Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

AngryNecro

MightyBelarus wrote: »

The more I see messages, I realize that a small number of players like 4vs4, and there is no response from ZOS....

Probably because you and many others mislead everyone and multiply the same posts.
You are from an Xbox server that is empty, as are several of the commenters above. You have no idea how the game is going on normal servers, plus you are not a regular BG player, so you just don't know what will happen if you play at least 10 fights a day. And well, you made compromises yourself by choosing a console. Wait for the cross-play.

xylena_lazarow

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Xylena, when I check your screenshots, then I notice, that the mmr doesn't work for you for some reason

Yes that was part of the point. Is mmr working properly in Haki's 31-0 screenshots?

@Haki_7 I still don't understand. Do my last few screenshots of 3s look like fun matches to you? Please answer a clear "yes" or "no" as I think there seems to be some sort of miscommunication here.

Moonspawn

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Xylena, when I check your screenshots, then I notice, that the mmr doesn't work for you for some reason

Yes that was part of the point. Is mmr working properly in Haki's 31-0 screenshots?

@Haki_7 I still don't understand. Do my last few screenshots of 3s look like fun matches to you? Please answer a clear "yes" or "no" as I think there seems to be some sort of miscommunication here.

With balancing? >>> YES <<<

Desiato

Another miserable day of battlegrounds while I level skill lines on a new character.

At first I was just frustrated by the game modes I absolutely hate like ctf and chaosball. I love ctf in most games, but not this one. The only modes I really like are capture and hold and deathmatch.

But unfortunately, as one rises through the MMR, every match becomes a cheesefest. Everything I love about ESO PVP disappears. My choice then is to conform and utilize one of the builds known to be OP or suffer more -- if I was to continue much longer.

Fortunately, I almost have my skill lines levelled so I don't have to endure this much longer.

To be clear, I love pvp games. I play a pretty hardcore one that's not ESO. I've played them online since the 90s. And I used to love pvp in this one.

I don't post this to bash or stream my consciousness, I post because I want to see this get better!

@ZOS_Kevin You guys should bring in the Overwatch devs from Blizzard to consult for ESO. I suggest this because OW has the kind of success you'd love to have for BGs and they are, of course, under the same corporate umbrella.

MightyBelarus

AngryNecro wrote: »

MightyBelarus wrote: »

The more I see messages, I realize that a small number of players like 4vs4, and there is no response from ZOS....

Probably because you and many others mislead everyone and multiply the same posts.
You are from an Xbox server that is empty, as are several of the commenters above. You have no idea how the game is going on normal servers, plus you are not a regular BG player, so you just don't know what will happen if you play at least 10 fights a day. And well, you made compromises yourself by choosing a console. Wait for the cross-play.

Can I find out where the information that I play less than 10 matches a day comes from?

I can say the same thing, where there are posts where people ask to balance BG, you come and say that everything is OK for you and let's do 3vs3 mode, and I see such suggestions only from you.
And the fact that, in your opinion, I and several commentators from empty worlds, as you say, this does not give you the right to tell us that we cant talk about the problems on BG.
The world didn't end just with your PC EU, there are other opinions and servers.

Jierdanit

Haki_7 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Xylena, when I check your screenshots, then I notice, that the mmr doesn't work for you for some reason

Yes that was part of the point. Is mmr working properly in Haki's 31-0 screenshots?

@Haki_7 I still don't understand. Do my last few screenshots of 3s look like fun matches to you? Please answer a clear "yes" or "no" as I think there seems to be some sort of miscommunication here.

With balancing? >>> YES <<<

But there was no balancing back then either???

So its ok to assume that 4v4v4s would be ok if the teams were balanced properly, but your main issue with 2 team BGs are the unbalanced teams?
What kind of logic is that?

Either put both modes in a setting where they are balanced or neither.

xylena_lazarow

Jierdanit wrote: »

But there was no balancing back then either???

Either put both modes in a setting where they are balanced or neither.

They also don't know the players in that 510-0-0 shutout, but I do. Red still wins lopsided.

That's a good point, why do lopsided 3s get the benefit of rebalancing, but not 2s?

