Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Decimus · February 27

Moonspawn wrote: »

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 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?

Congrats, you've learned some target prioritization. First step in turning "lopsided battlegrounds" into glorious Ws.

Again, win rate & KDR please, this'll help us help you better.

Moonspawn · 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?

I wouldn't put my back into the fight against my ''strong deserving opponent'' until your team came along. Light skirmishing to identify the order of squishiness while generating ultimate. Ideally I would even wait for someone on my team to use theirs first so I could follow up. I also hope I wouldn't have to beg my teammates to leave the tanky dk for last and focus the sorc first.

Moonspawn · February 27

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

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 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?

Congrats, you've learned some target prioritization. First step in turning "lopsided battlegrounds" into glorious Ws.

Again, win rate & KDR please, this'll help us help you better.

I don't have whatever addon is used to track wins and kdr.

It has been mentioned several times already that three-teams BGs were played by working together to protect each other, avoid the sandwich and concentrate the damage on targets by order of squishiness.

Target prioritization has always been a part of BGs (perhaps the most important part). The difference now is that the target prioritization basically never points to other BG regulars. It used to before, when we had 3 teams.

If you were a seal clubber, being avoided by BG regulars would be pretty much everything you've ever wanted, wouldn't it? This is why I'm calling two-teams BGs ''seal clubber paradise''.

xylena_lazarow · February 27

Moonspawn wrote: »

I wouldn't put my back into the fight against my ''strong deserving opponent'' until your team came along. Light skirmishing to identify the order of squishiness while generating ultimate. Ideally I would even wait for someone on my team to use theirs first so I could follow up. I also hope I wouldn't have to beg my teammates to leave the tanky dk for last and focus the sorc first.

You know some tactics, but since you are expecting a "team" running in and not 2 of us lurking outside LoS, this would make you an ideal unaware target to hit first. It should be obvious that we won't strike until you do "put your back into it." So if you think that good players are avoiding each other to focus you, that has nothing to do with the format, and everything to do with you leaving yourself open and assuming that good players will use bad tactics.

Nothing wrong with liking the 3-sided more, but it's not objectively superior, sorry.

Moonspawn · February 27

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I wouldn't put my back into the fight against my ''strong deserving opponent'' until your team came along. Light skirmishing to identify the order of squishiness while generating ultimate. Ideally I would even wait for someone on my team to use theirs first so I could follow up. I also hope I wouldn't have to beg my teammates to leave the tanky dk for last and focus the sorc first.

You know some tactics, but since you are expecting a "team" running in and not 2 of us lurking outside LoS, this would make you an ideal unaware target to hit first. It should be obvious that we won't strike until you do "put your back into it." So if you think that good players are avoiding each other to focus you, that has nothing to do with the format, and everything to do with you leaving yourself open and assuming that good players will use bad tactics.

Nothing wrong with liking the 3-sided more, but it's not objectively superior, sorry.

Don't threaten me with a good time. The whole purpose of this thread is that I do want good players to focus me. Why else would I play BGs? It's not happening anymore. It will only happen again when 3-teams BG return.
Once the real BGs return, I advise you to check out a DK with a wierd UserId that starts with ''Axi''. Haven't seen them around since 3-sided was taken away. If you do manage to learn how they play, your distaste for ''4v8'' should disappear.

xylena_lazarow · February 27

Moonspawn wrote: »

The whole purpose of this thread is that I do want good players to focus me. Why else would I play BGs? It's not happening anymore. It will only happen again when 3-teams BG return.

Huh? So you play a tank? You think you can't draw aggro anymore, and that is the fault of moving to 2-sided? Try slotting some heals and using them on your allies. Guarantee you're gonna get focused down now.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Once the real BGs return, I advise you to check out a DK with a wierd UserId that starts with ''Axi''. Haven't seen them around since 3-sided was taken away. If you do manage to learn how they play, your distaste for ''4v8'' should disappear.

I think I remember that player, what is your point?

Moonspawn · February 27

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

The whole purpose of this thread is that I do want good players to focus me. Why else would I play BGs? It's not happening anymore. It will only happen again when 3-teams BG return.

