Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Haki_7

@Moonspawn
who do you think you are?
with these lips that beg to be kissed
and eyes that make me forget my name
you cant just come in here and solve every problem we ever had with one thread

Aldoss

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Major_Mangle wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was responding to someone who *is* a PVPer, and who wasn't happy. My "clearly" was in response to someone *his* anecdata, and you and I are using the same sampling bias on the forums.

I'm sorry for being confused. You quoted me and asked for my reply, so I gave you my reply, but this post is making it seem like you think I'm not the person you quoted.

Yes, I'm a pvper. Yes, I'm not happy with BGs, but my disappointment is completely separate from yours because I absolutely love this team vs team format. ZOS has completely mismanaged the delivery of this patch and that is specifically why I'm vocalizing my frustration. This patch could have been amazing. Instead, it's one of the biggest flops of an update that I can remember.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

I don't understand your dismissal of that data we can both see, but I don't have to.

Seeing an incomplete subset of data creates incorrect conclusions. What you have here on the forums is incomplete data. People are way more likely to act on negative emotions than positive ones. When people are happy, they don't often come to the forums to start threads because of it. When people are unhappy, they do. This forum is an important tool for ZOS to aggregate all the relevant data to create as good of a picture of the complete whole as they can, but it's anything from representative of the broader player base.

It's a sampling bias. Nothing is "clear" to us but our own opinion. Most people I interact with love this new format. That doesn't mean that they are a majority. It means I cultivate relationships with like minded people and that creates an echo chamber that affects my bias.

It would be inappropriate to say that I'm sitting in long queues because most people want 4v4v4 back because to say that would assume that none of the other variables are contributing at all to player behavior. The queue logic is awful. The MMR is awful. The game modes are still flawed, just as they were in 4v4v4. And the cherry on top of all of this is that combat balance is the worst I've experienced, not to mention the oppressive lag that never used to be a thing in BGs that is now present. (Seriously, my screen froze for 3 WHOLE SECONDS last night in a chaosball in that city map and it wasn't just me. Multiple guildies in that BG confirmed that their screens also froze for 3 whole seconds during the BG.) I can sometimes count to two Mississippi while waiting for the server to register that I placed my Colossus.

The experience is awful. When a 4v4 or 8v8 does fire and you get matched against similar strength players, with no lag, and the lobby actually fills, the experience is 10x better than anything I ever got from 4v4v4. I'm not interested in going back. I just want ZOS to devote the resources required to deliver the patch they should have delivered.

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

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

Money makes this game function and next week we're going to get our annual update from @ZOS_MattFiror who is tasked with the financial health of this entire game studio. There is no doubt in my mind that he would care about the fact that payroll and marketing budgets were spent to deliver this failure of a patch. I'll play to that sentiment as much as I have to to get someone from management to make the changes that I think this game needs to win people like me back, who have closed off their wallets to this game studio since U35, but are ready, willing, and capable of opening them back again, to help support this game.

Frugog

I think the problem with adding a Deathmatch-only queue is that if you add that, any other queues immediately take significantly longer because, if my experience in battlegrounds suggests anything, it's that a very, very large chunk of the solo-queue battleground population only cares about playing Deathmatch even if the objective is something else.

Moonspawn

Frugog wrote: »

I think the problem with adding a Deathmatch-only queue is that if you add that, any other queues immediately take significantly longer because, if my experience in battlegrounds suggests anything, it's that a very, very large chunk of the solo-queue battleground population only cares about playing Deathmatch even if the objective is something else.

The objective queue would include DM, but the first and second queues would be completely separate. Players in different queues would never run into each other. Filling the DM sweatlord's queue with the casuals trying to do the daily is the opposite of my suggestion. They should never be forced into the same match no matter the circumstances, not ever. This is exactly what makes both these groups stop playing BGs altogether.

Moonspawn

Haki_7 wrote: »

@Moonspawn
who do you think you are?
with these lips that beg to be kissed
and eyes that make me forget my name
you cant just come in here and solve every problem we ever had with one thread

I'm sorry, good sir.