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

With balancing? >>> YES <<<

I asked for a simple one-word affirmative, this is a conditional non-answer based on theoretical mods.

So please answer a simple yes or no: Do the lopsided 3s that I posted look like fun PvP matches to you?

Razmirra

Those screenshots are the reason I largely avoid BG these days. It's either a steamroll or you get steamrolled. Only time it's fun is when everyone is scoring considerably 200+ points and it's a fight to get that last 50 points is what I enjoy, which these sorts of matches are far and few between.

Get this sorted out and I might consider occasionally going into BGs, I don't need to see the same player in two matches scoring 30-0..That just makes me back out immediately.

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

With balancing? >>> YES <<<

I asked for a simple one-word affirmative, this is a conditional non-answer based on theoretical mods.

So please answer a simple yes or no: Do the lopsided 3s that I posted look like fun PvP matches to you?

Need to know which challenges you dislike, other than the second one.

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote: »

So its ok to assume that 4v4v4s would be ok if the teams were balanced properly, but your main issue with 2 team BGs are the unbalanced teams?
What kind of logic is that?
Either put both modes in a setting where they are balanced or neither.

We've already discussed the ways to balance a 2-sided match. @Decimus was kind enough to explain.

@Decimus wrote:

''Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''

''I want to be rewarded, instead of punished, for ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers who don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of the 3-sided format. This is balance. People learning not to chase me, staying together and focusing me when I'm vulnerable? Ball group style gameplay, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone. ''

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

Need to know which challenges you dislike, other than the second one.

I did not have fun in any of those 3s. There was no challenge for me. It was basically overworld PvE.

Do you think you would have had fun playing in those 3s? Please answer one word affirmative yes/no.

Joy_Division

Haki_7 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

Xylena, when I check your screenshots, then I notice, that the mmr doesn't work for you for some reason

Yes that was part of the point. Is mmr working properly in Haki's 31-0 screenshots?

@Haki_7 I still don't understand. Do my last few screenshots of 3s look like fun matches to you? Please answer a clear "yes" or "no" as I think there seems to be some sort of miscommunication here.

With balancing? >>> YES <<<

I don't get the point.

Moving some low score players to the winning team? All that is saying is that ZOS's MMR isn't very good and after a match is completed, they can be made more even with hindsight? OK, the same can be done with two team 8v8 format.

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Need to know which challenges you dislike, other than the second one.

I did not have fun in any of those 3s. There was no challenge for me. It was basically overworld PvE.

Do you think you would have had fun playing in those 3s? Please answer one word affirmative yes/no.

I was asking about 3-sided BG in general. Please answer with the numbers 1-6.

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote:

But there was no balancing back then either???

So its ok to assume that 4v4v4s would be ok if the teams were balanced properly, but your main issue with 2 team BGs are the unbalanced teams?
What kind of logic is that?

Either put both modes in a setting where they are balanced or neither.

@xylena_lazarow wrote:

That's a good point, why do lopsided 3s get the benefit of rebalancing, but not 2s?

Joy_Division wrote:

Moving some low score players to the winning team? All that is saying is that ZOS's MMR isn't very good and after a match is completed, they can be made more even with hindsight? OK, the same can be done with two team 8v8 format.

@xylena_lazarow , @Jierdanit @Joy_Division Switching players around obviously wouldn't work without the challenges of 3-sided to force people into what @Decimus calls ''ball group style gameplay''.

Here:

Decimus wrote:

''Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''

Joy_Division

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote:

But there was no balancing back then either???

So its ok to assume that 4v4v4s would be ok if the teams were balanced properly, but your main issue with 2 team BGs are the unbalanced teams?
What kind of logic is that?

Either put both modes in a setting where they are balanced or neither.

@xylena_lazarow wrote:

That's a good point, why do lopsided 3s get the benefit of rebalancing, but not 2s?

Joy_Division wrote:

Moving some low score players to the winning team? All that is saying is that ZOS's MMR isn't very good and after a match is completed, they can be made more even with hindsight? OK, the same can be done with two team 8v8 format.

@xylena_lazarow , @Jierdanit @Joy_Division Switching players around obviously wouldn't work without the challenges of 3-sided to force people into what @Decimus calls ''ball group style gameplay''.