Huh? So you play a tank? You think you can't draw aggro anymore, and that is the fault of moving to 2-sided? Try slotting some heals and using them on your allies. Guarantee you're gonna get focused down now.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Once the real BGs return, I advise you to check out a DK with a wierd UserId that starts with ''Axi''. Haven't seen them around since 3-sided was taken away. If you do manage to learn how they play, your distaste for ''4v8'' should disappear.

I think I remember that player, what is your point?

I consider DK to be the hardest class to play in 3-sided, and you have said some things that may explain why you avoided BGs before update 44. Axi would almost always leave the healer for last. They wouldn't tell their teammates what to do and expect them to do their bidding either. Anyway, I'm glad you're not opposed to bringing back 3-teams BGs and letting the community decide which format is superior. If only everyone was so open-minded.

DaniimalsSF · February 27

8v8 solo or group queue
4v4v4 solo or group queue
16 player solo free for all deathmatch

Moonspawn · February 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Huh? So you play a tank? You think you can't draw aggro anymore, and that is the fault of moving to 2-sided?

''The whole purpose of this thread is that I do want good players to focus me.'' I want to fight with and against other BG regulars. Players that come to BGs for the PVP, and not because Zenimax has increased the amount of transmutation crystals by more than 20 times. The only realistic way for the BG community to grow is if people come for the rewards, but stay for the PVP. They will not stay for lopsided PVP. They will not stay for seal clubber paradise.

Jierdanit · February 28

Moonspawn wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Huh? So you play a tank? You think you can't draw aggro anymore, and that is the fault of moving to 2-sided?

''The whole purpose of this thread is that I do want good players to focus me.'' I want to fight with and against other BG regulars. Players that come to BGs for the PVP, and not because Zenimax has increased the amount of transmutation crystals by more than 20 times. The only realistic way for the BG community to grow is if people come for the rewards, but stay for the PVP. They will not stay for lopsided PVP. They will not stay for seal clubber paradise.

4v4v4 was almost completely dead towards the end. So they clearly did not to stay for that either.

Moonspawn · February 28

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Huh? So you play a tank? You think you can't draw aggro anymore, and that is the fault of moving to 2-sided?

''The whole purpose of this thread is that I do want good players to focus me.'' I want to fight with and against other BG regulars. Players that come to BGs for the PVP, and not because Zenimax has increased the amount of transmutation crystals by more than 20 times. The only realistic way for the BG community to grow is if people come for the rewards, but stay for the PVP. They will not stay for lopsided PVP. They will not stay for seal clubber paradise.

4v4v4 was almost completely dead towards the end. So they clearly did not to stay for that either.

No one came to BGs because the rewards were basically non-existent, which is not the case anymore. Forcing DM sweatlords into the same matches as the players competing for the objectives didn't help either.

xylena_lazarow · February 28

Moonspawn wrote: »

Forcing DM sweatlords into the same matches as the players competing for the objectives didn't help either.

DM sweatlords are actually playing 8v8 objectives because they enable real competition, not just random chaos.

Moonspawn · February 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Forcing DM sweatlords into the same matches as the players competing for the objectives didn't help either.

DM sweatlords are actually playing 8v8 objectives because they enable real competition, not just random chaos.

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

xylena_lazarow · February 28

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

xylena_lazarow · February 28

Moonspawn wrote: »

I consider DK to be the hardest class to play in 3-sided, and you have said some things that may explain why you avoided BGs before update 44. Axi would almost always leave the healer for last. They wouldn't tell their teammates what to do and expect them to do their bidding either. Anyway, I'm glad you're not opposed to bringing back 3-teams BGs and letting the community decide which format is superior. If only everyone was so open-minded.

Was this Axi player carrying a whole 4v8? Maybe, if I'm remembering the same player, but that's a lot of luck even for someone really good. When luck went my way, I got to #1 on the 3-sided boards in both Chaosball and Deathmatch in the same week, same brawler blade, probably sometime in 2017. Nobody runs hot like that forever.