Haki_7

25min in BG queue + getting kicked for inactivity (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf0Q4SCE7L0

SPlDER5

I know this isn’t what ZoS intended, but this is every match for me. You’re either dog walking the enemy team, or getting dogwalked.

Thumbless_Bot

SPlDER5 wrote: »

I know this isn’t what ZoS intended, but this is every match for me. You’re either dog walking the enemy team, or getting dogwalked.

This one picture speaks 10,000 words. I don't think this is enjoyable for anyone on either team including the folks who left the bg early. The kill count is 98 and death count is 79.

Zos just mentioned that they were working on updating mmr logic. Hopefully that will address some of the issues that cause the above to happen.

Aldoss

Frugog wrote: »

I think the problem with adding a Deathmatch-only queue is that if you add that, any other queues immediately take significantly longer because, if my experience in battlegrounds suggests anything, it's that a very, very large chunk of the solo-queue battleground population only cares about playing Deathmatch even if the objective is something else.

Don't threaten me with a good time!

Seriously though, I'd love to see 4v4 just get turned into a deathmatch arena. 3 rounds, best of 3 wins, everyone gets 1 life. Then you put an actual rating system that players can strive for.

Even better: keep the 3 rounds for the group queue, but for the solo queue, make it best of 5 rounds and switch the teams up randomly after 2 rounds.

Then, make the 8v8 one queue that combines solos and duos and make it the default queuing option from the start. You'll have lobbies popping like crazy and sweat lords have a place to fight over how big their proverbial ratings are.

Then, bring back the 4v4v4s as special weekends at least once per month and attach extra AP and rewards to them.

jhall03

Before the update, the main complaint about BGs was the 3 team format - there were more people complaining about that format than were not. ZOS completely update BGs with 2 team format and all new maps. Now people want 3 team format back. Grass is not always greener; players will always complain.

ZOS, to be fair, botched the rollout with bad matchmaking and queuing system.

Chrisilis

What an overwhelming lot of suggestions! As great as a lot of the ideas in this thread are, no wonder it takes forever to get anything done. Here's my two cents idea

Keep 8v8 solo, get rid of 8v8 group
Bring back classic 4v4v4 solo and 4v4v4 group
Keep 4v4 solo and group queues

In a sense, I feel like this would provide a natural progression in ones PvP experience, intro, intermediate, expert.

Fix the bugs/queue times, mmr.

Everybody gets what they want, everybody's happy, lets go!

licenturion

Aldoss wrote: »

Then, make the 8v8 one queue that combines solos and duos and make it the default queuing option from the start. You'll have lobbies popping like crazy and sweat lords have a place to fight over how big their proverbial ratings are.

What a terrible idea. If there was one good thing about this whole revamp it was that there is an actual solo queue. I play a lot more BG since then. Solo queue times 8vs8 are also very short and I get in matches in no time on PC EU.

I do agree that MMR needs finetuning because this ain't it. Also it would be a lot better that they match up new BG with not a lot of matches on record with other newcomers to ease into it. Nothing will put new BG players more off than getting steamrolled in their first 3 matches.

TwiceBornStar

Disable healing in PvP. The only healing people should be able to receive in PvP is from potions. Done. You now have balanced PvP.

You know I'm right!

Tinkerhorn

The 8v8 is a nice addition. I don't think it was necessary to remove the 4v4v4 teams altogether though, it would have made for a nice variety to go between the different team set ups when queing in as a solo. I do think spawns need to be adjusted where there's teleports for different points on the map as games just seem to devolve in to what is akin to spawn camping.

dk_dunkirk

Aldoss wrote: »

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

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

Money makes this game function and next week we're going to get our annual update from @ZOS_MattFiror who is tasked with the financial health of this entire game studio. There is no doubt in my mind that he would care about the fact that payroll and marketing budgets were spent to deliver this failure of a patch. I'll play to that sentiment as much as I have to to get someone from management to make the changes that I think this game needs to win people like me back, who have closed off their wallets to this game studio since U35, but are ready, willing, and capable of opening them back again, to help support this game.