Here:

Decimus wrote:

''Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''

Well, Decimus is right.

When a key strategy to overcome the "challenges" of a three team format becomes do nothing and let the other teams exhausts each other to pick of KBs or cherry pick undefended objectives, while that may generate points, it takes a very low level of player skill to do that. It encourages such low risk-high reward, safe gameplay that encourages people to ball together because there are 8 opponents out there while you have just 3 allies. Trying to use you skill to draw off enemies in a 1v2 will accrue no benefit to the rest of your teammates because they are still outnumbered 3 to 10.

I also think there is a lot of selective remembering and nostalgia for the three team format going on here. Never mind that ZOS did not support BGs since 2019, which tells us it was a niche activity that was not worth investing money in. Cyrodiil is also a 3 team format and the amount of whining, complaining, and bitterness of being double-teamed, of the "purple or "green" alliance, of treachery and outfight collaboration was so loud and deafening that ZOS felt compelled to implement alliance locks (which do not prevent such things from happening regardless of what its partisans claim). Ironically, most of the times people are complaining about stuff like that is legit good strategy. But that's the inherent problem with "good strategy." What's very effective for one team is very unfun for another team (usually getting doubled teamed by enemies who seem to be conspiring against you). How skillful is the general population of fighting off (to say nothing of winning) two different enemies. Very, very few. Not very fun. So, just ball together for safety, take few risks, and wait for the other two teams to fight each other. It's not surprising BGs quickly became a niche activity.

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

I was asking about 3-sided BG in general. Please answer with the numbers 1-6.

If you don't wish to engage with me then there is no need to try to change topics. I take it you're afraid to say yes and admit that lopsided pug stomping is fun, or say no and admit that sometimes 3s are unfun. It would be sympathetic to honestly admit some perceived minor flaw, but dodging and deflecting like this is never sympathetic.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Switching players around obviously wouldn't work without the challenges of 3-sided

Can you elaborate? Why would blindly switching players work in 3s but not 2s? Are you referring to the random chaos? The alternate path to victory where you avoid PvP? Why would blindly switching players work at all?

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

If you don't wish to engage with me then there is no need to try to change topics.

I've been asking for the numbers since last month.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I take it you're afraid to say yes and admit that lopsided pug stomping is fun, or say no and admit that sometimes 3s are unfun. It would be sympathetic to honestly admit some perceived minor flaw, but dodging and deflecting like this is never sympathetic.

Sure, I can answer ''no''. Did you bring these matches to Zenimax's attention, so they could be better balanced?

Decimus

Haki_7 wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

If you don't wish to engage with me then there is no need to try to change topics.

I've been asking for the numbers since last month.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I take it you're afraid to say yes and admit that lopsided pug stomping is fun, or say no and admit that sometimes 3s are unfun. It would be sympathetic to honestly admit some perceived minor flaw, but dodging and deflecting like this is never sympathetic.

Sure, I can answer ''no''. Did you bring these matches to Zenimax's attention, so they could be better balanced?

I did, for 7 years. For 7 years I kept mentioning on almost every stream how bad the 3-team format was and how much better battlegrounds could be if it just was 2 teams like in other, more successful competitive games (from MOBAs to MMOs).

I'm glad they finally listened, even if a bit late.


Of course there's more work to be done still. The problem with ZOS is that they often release content half-finished and then move on... look at Infinite Archives for example and how it still misses progression saving feature.

Moonspawn

Joy_Division wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote:

But there was no balancing back then either???

So its ok to assume that 4v4v4s would be ok if the teams were balanced properly, but your main issue with 2 team BGs are the unbalanced teams?
What kind of logic is that?

Either put both modes in a setting where they are balanced or neither.

@xylena_lazarow wrote:

That's a good point, why do lopsided 3s get the benefit of rebalancing, but not 2s?

Joy_Division wrote:

Moving some low score players to the winning team? All that is saying is that ZOS's MMR isn't very good and after a match is completed, they can be made more even with hindsight? OK, the same can be done with two team 8v8 format.