Most of what I remember doing personally in 3-sided was picking off weak targets then running away, because it was the most effective thing I could do amidst random chaos. Is that seal clubbing to you? I found it kinda boring, in Cyro I could do that plus tons of other fun things. In 2-sided you can also use actual strats.

I get that players still like the 3-sided chaos so I do support listing queues for both 3-sided and 2-sided, as long as the fun 8v8 solo stays. I'd even probably agree that the old 4v4v4 is better than the current 4v4 in some ways.

Thumbless_Bot · February 28

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

Decimus · February 28

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

Moonspawn · February 28

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

Xylena believes that two-teams BGs, also known as ''lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers'', would live on even after the return of 3-teams BGs. Can't you try to believe so too?

Decimus · February 28

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

Xylena believes that two-teams BGs, also known as ''lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers'', would live on even after the return of 3-teams BGs. Can't you try to believe so too?

Of course they would, but we'd have slightly longer queues for 2-way BGs as the 3 people that enjoyed 3-way BGs desperately try to get a 3-way BG lobby going and never get a queue pop.

Waste of development resources, waste of focus on maintaining something for an extremely tiny amount of players when we already struggle to get necessary improvements to the currently existing formats.

Thumbless_Bot · March 1

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

You have proven my point. Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity. There is nothing wrong with either position because they are based on perspective. Some people like checkers and some like chess. We will simply not have a meeting of the minds because that is just not possible.

IncultaWolf · March 1

Almost half my bgs don't even start because of "not enough players". Good job!

Major_Mangle · March 1

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

You have proven my point. Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity. There is nothing wrong with either position because they are based on perspective. Some people like checkers and some like chess. We will simply not have a meeting of the minds because that is just not possible.

Only time I found the 3 way format to have some kind of "complexity" was during deathmatches (especially if proper premades fought eachother). Chaos ball worked alright but any of the other objective modes with the 4v4v4 was objectively (no pun intended) flawed. Being able to run between uncontested flags and run away the moment someone shows up and still "win" shouldn´t be the best viable tactic (and if it is the design of the mode is poorly made), and don´t get me started on CTR. So many times I´ve wasted 20+ min in a bg queue just for it to end in less than 5 because some 1 player out of 12 thought it was fun to run back and forth taking unguarded relics while the other 11 actually did some PvP (you know, fighting and engaging eachother in combat). Domination was the same, people would just avoid one another and run between unguarded flags. If I enter a PvP zone I´m doing so because I WANT TO FIGHT OTHER PLAYERS. Not roleplay overland questing where I run between point A-B-C and press E to skip dialogue. There was nothing tactical about the old objective modes. You simple geared/build to avoid encounters.

Moonspawn · March 1

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

Xylena believes that two-teams BGs, also known as ''lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers'', would live on even after the return of 3-teams BGs. Can't you try to believe so too?

Of course they would, but we'd have slightly longer queues for 2-way BGs as the 3 people that enjoyed 3-way BGs desperately try to get a 3-way BG lobby going and never get a queue pop.

Waste of development resources, waste of focus on maintaining something for an extremely tiny amount of players when we already struggle to get necessary improvements to the currently existing formats.

Meaning that not even you believe your EU hive mind will be sufficient to keep two-teams BGs alive if players are given the freedom to choose. That's unfortunate. I'll just have to believe for the both of us.

xylena_lazarow · March 1

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity.

The word myself and Decimus are concerned with is "competitive" aka rewarding skill. There are plenty of variance games that reward skill by playing the odds over time. Magic 1v1, hold em poker, etc. Their rulesets highly incentivize playing to win, and make it relatively easy to learn how to do so. You probably don't have to strategically account for opponents losing money on purpose, or for teammates that refuse to cooperate with each other.

3-sided ESO BGs only incentivize competitive players to pad their KDA, since that is the only consistent measure of skill when you regularly find yourself 8v4'd for no legitimate competitive reason, Red just decides to shoot itself in the foot and help Green win, maybe for salt, maybe because they have no idea how 3-sided PvP works. Or worse, your own team sinks itself and hangs you out to dry if you go for the objective over personal KDA.

