Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

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.

If I could see the damage and healing from everyone I would have been able shuffle the players around to make it balanced, unpredictable and actually fun for everyone involved. As I have done so many times already.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

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

Here I can see the dmg and healing, so its possible to turn it into a 3-sided match that would have been balanced, unpredictable and actually fun for everyone involved. Would you like me to?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

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.

Where have I been disrespectful? It was not my intention at all. Please point out where.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

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.

The challenges that only exist in the 3-sided format make it competitive.

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

Where have I been disrespectful? It was not my intention at all. Please point out where.

You continue to imply that my opinions on 3-sided are biased by skill deficiency on my part. There is no skill deficiency or bias. I have posted stats and results demonstrating my level. Your turn. Otherwise I can only conclude that you are simply a struggling player frustrated that you are losing without random chaos to randomly hand you wins.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

You continue to imply that my opinions on 3-sided are biased by skill deficiency on my part. There is no skill deficiency or bias. I have posted stats and results demonstrating my level.

I have not done that at all. Not even once. I'd like to go over each and every single time that you think I did so that I can better explain and we can move forward without misunderstandings.

It's just a guess, but I think you may be focusing on the expression ''playing like a rat''. I was only using you own words, because I'm not sure how to change it either:

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

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.

Maybe we can use ''engaging in rat-like playstyle''? Or perhaps something else if you find it offensive. I'm not sure why you would though. All of the best DPS players in the world had to play like that. They had to. There was a need for it in 3-sided matches because they had to worry about all of the challenges inherent to the format.

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

There was a need for it in 3-sided matches because they had to worry about all of the challenges inherent to the format.

I am not ignorant to the "challenges" of 3-sided. Mainly being unable to predict how much of the lobby is going to suddenly stop playing the same game as me, and when. Your skill doesn't matter when you're playing chess, and your opponent randomly decides to start playing checkers. Same board, just dumps the chips on top of the chess pieces.

Now please post stats and results demonstrating that you are able to meet the challenges of which you speak.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

There was a need for it in 3-sided matches because they had to worry about all of the challenges inherent to the format.

I am not ignorant to the "challenges" of 3-sided. Mainly being unable to predict how much of the lobby is going to suddenly stop playing the same game as me, and when. Your skill doesn't matter when you're playing chess, and your opponent randomly decides to start playing checkers. Same board, just dumps the chips on top of the chess pieces.

Which is why we need a separate DM queue. Since there are four queue options available, here's what I believe should satisfy everyone:

1) 8v8 Solo
Zenimax should throw as much money here as possible. Better MMR, so every match becomes a grueling stalemate. Player shuffling, which would not deter seal clubbing at all. Go wild. Implement whatever adjustments people think would improve it, no stone unturned. In the grand scheme of things, it's important that this road is walked until its obvious and inevitable end.

2) 4v4v4 Random Solo
Newcomers would come looking for the daily here... or in 8v8 Solo. Potentially fun and balanced match, where the BG regulars that tolerate competing for the objectives naturally keep one another in check vs Eternally lopsided snoozefest. I wonder which one they'll choose.

3) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Solo (maybe solos and duos)
For the players who will never tolerate doing the objectives no matter what.

4) 4v4 Group
Even though it's probably the least populated queue option of all, there is technically some merit in 4v4 Group, for when a premade wants to test itself against another.

Haki_7

I'm leveling a new character to verify if I'll get the same enormous BG queue times on the EU server. Need gold to finish the build. Will trade NA gold for it. Can anyone help?

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

I'm leveling a new character to verify if I'll get the same enormous BG queue times on the EU server.

No access to EU here, just curious if you're testing the hypothesis that your personal queue times are due to 1) your character being AR50 and 2) you having an insanely high MMR because you score 10k points every match?

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

I'm leveling a new character to verify if I'll get the same enormous BG queue times on the EU server.

No access to EU here, just curious if you're testing the hypothesis that your personal queue times are due to 1) your character being AR50 and 2) you having an insanely high MMR because you score 10k points every match?

I still believe the score is the problem. After all this time, and considering Jessica's disheartening post, there is a real chance it will never be fixed. All I can do now is hope for the miraculous return of 3-teams BGs to save us all.

Moonspawn

@xylena_lazarow in case you were offended by this:
''You had to play like a rat play cautiously and opportunistically (like all of the best damage dealers were forced to) 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.''

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

What I meant here is that it's funny how our impressions are complete opposites. In 3-sided, helping a teammate out of a sandwich was quite literally the difference between winning and losing fights. In 2-sided offering any assistance just feels like pointlessly delaying —or cruelly hastening— the inevitable.

I think I'll try making two lists next:
1) Challenges that only existed in 3-teams BGs.
and
2) Challenges that only exist in 2-teams BGs.

Everyone is welcome to help.

xylena_lazarow

@Moonspawn your queue suggestions were fine and I was happy to leave it at that. There's nothing more to discuss unless you're willing to post KDA or results that demonstrate you can even meet the challenges you're talking about.

Haki_7

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 45: Waiting 25 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWas5sibT6Y

Haki_7

As a healer, I can confirm this:

Moonspawn wrote: »

In 3-sided, helping a teammate out of a sandwich was quite literally the difference between winning and losing fights. In 2-sided offering any assistance just feels like pointlessly delaying —or cruelly hastening— the inevitable.

Pointlessly delaying the inevitable:




Pointlessly hastening the inevitable:

Haki_7

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 46: Waiting 26 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdBmwmnUC50

Haki_7

Three-teams BGs: Potentially fun and balanced match, where PVPers naturally kept one another in check.

