the event is over, and probably before, I won't step foot in BGs for a long time because I truly hate every minute I spend in a chaosball match. I don't want to be a ww or vamp and I don't want to avoid the enemy or be a healbot to get points.

I might just start leaving every chaosball match because it makes me question why I am even playing eso if I'm spending time doing something I hate.

Let players choose which modes they play and you won't have to twist their arms for them to play it properly.

I would agree. Add just one solo 8v8 deathmatch, can't imagine it would take too much programming time, and see how that affects overall queues. I somehow think it would not do too much damage to queue time, as that mode would draw a specific subset of players, that might not bg much because they don't want to play objectives, compared to many players who just don't get the objectives and related tactics.

Both of these player types are frustrating to me, as someone who loves the strategy of BGs, but at least those endlessly fake deathmatching would be removed from the other BGs. That alone could bring some improvement, as I think many other players just run after the deathmatch addicts, likely unaware that's not even what they are meant to be doing.

BGs, played properly are an extremely fun challenge. They require more than to just cycle through pvp rotations. Instead they require to think on your pixel feet, so to speak, to lure the other team, to seek openings. I fully appreciate some just don't want that additional layer of challenge, and that others might also not be capable of working out the best strategy against another team, all fair, so give those player one 8v8 solo deathmatch mode, and we all might end happier.

Since it is extremely unlikely that Zenimax would fix any of the problems that 3-teams BGs had, I would settle for 4v4v4 DM solos only. It's not ideal, but once they understand that players would keep choosing the old format, now matter how much money they throw at the 2-teams BGs, the (obvious) way forward would finally become apparent to everyone.

I agree. I've also said this before but I think it is worth repeating. These new bgs aren't for us. If they were, they would have engaged us beforehand. Maybe they engaged some folks, but, if they did, they engaged the wrong ones.

Ultimately, Zos is trying to attract new, more casual players with this new format. Their gamble is that we, the sweats, will find them okay enough to stick around.

The problem with this gamble is twofold.

One, imho, these bgs are a deterrent to new players more than the old ones were because they devolve into toxic slaughterfests way more often causing people to port out... a lot.. A... LOT...

Two, because they are slaughterfests they become far less interesting to sweats, who, like me, have largely given up on bgs. Standing below the enemy camp, or sitting below in my prop chair, over and over again is boring.

This just isn't sustainable. Though it is worth saying that 8v8 is not as bad as 4v4.

Chrisilis · February 25

4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo

Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo.

Anyway, at this point the ball is in ZoS's court... they've heard from both sides... repeatedly... and have had some time to crunch the numbers (104 days to be exact PS/XB). Hopefully there's been enough time and feedback for them to come to a decision.

Tinyfangs · February 25

Chrisilis wrote: »

4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo

Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo. (snip)

That looks worth trying. I'd hope the 4v4v4 queue would not turn out bad, that's my only worry, but it could provide an escape for those of us who actually want to play smart. It gets so frustrating to be at the other team's spawn, trying to get at least one of their balls, while your team is fighting one random tank somewhere completely different, chasing that tank around some boxes or what not, feeling super cool while looking at their dps meters. It has me end with my head in my hands...

Major_Mangle · February 25

Chrisilis wrote: »

4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo

Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo.

Anyway, at this point the ball is in ZoS's court... they've heard from both sides... repeatedly... and have had some time to crunch the numbers (104 days to be exact PS/XB). Hopefully there's been enough time and feedback for them to come to a decision.

I'd personally make the 8v8 a pseudo group queue that allow people to at least queue as a duo. The overwhelming majority in the group queue I see these days (PCEU) are duos and I might have seen one full 4 man premade since this patch dropped. I obviously don't speak for anyone but myself, but my perception is that a lot of people like the 8v8 and it would feel a bit off to remove that option for people who just want to do so with a friend.

I'd make the 4v4 group only and have 4v4 be the "competitive queue" and make it deathmatch only. Might be a bit of an unpopular opinion but for me a competitive queue should be a bit more focused towards optimisation to prepare fighting other similar groups.