Is there beauty and complexity in 3-sided? Yeah of course, but the seals I'm clubbing would probably disagree. The best competitive strat for me is to avoid tough engagements that leave me open, stay running around behind LoS, pick off weak targets, and third party blindside brawls to steal kills after the other two teams put their backs into it. Real rat playstyle, not that I don't enjoy the salt I get for it, but it's boring if it's all there is to do.

In 2-sided, sure I can do that, but it becomes far less useful because now I can also deploy proper tactics, as I can skillfully predict and control my surroundings in a manner I never could in the strategically incoherent 3-sided environment, even rallying and leading my team, there's only one objective and it guarantees good PvP. Because it's on me as a sweatlord to carry, I'm incentivized to go after the other sweatlords to clear the way for my teammates.

Moonspawn · March 1

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity.

The word myself and Decimus are concerned with is "competitive" aka rewarding skill. There are plenty of variance games that reward skill by playing the odds over time. Magic 1v1, hold em poker, etc. Their rulesets highly incentivize playing to win, and make it relatively easy to learn how to do so. You probably don't have to strategically account for opponents losing money on purpose, or for teammates that refuse to cooperate with each other.

3-sided ESO BGs only incentivize competitive players to pad their KDA, since that is the only consistent measure of skill when you regularly find yourself 8v4'd for no legitimate competitive reason, Red just decides to shoot itself in the foot and help Green win, maybe for salt, maybe because they have no idea how 3-sided PvP works. Or worse, your own team sinks itself and hangs you out to dry if you go for the objective over personal KDA.

Is there beauty and complexity in 3-sided? Yeah of course, but the seals I'm clubbing would probably disagree. The best competitive strat for me is to avoid tough engagements that leave me open, stay running around behind LoS, pick off weak targets, and third party blindside brawls to steal kills after the other two teams put their backs into it. Real rat playstyle, not that I don't enjoy the salt I get for it, but it's boring if it's all there is to do.

In 2-sided, sure I can do that, but it becomes far less useful because now I can also deploy proper tactics, as I can skillfully predict and control my surroundings in a manner I never could in the strategically incoherent 3-sided environment, even rallying and leading my team, there's only one objective and it guarantees good PvP. Because it's on me as a sweatlord to carry, I'm incentivized to go after the other sweatlords to clear the way for my teammates.

Take xylena's words to heart, Decimus. IT IS possible that 2-teams BGs will survive. You and the EU hive mind don't need to fight until your dying breath to deny players the freedom to choose between the formats.

VoxAdActa · March 1

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

You have proven my point. Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity. There is nothing wrong with either position because they are based on perspective. Some people like checkers and some like chess. We will simply not have a meeting of the minds because that is just not possible.

Only time I found the 3 way format to have some kind of "complexity" was during deathmatches (especially if proper premades fought eachother). Chaos ball worked alright but any of the other objective modes with the 4v4v4 was objectively (no pun intended) flawed. Being able to run between uncontested flags and run away the moment someone shows up and still "win" shouldn´t be the best viable tactic (and if it is the design of the mode is poorly made), and don´t get me started on CTR. So many times I´ve wasted 20+ min in a bg queue just for it to end in less than 5 because some 1 player out of 12 thought it was fun to run back and forth taking unguarded relics while the other 11 actually did some PvP (you know, fighting and engaging eachother in combat). Domination was the same, people would just avoid one another and run between unguarded flags. If I enter a PvP zone I´m doing so because I WANT TO FIGHT OTHER PLAYERS. Not roleplay overland questing where I run between point A-B-C and press E to skip dialogue. There was nothing tactical about the old objective modes. You simple geared/build to avoid encounters.

This is why we need a separate, permanent Deathmatch queue. For people who don't want to play games and just want to kill.

I simply cannot understand the mindset that playing the game by the rules provided for the game and winning because I better understand the rules than my opponent is somehow less skilled or less worthy of a reward than ignoring all the actual win conditions in favor of stabbing each other.