I still keep my subscription going (I know people play without the craft bag, but I won't), but I've not spent any extra money in the Crown store since May, when the performance problems started. I've been a steady max-buy-per-month kind of guy for a couple years now. I know I wouldn't qualify as a whale, but I've had to "close my wallet" too.

And you're right, I got confused on the quoting. This forum software sucks, but that's a different thread. :-)

Thumbless_Bot

jhall03 wrote: »

Before the update, the main complaint about BGs was the 3 team format - there were more people complaining about that format than were not. ZOS completely update BGs with 2 team format and all new maps. Now people want 3 team format back. Grass is not always greener; players will always complain.

ZOS, to be fair, botched the rollout with bad matchmaking and queuing system.

I am not going to challenge you claim that more people co.plained about three teams because its not really helpful. What I will say is that after two months with this new format the forums have been clear, there are those who prefer 2 team and those who prefer 3 team, and even subsets and cross-sections of these who like 4v4v4 and 8v8. For example.

Let people play the way they want.

And athen, ideally, as a second step to adding all modes back, make the rewards more, well, rewarding and fix mmr, and then population for queues won't be an issue.

The rollout is water under the bridge. Won't comment on that again.

TwiceBornStar

What I didn't like about 4v4v4 format was that in a lot of matches, I found myself dealing with two opposite teams singling me out quite often. I suppose that's to be expected when you score 44 kills and 33 assists while suffering 3 deaths in just one match, but still! That's why the 4v4 format *does* feel like a fair fight most of the time. I can imagine a lot of solo players feel the same.

jhall03

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

jhall03 wrote: »

Before the update, the main complaint about BGs was the 3 team format - there were more people complaining about that format than were not. ZOS completely update BGs with 2 team format and all new maps. Now people want 3 team format back. Grass is not always greener; players will always complain.

ZOS, to be fair, botched the rollout with bad matchmaking and queuing system.

I am not going to challenge you claim that more people co.plained about three teams because its not really helpful. What I will say is that after two months with this new format the forums have been clear, there are those who prefer 2 team and those who prefer 3 team, and even subsets and cross-sections of these who like 4v4v4 and 8v8. For example.

Let people play the way they want.

And athen, ideally, as a second step to adding all modes back, make the rewards more, well, rewarding and fix mmr, and then population for queues won't be an issue.

The rollout is water under the bridge. Won't comment on that again.

I could maybe edit my post to say “the most complaining I can recall about the old BGs was the 3 team format” so perhaps it’s not a fact. Criticisms about the 3 team format was what I remember most.

I agree they should have all modes available. Super simple except it costs time and resources they probably haven’t budgeted.

Aldoss

licenturion wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Then, make the 8v8 one queue that combines solos and duos and make it the default queuing option from the start. You'll have lobbies popping like crazy and sweat lords have a place to fight over how big their proverbial ratings are.

What a terrible idea. If there was one good thing about this whole revamp it was that there is an actual solo queue. I play a lot more BG since then. Solo queue times 8vs8 are also very short and I get in matches in no time on PC EU.

I do agree that MMR needs finetuning because this ain't it. Also it would be a lot better that they match up new BG with not a lot of matches on record with other newcomers to ease into it. Nothing will put new BG players more off than getting steamrolled in their first 3 matches.

Group queue is 99% casual duos. The chance of getting someone on your 8v8 with less than 18k hp is extremely high, but they end up in the group queue because they want to play this social game with at least one other friend. Given how low the group queue pop is, MMR is completely non-existant and the poor newbies get matched against whoever else is in queue - typically not newbies. The other night my wife and I got 3 BG lobbies in a row with teammates under 18k hp. We ended up in a 4v4 deathmatch lobby, which turned into a 2v4 because our teammates, both less than 20k hp, were standing still atop the bridge while getting pelted on all sides by range sorcs. They died and ran out of lives swiftly in less than 60 seconds and left us to fend for ourselves.