@xylena_lazarow , @Jierdanit @Joy_Division Switching players around obviously wouldn't work without the challenges of 3-sided to force people into what @Decimus calls ''ball group style gameplay''.

Here:

Decimus wrote:

''Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''

Well, Decimus is right.

When a key strategy to overcome the "challenges" of a three team format becomes do nothing and let the other teams exhausts each other to pick of KBs or cherry pick undefended objectives, while that may generate points, it takes a very low level of player skill to do that. It encourages such low risk-high reward, safe gameplay that encourages people to ball together because there are 8 opponents out there while you have just 3 allies. Trying to use you skill to draw off enemies in a 1v2 will accrue no benefit to the rest of your teammates because they are still outnumbered 3 to 10.

I also think there is a lot of selective remembering and nostalgia for the three team format going on here. Never mind that ZOS did not support BGs since 2019, which tells us it was a niche activity that was not worth investing money in. Cyrodiil is also a 3 team format and the amount of whining, complaining, and bitterness of being double-teamed, of the "purple or "green" alliance, of treachery and outfight collaboration was so loud and deafening that ZOS felt compelled to implement alliance locks (which do not prevent such things from happening regardless of what its partisans claim). Ironically, most of the times people are complaining about stuff like that is legit good strategy. But that's the inherent problem with "good strategy." What's very effective for one team is very unfun for another team (usually getting doubled teamed by enemies who seem to be conspiring against you). How skillful is the general population of fighting off (to say nothing of winning) two different enemies. Very, very few. Not very fun. So, just ball together for safety, take few risks, and wait for the other two teams to fight each other. It's not surprising BGs quickly became a niche activity.

Sounds like you dislike the challenges of the 3-sided format and want to avoid them no matter what. This proves that 2-sided would survive the return of the real BGs.

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

Did you bring these matches to Zenimax's attention, so they could be better balanced?

Yeah I've made a bunch of posts asking for something to be done about spawn camping, terrain bugs, mercy rule, UI listing order, and of course Rushing Agony screwing the meta sideways. All things that would help make 2s better. You've now spent 28 pages just trashing 2s which makes it seem like all BGs should just be scrapped.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Can you elaborate? Why would blindly switching players work in 3s but not 2s? Are you referring to the random chaos? The alternate path to victory where you avoid PvP? Why would blindly switching players work at all?

I thought Decimus's explanation was pretty accurate. Here:

Decimus wrote: »

''Now, team mates do split in team vs team BGs as well and outnumbered fights happen... but the difference is that while you're being outnumbered in team vs team, your team is outnumbering the rest of the opponents. That is balance: you can buy your team kills and objectives by just being a good player and surviving outnumbered.
If you do this in 3-way BGs, not only are you outnumbered, but so is your team - splitting into two groups just turns your fight into two 2v4s instead of one 2v4 and team being able to 6v4 meanwhile for example. This forces a ball group style gameplay on people, which is the last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''

You agree with this, right?

Markytous

All I know is, when I heard they were putting away 3-Team Battlegrounds I immediately started queuing with my wife for the last month not knowing if they'd truly be gone or not. They said they may return them for weekends so I told myself I can just do BGs on the weekends then since I never work weekends. Turns out they scrapped the 3-Team mode & maps and replaced them with funless trash. I'm so glad I got to spend quality time on 3-Team BGs with my loved one before they were removed for good. I no longer have fun playing BGs. It was night and day - as soon as 2-Team Format dropped, queues malfunctioning and trashy Cyrodiil ballgroup-style nonsense chased me out and sucked the fun out of Battlegrounds completely. I don't even queue anymore. Bought Morrowind, enjoyed the true 3-Team BGs, lived long enough to have my money stolen because for some reason people imagine this game to be balanced or functioning well enough to perform "competitively". We TOTALLY needed more COMPETITIVE Battlegrounds Yeah that's sarcasm. Its never going to happen.

Someone in here saying 4v4v4 encouraged "Ball Group" play?? How do you ball group in a 4-player sized group? That is still considered small-scale. Ball group play is only possible in the 8v8 and that's literally what killed them. People literally troll 8v8 by queueing in and disconnecting ON PURPOSE to make 15 players wait in an idiot box for the instance to close. 16 player matches is what we needed when they were saying 12 player ones were taking a long time to assemble as is?? Come on, folks. Queueing up just to see my entire team get 1shot by a bomber as I watch with my 5pc Sentry (the bombers use immovable pots I can't stop it).