Major_Mangle · March 1

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

You have proven my point. Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity. There is nothing wrong with either position because they are based on perspective. Some people like checkers and some like chess. We will simply not have a meeting of the minds because that is just not possible.

Only time I found the 3 way format to have some kind of "complexity" was during deathmatches (especially if proper premades fought eachother). Chaos ball worked alright but any of the other objective modes with the 4v4v4 was objectively (no pun intended) flawed. Being able to run between uncontested flags and run away the moment someone shows up and still "win" shouldn´t be the best viable tactic (and if it is the design of the mode is poorly made), and don´t get me started on CTR. So many times I´ve wasted 20+ min in a bg queue just for it to end in less than 5 because some 1 player out of 12 thought it was fun to run back and forth taking unguarded relics while the other 11 actually did some PvP (you know, fighting and engaging eachother in combat). Domination was the same, people would just avoid one another and run between unguarded flags. If I enter a PvP zone I´m doing so because I WANT TO FIGHT OTHER PLAYERS. Not roleplay overland questing where I run between point A-B-C and press E to skip dialogue. There was nothing tactical about the old objective modes. You simple geared/build to avoid encounters.

This is why we need a separate, permanent Deathmatch queue. For people who don't want to play games and just want to kill.

I simply cannot understand the mindset that playing the game by the rules provided for the game and winning because I better understand the rules than my opponent is somehow less skilled or less worthy of a reward than ignoring all the actual win conditions in favor of stabbing each other.

It's not that these people "don't understand the rules or are less skilled" (most of these players if they tryharded the objective modes would sweep the floor with the opposition, seen it more times than I can count, most often done just to prove their point to people who make comments like this but in game), but rather don't find it fun.

So yes I agree, there needs to be a specific deathmatch queue like battlegrounds had when it was released.

VoxAdActa · March 1

Major_Mangle wrote: »

VoxAdActa wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

and the cost was turning Battlegrounds into an eternally lopsided snoozefest perfectly tailored to seal clubbers.

You're not used to the results being pure competitive teamwork, as opposed to the random results of 3-sided chaos. It's not "seal clubbing" every time a 2-sided match is lopsided, the format is just a bit more sweaty and competitive. The winning team is often really bored in lopsided matches and likewise can't wait for them to be over with.

I think 3 teams are every bit as competitive, if not more so, than 2 teams. 3rd team means more complexity and more difficulty to those that enjoy it and probably chaos to those who do not.

Chaos does not seem like it would be competitive, but, again, we do not see chaos. At least I don't. I, for one, see an orchestra of moving parts that I have to navigate through and its wonderful, exciting and fun. It is a much more complex problem to solve each time out. 2 teams is boring and, well, two dimensional. It's lame. It's just too simple.

By the very definition, you cannot have competitiveness with 3 teams - what you have is RNG of which team fights 4v8 more than the other.

Splitting means leaving your team outnumbered against the other team, even if you feel confident fighting outnumbered against the other team. It's just stick together and hope the third team decides your team isn't the weakest to be farmed.

Every popular competitive game is either team vs team or a free-for-all due to how map dynamics work. In MOBAs if you find yourself fighting outnumbered in top lane for example that means there's an imbalance on the other side of the map that your team can exploit if you can pull it off.

This does not exist when you add in a 3rd team.

You can have more difficulty yes, if you get put in the weakest team... but you also have way easier time if you're in one of the other two.

You have proven my point. Where you see chaos or rng, i see beauty and complexity. There is nothing wrong with either position because they are based on perspective. Some people like checkers and some like chess. We will simply not have a meeting of the minds because that is just not possible.

Only time I found the 3 way format to have some kind of "complexity" was during deathmatches (especially if proper premades fought eachother). Chaos ball worked alright but any of the other objective modes with the 4v4v4 was objectively (no pun intended) flawed. Being able to run between uncontested flags and run away the moment someone shows up and still "win" shouldn´t be the best viable tactic (and if it is the design of the mode is poorly made), and don´t get me started on CTR. So many times I´ve wasted 20+ min in a bg queue just for it to end in less than 5 because some 1 player out of 12 thought it was fun to run back and forth taking unguarded relics while the other 11 actually did some PvP (you know, fighting and engaging eachother in combat). Domination was the same, people would just avoid one another and run between unguarded flags. If I enter a PvP zone I´m doing so because I WANT TO FIGHT OTHER PLAYERS. Not roleplay overland questing where I run between point A-B-C and press E to skip dialogue. There was nothing tactical about the old objective modes. You simple geared/build to avoid encounters.