The current queue provides no avenue for new players to learn together without getting annihilated by players either way more skilled than them or better coordinated. The power differential that a 3 or 4 stack can build is exponentially higher than what a duo can build and people building min-maxed duos is pretty low.

There's already people in this thread falsely claiming that the solos on their opposing team were on comms. This false claim has existed for years, even before this update, because the skill gap between new PvPers and vet ones is massive, while also having combat situations be relatively straight forward enough that when you put 4 vet PvPers together, they can operate as if they're on comms. It's easier for them to accept that they're losing because they're not on comms than to accept that they're just not as skilled yet.

You can witness this in real time by watching most of the (few) PvP streamers left. Most are actively reading and talking with chat while also completely annihilating the opponents with their teammates who are not on comms.

You and I went back and forth a lot during the PTS, so I don't need to rehash out the argument for you, but I do hope that ZOS weighs the pros and cons of this suggestion and gives it some thought. Dead queues are a failure of management and an embarrassment for the game. The current group queue is dead outside of a few hours during prime time.

Combining the 8v8 queue and removing the ability for 3's or 4 stacks to join, pushing them into a true arena style 4v4 group queue, would be roughly similar to what 8v8 solo is right now. The only difference being that someone attempting to claim that their opponents are on comms might then actually be correct, but again, it shouldn't matter at that point because a solo learning the game still would be paired against other players that are also still learning the game (but happen to have queued together) and they can stand still while facing each other all they want until one of them realizes that when they move and use a skill at the same time, they have better life expectancy outcomes.

If the goal is to create healthier lobbies, you'd want as many people in the queue as possible so the match maker is better able to sort and match people of similar skill level to make it as fair as possible. 8 solo players with less than 18k hp are truly no different than 4x duos that also have less than 18k hp.

Then, down the road, if the pop grows enough (which we should all be hoping for) ZOS can announce that group queue will be its own thing and test out whether or not the pop was big enough to sustain an independent group queue.

You disagree. That's fine. I hope ZOS tests out my idea.

Moonspawn

Three-Stage Plan: Proper MMR for Battlegrounds

STAGE 1

Initial post. Separate the casual objective players from the DM sweatlords who won't do the objective no matter what. Plus a third Two-Teams Custom Lobbies queue for those who want it. We're basically giving every single person what they want, while keeping the population as concentrated as humanly possible. Once STAGE 1 is complete, and everyone is playing the same game, with the same objectives:

STAGE 2

The first half of the second stage is refining the medal score system (dmg done, healing done, dmg taken, kills give points, deaths remove points, if you perform below the average you lose points, etc...). This would be inherently difficult to do even after the completion of the first stage. Expecting the score to work WITHOUT IT... is downright insane.
The second half is fiddling with the MMR equation itself, which I suspect is what Zenimax has been doing all this time. The MMR needs to take into account your score + whether you won or lost the match. They already know the importance of both these variables. Here's the problem:
It's all connected. MMR wont work without a refined medal score. Medal score can't work unless all players are competing for the same objective. And even then, it's entirely possible people will only notice a profound change, and start trusting the MMR system to guarantee balanced matches after the completion of the third and final stage.

STAGE 3

Adjusting the objective modes to actively encourage fighting. Some modes are pretty straightforward to fix, like Chaosball. Others, like CTR and Domination, not so much. The players who are terrified of the return of the Three-Teams BGs are the most suited to help with ironing out the issues they had. But that is a discussion for another thread. Looking forward to working with you.

Moonspawn

Aldoss wrote: »

Then, make the 8v8 one queue that combines solos and duos and make it the default queuing option from the start. You'll have lobbies popping like crazy and sweat lords have a place to fight over how big their proverbial ratings are.

I like your passion for trying to fix the future Two-Teams Custom Lobbies. But filling the DM sweatlord's queue with the casuals trying to do the daily is the opposite of my suggestion. They should never be forced into the same match no matter the circumstances, not ever. This is exactly what makes both these groups stop playing BGs altogether.