Battlegrounds has become a clip farm for clickbait content, hasn't it? Thats what it is now and that's what is being advocated for, isn't it? 4v4s are unpopular so it was the 8v8 bombing/ball group play that's being pushed as "fun gameplay". Okay but you can enjoy that I'll be in the Imperial City getting 1-tapped by Lightning Staff Tri-Focus in peace. Thanks for stealing my Battlegrounds maps. RIP Malacath Arena and Eld Angvar.

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Did you bring these matches to Zenimax's attention, so they could be better balanced?

Yeah I've made a bunch of posts asking for something to be done about spawn camping, terrain bugs, mercy rule, UI listing order, and of course Rushing Agony screwing the meta sideways. All things that would help make 2s better. You've now spent 28 pages just trashing 2s which makes it seem like all BGs should just be scrapped.

How is what I'm doing now different from what you did back then?

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

How is what I'm doing now different from what you did back then?

I didn't trash 3-sided in any of those the way you're trashing 2-sided here.

Desiato

Battlegrounds is completely hopeless, despite the incredible potential of ESO PVP.

The main reason is very simple. ZOS is barely trying. BGs has so many glaring problems that can't possibly be resolved with such infrequent dev attention. There needs to be a dedicated PVP team that is on top of issues with frequent adjustments every month until there are real improvements. This will never happen. PVP will always just be an agenda item to tick off in this game.

The only players who seem to think it's great are those who run OP 1vX builds. And truly, that's the only way to have fun because chances are half your teammates will have no interest in PVP, will have terrible builds and will just get you VD proc'd.

They are there for transmutes. This is a critical issue because it results in bad matches. Only people with a legitimate interest or curiosity about PVP should be there. PVE players going through the motions is a real problem in terms of quality PVP. Quality PVP requires buy-in by all participants.

And then among those who do enjoy PVP, chances are they do not want to play the mode that was selected for them. How can anyone think this is cool?! Feel like some DM or capture and hold? TOO BAD! Well, it's too bad for everyone because that dude that just wants to DM isn't going to buy in to chaosball, possibly resulting in a bad experience for teammates who do.

I know this is a dead horse. I've been playing BGs just to level skill lines and that frustrates me because it exposes me to the potential of what could be a great pvp game that will never be realized. I'll stop soon and stop complaining until I have to play it again.

Decimus

Markytous wrote: »

All I know is, when I heard they were putting away 3-Team Battlegrounds I immediately started queuing with my wife for the last month not knowing if they'd truly be gone or not. They said they may return them for weekends so I told myself I can just do BGs on the weekends then since I never work weekends. Turns out they scrapped the 3-Team mode & maps and replaced them with funless trash. I'm so glad I got to spend quality time on 3-Team BGs with my loved one before they were removed for good. I no longer have fun playing BGs. It was night and day - as soon as 2-Team Format dropped, queues malfunctioning and trashy Cyrodiil ballgroup-style nonsense chased me out and sucked the fun out of Battlegrounds completely. I don't even queue anymore. Bought Morrowind, enjoyed the true 3-Team BGs, lived long enough to have my money stolen because for some reason people imagine this game to be balanced or functioning well enough to perform "competitively". We TOTALLY needed more COMPETITIVE Battlegrounds Yeah that's sarcasm. Its never going to happen.

Whether you're able to be competitive or not in 8v8s might be more of a gameplay/build question - some posters in this thread refuse to adapt their builds or gameplay habits and prefer complaining about not being able to run to empty flags anymore, or not being able to 3rd party and use their team mates to shield their ego.

A truly competitive player finds motivation in failure - the Ls actually teach us more than the Ws, but only if we're willing to listen.

If you're not after a competitive experience, maybe Cyrodiil is more your cup of tea - joining a ball group is probably the easiest way to remove any difficulty and skill from the gameplay and just go full autopilot.