This is why we need a separate, permanent Deathmatch queue. For people who don't want to play games and just want to kill.

I simply cannot understand the mindset that playing the game by the rules provided for the game and winning because I better understand the rules than my opponent is somehow less skilled or less worthy of a reward than ignoring all the actual win conditions in favor of stabbing each other.

It's not that these people "don't understand the rules or are less skilled" (most of these players if they tryharded the objective modes would sweep the floor with the opposition, seen it more times than I can count, most often done just to prove their point to people who make comments like this but in game), but rather don't find it fun.

So yes I agree, there needs to be a specific deathmatch queue like battlegrounds had when it was released.

If they understood the rules and were more skilled, they'd win. If they understood the rules but were choosing to ignore them, there wouldn't be so much vitriol being thrown around in this thread against people who win the game by actually playing the game, nor would there be so many suggestions for how ZOS could allow people who don't play the game to still win the game (i.e., give points for kills that have nothing to do with the game objectives).

Moonspawn · March 2

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The word myself and Decimus are concerned with is "competitive" aka rewarding skill.

There is nothing competitive about a lopsided snoozefest.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Is there beauty and complexity in 3-sided? Yeah of course, but the seals I'm clubbing would probably disagree.

Seal clubbing is focusing opponents who have no chance of fighting back. Was it possible in 3-sided? Of course, but it was infinitely harder for a variety of reasons, such as:

Going after the softest targets with reckless abandon meant taking on the risk of being caught and annihilated inside a sandwich. I would say that the fear of being sandwiched was the most powerful deterrent to seal clubbing.
In 2-sided the optimal target order almost never reaches BG regulars, especially in 8v8. It was not the case in 3-sided.
It was inherently harder for BG regulars to ignore one another in 3-sided, even if they wanted to.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The best competitive strat for me is to avoid tough engagements that leave me open, stay running around behind LoS, pick off weak targets, and third party blindside brawls to steal kills after the other two teams put their backs into it. Real rat playstyle, not that I don't enjoy the salt I get for it, but it's boring if it's all there is to do.

You had to play like a rat because there was some actual challenge involved. In your pursuit of the softest targets (as you were supposed to do) you had to worry about being sandwiched. You had to worry a lot more about being focused down. You had to worry a lot more about other BG regulars.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

In 2-sided, sure I can do that, but it becomes far less useful because now I can also deploy proper tactics, as I can skillfully predict and control my surroundings in a manner I never could in the strategically incoherent 3-sided environment, even rallying and leading my team, there's only one objective and it guarantees good PvP. Because it's on me as a sweatlord to carry, I'm incentivized to go after the other sweatlords to clear the way for my teammates.

So in 3-sided you felt that you had to play like a rat, but then 2-sided came, and now you have become a great leader of men. Funny, it's the complete opposite for me.

xylena_lazarow · March 2

Moonspawn wrote: »

You had to play like a rat because there was some actual challenge involved. In your pursuit of the softest targets (as you were supposed to do) you had to worry about being sandwiched. You had to worry a lot more about being focused down. You had to worry a lot more about other BG regulars.

You sure you wanna go this route? So close. Oh well, never bothered saving much from 3-sided but here's one from the last time they did a sweaty 3-sided Deathmatch Only queue in 2019. Still kinda boring.

And here's what it looks like when I'm being focused by a stronger team.

My score should've been much higher if the game actually tracked ally cross shields. Your turn. I've been patient but now you're being disrespectful. Show some stats if you want to keep talking about "challenge" here. If 3-sided fails that badly to teach players what "competitive" means then no, it should not come back in any form, ever.