Aldoss

Moonspawn wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

Then, make the 8v8 one queue that combines solos and duos and make it the default queuing option from the start. You'll have lobbies popping like crazy and sweat lords have a place to fight over how big their proverbial ratings are.

I like your passion for trying to fix the future Two-Teams Custom Lobbies. But filling the DM sweatlord's queue with the casuals trying to do the daily is the opposite of my suggestion. They should never be forced into the same match no matter the circumstances, not ever. This is exactly what makes both these groups stop playing BGs altogether.

I'll repeat again:

The group queue is 99% casual duos.

You have more sweatlords in the solo queue currently than you do in the group queue because solo queue actually pops consistently whereas the group queue does not.

Combine the queue, give the match maker more people to match MMR to, then you'll see that the 8v8 lobby is more likely to pair 18k hp standstill parsers with other 18k hp standstill parsers as they slowly learn how to not be fish in a barrel.

Solo sweatlords won't care about the possibility of getting matched against other sweatlords, duo grouped or not. If they do care, then that says something about them as a person, kind of like the dozens of people who strictly play twinks in the U50 BG lobbies.

Or, for the sweatlords that are just there to flex their proverbial giant ratings, give them a place to go, such as the arena 4v4 solo or group. Get them out of the casual lobbies. Sweatlords want clout more than they want to pug stomp baby seals. They want for there to be a leaderboard that anyone can access and see their name up there on the top page. Give them a place to go to get what they want and they'll likely go there. 8v8 would then serve as a the great casual PvP experience that it should be to help newer players learn the ropes.

Desiato

Actual stage 1: ZOS committing to do what is necessary to make a great PVP game. If this were to happen, everything else would fall into place quickly and smoothly because they have the resources and support to make it happen if the will was truly there.

While PVP remains an afterthought and their main goal is to make it appealing to TES PVE players, it's always going to have the kind of problems it's had for the past 10 years. Balance, broken metas and poor matchmaking have been problems since day one.

For me as a 30 year PVP player, the appeal of ESO PVP has always been its potential, which I don't feel it has ever come close to reaching.

Moonspawn

Aldoss wrote: »

You have more sweatlords in the solo queue currently than you do in the group queue because solo queue actually pops consistently whereas the group queue does not.

@Haki_7 is consistently getting 15-25 minutes queues in 8v8 solo + plus 5 minutes of filling the match, followed by lopsided torture. Imagine what it will be like once the novelty wears off AND matches remain lopsided.

See you in the future Two-Teams Custom Lobbies.

Moonspawn

Desiato wrote: »

Actual stage 1: ZOS committing to do what is necessary to make a great PVP game. If this were to happen, everything else would fall into place quickly and smoothly because they have the resources and support to make it happen if the will was truly there.

While PVP remains an afterthought and their main goal is to make it appealing to TES PVE players, it's always going to have the kind of problems it's had for the past 10 years. Balance, broken metas and poor matchmaking have been problems since day one.

For me as a 30 year PVP player, the appeal of ESO PVP has always been its potential, which I don't feel it has ever come close to reaching.

Working on any of the halves of the STAGE 2 is valid. I do believe they have been doing it for years. It's just...not going to change anything on its own.

Haki_7

getting kicked due to inactivity before finding a solo 8v8 match: 23 minutes 21 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJY6eH2--E

Haki_7

waiting 50 minutes for one battleground. World record? (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z92VBaGNN4

OsUfi

SPlDER5 wrote: »

I know this isn’t what ZoS intended, but this is every match for me. You’re either dog walking the enemy team, or getting dogwalked.

This is the biggest issue with the current format/MMR of 2 team BGs. I'm a casual, I'm mid at best. I can hold my own. It usually takes more than 1 person to kill me. I'm never gonna be one of those 20k 1D guys. But I used to enjoy doing a BG daily. I'm top 2-3 in nearly every 8v8 match without being a healer.