Have an 8v8 that allow for duos to queue (a mix between solo and duos)

4v4v4 solo queue only with mixed modes (and with some rework to some of the objective modes so it doesn't encourage "run between point A-B-C or take empty objectives" as the best tactic)

Thumbless_Bot · February 25

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

4v4 Solo
4v4 Group
8v8 Solo
4v4v4 Solo

Everybody's happy. (It's me, I'm everybody) But in all seriousness, I think this would be an acceptable solution. I feel like this would be fairly simple to implement seeing as how no changes would need to be made to 3 of the current queues and the 4v4v4 solo queue already exists, it just needs to be turned back on. The people who like the 2 team format get to keep it and the people who like the three team format get it back. Having a greater variety of BG formats to choose from would be a win for everybody. It would be nice to be able to play both ways, to have the choice. Want some strategy? Three team. Want some casual chaos? 8v8. Feel like gettin sweaty or testing out your new build? 4v4. All of these formats have their place in the ESO pvp landscape, imo.

Anyway, at this point the ball is in ZoS's court... they've heard from both sides... repeatedly... and have had some time to crunch the numbers (104 days to be exact PS/XB). Hopefully there's been enough time and feedback for them to come to a decision.

I'd personally make the 8v8 a pseudo group queue that allow people to at least queue as a duo. The overwhelming majority in the group queue I see these days (PCEU) are duos and I might have seen one full 4 man premade since this patch dropped. I obviously don't speak for anyone but myself, but my perception is that a lot of people like the 8v8 and it would feel a bit off to remove that option for people who just want to do so with a friend.

I'd make the 4v4 group only and have 4v4 be the "competitive queue" and make it deathmatch only. Might be a bit of an unpopular opinion but for me a competitive queue should be a bit more focused towards optimisation to prepare fighting other similar groups.

Have an 8v8 that allow for duos to queue (a mix between solo and duos)

4v4v4 solo queue only with mixed modes (and with some rework to some of the objective modes so it doesn't encourage "run between point A-B-C or take empty objectives" as the best tactic)

Great and thoughtful points all around! Hopefully zos is listening.

VoxAdActa · February 25

I feel like Deathmatch could be 8v8, because the number of targets is the same either way, and three teams just complicates the issue. Of course, I also kinda think that Deathmatch could be a solo FFA style, and that would be even more enjoyable. Heck, an FFA Deathmatch that never ends might scratch the itch even better; people drop in, earn points, and drop out whenever they feel like it, to be replaced by another drop-in.

Objective-based games, though, should definitely be 4v4v4. Both because some achievements are impossible in two-team games, and because it allows more strategy. Also, if two teams decide to fake deathmatch anyway, the third team can win by playing the actual game.

Thumbless_Bot · February 25

VoxAdActa wrote: »

... three teams just complicates the issue.

Yes. Yes it does. It's wonderful.

Haki_7 · February 26

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 44: Waiting 30 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z8hV53Tr48

Haki_7 · February 27

Three-teams BGs: Limitless potential.
Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪.

Jierdanit · February 27

Haki_7 wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Limitless potential.
Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪.

Three-team BGs: Lopsided snoozefest

.

Two-team BGs: Limitless potential.

Calastir · February 27

There are exceptions to any rule, but after playing MYM for a week now in my experience no matter the format; the vast majority (9/10 of the time) of solo BG's I'm thrown on the losing side of a lopsided snoozefest.

Moonspawn · February 27

Jierdanit wrote: »

Three-team BGs: Lopsided snoozefest .

Two-team BGs: Limitless potential.

Here's the fix. I'll invoice you.

Two-team BGs: ''It is a lot harder for the BG regulars on the other team to come after me, even if they really want to. I want to force everyone to stay in my seal clubber paradise. Forever. ''

Decimus · February 27

Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!

Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.

If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.

Calastir · February 27

Decimus wrote: »

Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!

Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.

If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.

No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!

Decimus · February 27

Calastir wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!

Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.

If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.

No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!

You realize you have 50% chance of having those people in your team as well?

You win some you lose some, some people carry others get carried... I'd recommend watching some other team vs team games for perspective, League of Legends for example.

Major_Mangle · February 27

Decimus wrote: »

Calastir wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!

Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.

If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.

No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!

You realize you have 50% chance of having those people in your team as well?

You win some you lose some, some people carry others get carried... I'd recommend watching some other team vs team games for perspective, League of Legends for example.

Think the comparison is a bit flawed. The big difference is that most MOBA's have very refined mmr systems (if we exclude smurfing for a second). In dota2 last time I checked you need 100 hours of non ranked gameplay to even do a calibration game that decides you initial ranking. Most mobas also have different rating based on solo/group. The problem with BG's is that no such thing exists. Imagine if you had to play 100 hours of non ranked BG's to even be able to queue for the ranked version so you could get on the leaderboards?

Regardless of what version of BG's we've (3 team or 2 team format) the elephant in the room will still be the lack of a proper ranking/mmr system that puts player of similar skillevels against eachother.

Decimus · February 27

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Calastir wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Oh no, one team won and the other one lost, BG was "lopsided"!

Should really listen to yourselves... If you're on the winning team, enjoy the +win rate and go next.

If you're on the losing team... there's almost always ways to play better and turn it around if you know what you're doing - this is the difference between a ~50% WR player and a 75% one, just like in any other competitive game.

No. It's like pitching a group of high school amateurs against NFL Pros 9/10. Lopsided!

You realize you have 50% chance of having those people in your team as well?

You win some you lose some, some people carry others get carried... I'd recommend watching some other team vs team games for perspective, League of Legends for example.

Think the comparison is a bit flawed. The big difference is that most MOBA's have very refined mmr systems (if we exclude smurfing for a second). In dota2 last time I checked you need 100 hours of non ranked gameplay to even do a calibration game that decides you initial ranking. Most mobas also have different rating based on solo/group. The problem with BG's is that no such thing exists. Imagine if you had to play 100 hours of non ranked BG's to even be able to queue for the ranked version so you could get on the leaderboards?

Regardless of what version of BG's we've (3 team or 2 team format) the elephant in the room will still be the lack of a proper ranking/mmr system that puts player of similar skillevels against eachother.

Sure, but there isn't enough PvP player base in ESO to have a ranked system that accommodates all skill levels - there's maybe 2-3 top end players queueing at a time on PC/EU... you'd simply never get a queue pop.

So it is what it is at the moment... if they fix other issues with BGs maybe the player base can grow enough to have a proper MMR, but we're not there yet in my opinion.

xylena_lazarow · February 27

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Objective-based games, though, should definitely be 4v4v4. Both because some achievements are impossible in two-team games, and because it allows more strategy

Competitively speaking, 3-sided objectives are unplayable garbage. You either can't realistically play for 1st place because you keep getting third-partied by trolls uninterested in helping their own team win, or because your own team doesn't understand 3-sided PvP and refuses to prioritize the correct opponent to take objective points from.

Pretty sure the players who want this flavor of casual randomness are playing games like Smash with all items and hazards turned on, not ESO PvP, which is a bit sweaty and high skill floor for a big audience in this respect. The 8v8 solo is great for casual players that want to try to win but don't want to have to sweat. Tryhards can carry this mode.

Moonspawn · February 27

Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
Two-teams BGs: If the BG regulars on the other team are hellbent on avoiding me it is all but impossible to force them into combat. Seal clubber paradise.

Zenimax should put the real BGs and the seal clubber paradise side by side and let players choose.

Decimus · February 27

Moonspawn wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
Two-teams BGs: If the BG regulars on the other team are hellbent on avoiding me it is all but impossible to force them into combat. Seal clubber paradise.

Zenimax should put the real BGs and the seal clubber paradise side by side and let players choose.