Markytous wrote: »

Someone in here saying 4v4v4 encouraged "Ball Group" play?? How do you ball group in a 4-player sized group? That is still considered small-scale. Ball group play is only possible in the 8v8 and that's literally what killed them. People literally troll 8v8 by queueing in and disconnecting ON PURPOSE to make 15 players wait in an idiot box for the instance to close. 16 player matches is what we needed when they were saying 12 player ones were taking a long time to assemble as is?? Come on, folks. Queueing up just to see my entire team get 1shot by a bomber as I watch with my 5pc Sentry (the bombers use immovable pots I can't stop it).

Ball group style gameplay, very important distinction. I'm talking about being encouraged to be glued to your team mates and spamming crossheals on them - you can do this with 4 people and in previous BGs if you didn't do this, you were actively throwing the match because you'd leave your team outnumbered and gained nothing out of it.

In team vs team, you're creating an imbalance on one side of the map by tying up multiple opponents while outnumbered, which your team can then exploit. You are encouraged to utilize your personal skill in order to win the match, not rely on your group being good and two opponent teams focusing each other more than your team. This is no different from other team vs team competitive games - League, DOTA, Valorant, Marvel Rivals, WoW etc etc.

If you come across a group stacking together in 8v8, you can be sure they'll lose the game if the game mode is Domination or Crazy King... and with proper play they'll lose it if it's Capture the Relic or Chaosball as well.

Having multiple objectives and everyone running to the same one or leaving Relic base undefended isn't a recipe for success.


I will agree that Deathmatch results in a lot of people just stacking outside at opponent spawn, but that's no different from how it was before... except that you have only one team camping the poor weakest team jumping down, not two of them.

You can sometimes try to draw some of the enemies away, or burst some squishies and then kill them at the enemy spawn... but this depends on team compositions of course.


In the end, unfair matches happen, in every game, in sports too. It's easier to just come to terms with that than try to find some injustice in it.

Markytous wrote: »

Battlegrounds has become a clip farm for clickbait content, hasn't it? Thats what it is now and that's what is being advocated for, isn't it? 4v4s are unpopular so it was the 8v8 bombing/ball group play that's being pushed as "fun gameplay". Okay but you can enjoy that I'll be in the Imperial City getting 1-tapped by Lightning Staff Tri-Focus in peace. Thanks for stealing my Battlegrounds maps. RIP Malacath Arena and Eld Angvar.

Battlegrounds always have been the best way to farm content since you don't have to spend a long time to find a good fight - especially now that they last more than 2 minutes since there's no 3rd team running back the relic 5 times while you're engaged in a fun team vs team fight vs the other team.

But I'm glad you're enjoying Imperial City, you can avoid that Tri-Focus damage by being away from PvE mobs when that last lightning heavy tick (only one with Tri-Focus AoE damage) lands, or by dodge rolling it (yes, they made the last tick dodgeable a couple patches ago).

It'd also be cool if they revamped and reintroduced "Malacath Arena" (Mor Khazgur) & other old BG maps, as some of them were pretty cool.

It'd require changing it to a team vs team structure, but I'm sure that can be done.

Desiato

Decimus wrote: »

Whether you're able to be competitive or not in 8v8s might be more of a gameplay/build question - some posters in this thread refuse to adapt their builds or gameplay habits and prefer complaining about not being able to run to empty flags anymore, or not being able to 3rd party and use their team mates to shield their ego.

A truly competitive player finds motivation in failure - the Ls actually teach us more than the Ws, but only if we're willing to listen.

If you're not after a competitive experience, maybe Cyrodiil is more your cup of tea - joining a ball group is probably the easiest way to remove any difficulty and skill from the gameplay and just go full autopilot.

I doubt there is a truly competitive experience in ESO PVP. I think you are an outlier as a decent pvp player who enjoys eso pvp in its current state.

My bad experiences aren't about my poor performance. I can have an excellent match, my team could win and still hate it if the gameplay was poor. The gameplay is almost always poor, win or lose. Playing a facestomping build, a bomber or a support tank won't change that for me.