I have now had a run of about 10-15 matches of being on the receiving end of a curb stomping. That's about 3-4 hours of play and I haven't managed to receive a single daily BG reward.

At least in 4v4v4 you'd have that fight for second place so you could get the reward. 8v8 and 4v4 is so strongly one way or the other it actively discourages those with only an hour a day to play to even attempt the daily BG. What's the point? I fricking hate RND's but lord above at least I'd get a reward for dealing with the horrible side of the PvE community. And I know, get a guild, etc etc, but I never seem to be playing when guilds are active, so blah.

I enjoy PvP, I do not enjoy being curb stomped over and over because I'm having a bad run of luck.

FWIW, this is also why I've never done the Tales of Tribute daily. Far too much game time for often no reward.

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote: »

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

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

CtR would be like a high level DM from the olden days, but with training wheels. Imagine a 3 teams DM, but the softest target of every team is being indicated by the relic. Let's be honest. No one will ignore a glowing target that can't be healed. The two stronger teams would be compelled to fight in the spawn of the weaker team, and this fight wouldn't stalemate. The 30 seconds cooldown works in the favor of the weakest team too. The relic holder would obviously need to be ejected from the spawn after a period of time. This means that in the worst possible scenario the weaker team would stay up there, and their relic holder would only come down every minute or so.

As for Deathmatch balance. In theory, it is the easiest mode to balance through revamped medal score (the second stage of a proper MMR). Until thats done, creating a separate stomping grounds for the DM sweatlords would certainly help a lot.

Jierdanit wrote: »

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

How would they fight away from the objective? They would be affected by the Debuff that would prevent fighting.

@Jierdanit lets keep going. I feel we're getting closer to perfecting the Three-Teams BGs. @Aldoss you can help too: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/670577/revamping-three-teams-battegrounds#latest

Jierdanit

Moonspawn wrote: »

CtR would be like a high level DM from the olden days, but with training wheels. Imagine a 3 teams DM, but the softest target of every team is being indicated by the relic. Let's be honest. No one will ignore a glowing target that can't be healed. The two stronger teams would be compelled to fight in the spawn of the weaker team, and this fight wouldn't stalemate. The 30 seconds cooldown works in the favor of the weakest team too. The relic holder would obviously need to be ejected from the spawn after a period of time. This means that in the worst possible scenario the weaker team would stay up there, and their relic holder would only come down every minute or so.

That would still mean that at most 2 out of 3 teams have a good time, because the 3rd team would be focused the second any of them step out of spawn.
Also the cooldown barely works in favor of the weakest team. Because a lot of people simply don't care about the objective. They are just going to keep killing the weakest team, even if they can't get any points by doing so.

Moonspawn wrote: »

As for Deathmatch balance. In theory, it is the easiest mode to balance through revamped medal score (the second stage of a proper MMR). Until thats done, creating a separate stomping grounds for the DM sweatlords would certainly help a lot.

It would still be a lot easier to balance with a proper MMR in a team vs team environment rather than with 3 teams.
And the "sperate stomping grounds for the DM sweatlords" would simply be higher MMR.

Moonspawn wrote: »

How would they fight away from the objective? They would be affected by the Debuff that would prevent fighting.

Jierdanit lets keep going. I feel we're getting closer to perfecting the Three-Teams BGs. Aldoss you can help too: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/668974/battlegrounds-how-to-make-objective-modes-more-fun-than-deathmatch-ever-was#latest

Just straight up punishing people for not being near the objective sounds like a pretty bad "solution" to me.

If you need to force people to take part in the objective its pretty likely that its not a particularly well thought out objective in the first place.

The reason I'm often not taking part in the objectives is because they are not fun to me. If you forced me to either play the objective or not be able to play at all I would be much more likely to just stop doing BGs.

The three team BGs are inherently flawed by being 3 teams. If you want an actually balanced experience team vs team BGs with a proper MMR would do a much better job.