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Haki_7

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 47: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIyCrreV_40

Haki_7

Three-teams BGs: Limitless possibilities.

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Grega

There will be lots of self-destructions this weekend 🙂.

Most of the time, within the first 30 second it is already determined and decided who will win and who won’t.

Also, help section of the game state there is no leaderboard for 8v8 - and that leaderboard is used for MMR calculation. Ergo - no MMR for 8v8. Meaning no wait time. Except, there is - why? Less than 16 people playing on the entire server? 🫠

Moonspawn

It's no use. I can't think of a single challenge that exists in 2-teams BGs, but not in 3-teams.

IncultaWolf

Grega wrote: »

There will be lots of self-destructions this weekend 🙂.

Most of the time, within the first 30 second it is already determined and decided who will win and who won’t.

Also, help section of the game state there is no leaderboard for 8v8 - and that leaderboard is used for MMR calculation. Ergo - no MMR for 8v8. Meaning no wait time. Except, there is - why? Less than 16 people playing on the entire server? 🫠

Yeah my BG guild of 400+ players were mentioning in game chat that they keep getting matched with the same pool of like 18-20 players every match, even during a deathmatch weekend. I'm personally not participating because I'm burnt out from pvp after the event. Been enjoying pve again.

Jestir

I feel like "seel clubbing" was far worse in 4x4x4

One team would be absolutely focused and slaughtered and there was absolutely no chance to rally and fight back with randoms

8x8 has the issue as well but it's usually from people giving up after getting smack down in the first minute

Estin

Grega wrote: »

There will be lots of self-destructions this weekend 🙂.

Most of the time, within the first 30 second it is already determined and decided who will win and who won’t.

Also, help section of the game state there is no leaderboard for 8v8 - and that leaderboard is used for MMR calculation. Ergo - no MMR for 8v8. Meaning no wait time. Except, there is - why? Less than 16 people playing on the entire server? 🫠

I hate to break it for you, but MMR is enabled for 8v8. It was added in at the last moment during PTS I believe. You can even see the message pop up saying your MMR loss is reduced whenever someone leaves the match.

Moonspawn

Jestir wrote: »

I feel like "seel clubbing" was far worse in 4x4x4

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.

Moonspawn

Jestir wrote: »

One team would be absolutely focused and slaughtered and there was absolutely no chance to rally and fight back with randoms

8x8 has the issue as well but it's usually from people giving up after getting smack down in the first minute

Being focused by the 2 other teams in 3-sided BGs was a great opportunity to practice moving together out of the sandwich. The issue was people trying to fight their way out instead of simply moving away as a team.

Moonspawn

Jestir wrote: »

8x8 has the issue as well but it's usually from people giving up after getting smack down in the first minute

Its important to keep in mind that this is not a first person shooter. When your team wipes the other, be it with some difficulty or not, the defeated team won't suddenly rise from the spawn as a coherent unit and come back with new builds and new strategies to turn the game around. Unless there are premades involved, you'll just be going through the motions for the rest of the match. If you try really hard you might be able to bribe someone to eat food, or persuade another to stop parsing the tank, but that's about it. These small victories used to matter a lot more (4v4v4). Unfortunately, the changes you can realistically make now are personal in nature. You can change your own strategy. You can change your own build ( if you're lucky enough to not get stuck in combat). But in the end you are one player. Out of eight. Just as a newcomer's individual contribution is diluted because there are now 8 people instead of 4, yours is too. And to further seal the deal, there is no longer a third team to change things up anymore.
Two-teams BGs are great for premade vs premade, as they were originally designed for. But they'll never compare to what 3-sided BGs could have been.

Haki_7

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 48: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ow5uPEb4NfU

Haki_7

Three-teams BGs: Potentially balanced and fun for everyone.

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

xylena_lazarow

Here are a couple of fun 2-sided matches that could've never happened in 3-sided, because I was able to deploy actual strats that kept allies unified and focused, not avoiding hard fights or chasing squirrels.





We can go back and forth cherry picking for another 16 pages if you want. Ultimately it's subjective fun, the 2-sided enjoyers want more sweaty and focused, the 3-sided enjoyers want more chaotic and random.

Thumbless_Bot

...

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Here are a couple of fun 2-sided matches that could've never happened in 3-sided, because I was able to deploy actual strats that kept allies unified and focused, not avoiding hard fights or chasing squirrels.





We can go back and forth cherry picking for another 16 pages if you want. Ultimately it's subjective fun, the 2-sided enjoyers want more sweaty and focused, the 3-sided enjoyers want more chaotic and random.

3 sided is not chaotic or random to those of us that enjoy it. That's a perception you have and the point I was making above.

But I agree, the back and forth is old. No one is changing their minds.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Here are a couple of fun 2-sided matches that could've never happened in 3-sided, because I was able to deploy actual strats that kept allies unified and focused, not avoiding hard fights or chasing squirrels.

Couldn't have happened in 3-sided? Why?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

We can go back and forth cherry picking for another 16 pages if you want. Ultimately it's subjective fun, the 2-sided enjoyers want more sweaty and focused, the 3-sided enjoyers want more chaotic and random.

It was never my goal to convince anyone that 3-sided is better. In fact, explaining why most players would choose the old format was probably my biggest mistake. Let's all just forget about it, believe that the new BGs are amazing, and try to muster the basic human decency to recognize that one or two of the four queue options available could easily make way for 3-sided BGs.

Avran_Sylt

[snip] You've shown your stats, you're the outlier. Congratulations on even getting matches.

[edited for baiting]