And what is to say you aren't one of the "seals"? Win rate & KDR please.

So far this is just a lot of empty accusations of other players' behaviour, as if most people weren't getting absolutely farmed in 3-way format as well, up to the point where they'd just leave the 4-man team they're in because matchmaking RNG matters a lot more in that case compared to when you're put in an 8-man team.

xylena_lazarow · February 27

Moonspawn wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.

So you're cool if myself and my Sorc friend on the third team pop up out of nowhere, unceremoniously delete you with ults (stealing the kill from your strong deserving opponent), dragging your team further away from winning at my own team's expense, rendering the entire soul rending epic battle completely meaningless?

Thumbless_Bot · February 27

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.

So you're cool if myself and my Sorc friend on the third team pop up out of nowhere, unceremoniously delete you with ults (stealing the kill from your strong deserving opponent), dragging your team further away from winning at my own team's expense, rendering the entire soul rending epic battle completely meaningless?

Yeah. It makes the game exciting and dynamic. Different strokes...

Edit: it's like farming for resources in craglorn vs cyro. In cyro you have to always watch your back. In craglorn you do not. I prefer braking for columbine outside of cropsford because it adds just that extra bit of or edge of excitement to the game. Similar logic applies to bgs. At least for me. It is why they are fun.

Edit 2: i get why people wouldnt like this. But it is the foundation of eso pvp, outside of dueling. If people want two teams, they should have it. Three teams the same.

xylena_lazarow · February 27

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Yeah. It makes the game exciting and dynamic. Different strokes...

Yup that's fair. That's why I compared it to Smash with all items and hazards, another good comparison would be the (wildly popular) casual multiplayer EDH/Commander format in Magic.

But I do also think that players who want that sort of multiplayer chaos and random results are on those sorts of games, not ESO PvP, due to how inherently sweaty it is, which is why 3-sided BGs were doomed to failure, whereas in 2-sided it gets balanced by tryhards being able to competitively carry much more effectively.

Thumbless_Bot · February 27

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Yeah. It makes the game exciting and dynamic. Different strokes...

Yup that's fair. That's why I compared it to Smash with all items and hazards, another good comparison would be the (wildly popular) casual multiplayer EDH/Commander format in Magic.

But I do also think that players who want that sort of multiplayer chaos and random results are on those sorts of games, not ESO PvP, due to how inherently sweaty it is, which is why 3-sided BGs were doomed to failure, whereas in 2-sided it gets balanced by tryhards being able to competitively carry much more effectively.

Reasonable people will disagree. I hope we both get what we want.

Moonspawn · February 27

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Three-teams BGs: Going after other BG regulars and fighting with all my soul against an opponent with the strength to defeat me.
Two-teams BGs: If the BG regulars on the other team are hellbent on avoiding me it is all but impossible to force them into combat. Seal clubber paradise.

Zenimax should put the real BGs and the seal clubber paradise side by side and let players choose.

And what is to say you aren't one of the "seals"? Win rate & KDR please.

So far this is just a lot of empty accusations of other players' behaviour, as if most people weren't getting absolutely farmed in 3-way format as well, up to the point where they'd just leave the 4-man team they're in because matchmaking RNG matters a lot more in that case compared to when you're put in an 8-man team.

Not accusing anyone of anything. This is something that I have only recentely noticed. I was always disgusted by the idea of BG regulars avoiding one another and focusing the newcomers, but now I see that even I am forced to do it if they keep running away and hiding behind 7 endlessly respawning players. Now I am disgusted with myself.
It was obvious in retrospect. Think about the old BGs, 3 teams of 4 going at it. One or two BG regulars per team. Do you see how it was inherently difficult for them to avoid one another even if they were trying really hard to do it?

xylena_lazarow · February 27

Moonspawn wrote: »

Think about the old BGs, 3 teams of 4 going at it. One or two BG regulars per team. Do you see how it was inherently difficult for them to avoid one another even if they were trying really hard to do it?

8v4