Moonspawn

Decimus wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

All I know is, when I heard they were putting away 3-Team Battlegrounds I immediately started queuing with my wife for the last month not knowing if they'd truly be gone or not. They said they may return them for weekends so I told myself I can just do BGs on the weekends then since I never work weekends. Turns out they scrapped the 3-Team mode & maps and replaced them with funless trash. I'm so glad I got to spend quality time on 3-Team BGs with my loved one before they were removed for good. I no longer have fun playing BGs. It was night and day - as soon as 2-Team Format dropped, queues malfunctioning and trashy Cyrodiil ballgroup-style nonsense chased me out and sucked the fun out of Battlegrounds completely. I don't even queue anymore. Bought Morrowind, enjoyed the true 3-Team BGs, lived long enough to have my money stolen because for some reason people imagine this game to be balanced or functioning well enough to perform "competitively". We TOTALLY needed more COMPETITIVE Battlegrounds Yeah that's sarcasm. Its never going to happen.

Whether you're able to be competitive or not in 8v8s might be more of a gameplay/build question - some posters in this thread refuse to adapt their builds or gameplay habits and prefer complaining about not being able to run to empty flags anymore, or not being able to 3rd party and use their team mates to shield their ego.

A truly competitive player finds motivation in failure - the Ls actually teach us more than the Ws, but only if we're willing to listen.

If you're not after a competitive experience, maybe Cyrodiil is more your cup of tea - joining a ball group is probably the easiest way to remove any difficulty and skill from the gameplay and just go full autopilot.

Markytous wrote: »

Someone in here saying 4v4v4 encouraged "Ball Group" play?? How do you ball group in a 4-player sized group? That is still considered small-scale. Ball group play is only possible in the 8v8 and that's literally what killed them. People literally troll 8v8 by queueing in and disconnecting ON PURPOSE to make 15 players wait in an idiot box for the instance to close. 16 player matches is what we needed when they were saying 12 player ones were taking a long time to assemble as is?? Come on, folks. Queueing up just to see my entire team get 1shot by a bomber as I watch with my 5pc Sentry (the bombers use immovable pots I can't stop it).

Ball group style gameplay, very important distinction. I'm talking about being encouraged to be glued to your team mates and spamming crossheals on them - you can do this with 4 people and in previous BGs if you didn't do this, you were actively throwing the match because you'd leave your team outnumbered and gained nothing out of it.

In team vs team, you're creating an imbalance on one side of the map by tying up multiple opponents while outnumbered, which your team can then exploit. You are encouraged to utilize your personal skill in order to win the match, not rely on your group being good and two opponent teams focusing each other more than your team. This is no different from other team vs team competitive games - League, DOTA, Valorant, Marvel Rivals, WoW etc etc.

If you come across a group stacking together in 8v8, you can be sure they'll lose the game if the game mode is Domination or Crazy King... and with proper play they'll lose it if it's Capture the Relic or Chaosball as well.

Having multiple objectives and everyone running to the same one or leaving Relic base undefended isn't a recipe for success.


I will agree that Deathmatch results in a lot of people just stacking outside at opponent spawn, but that's no different from how it was before... except that you have only one team camping the poor weakest team jumping down, not two of them.

You can sometimes try to draw some of the enemies away, or burst some squishies and then kill them at the enemy spawn... but this depends on team compositions of course.


In the end, unfair matches happen, in every game, in sports too. It's easier to just come to terms with that than try to find some injustice in it.

Markytous wrote: »

Battlegrounds has become a clip farm for clickbait content, hasn't it? Thats what it is now and that's what is being advocated for, isn't it? 4v4s are unpopular so it was the 8v8 bombing/ball group play that's being pushed as "fun gameplay". Okay but you can enjoy that I'll be in the Imperial City getting 1-tapped by Lightning Staff Tri-Focus in peace. Thanks for stealing my Battlegrounds maps. RIP Malacath Arena and Eld Angvar.

Battlegrounds always have been the best way to farm content since you don't have to spend a long time to find a good fight - especially now that they last more than 2 minutes since there's no 3rd team running back the relic 5 times while you're engaged in a fun team vs team fight vs the other team.

But I'm glad you're enjoying Imperial City, you can avoid that Tri-Focus damage by being away from PvE mobs when that last lightning heavy tick (only one with Tri-Focus AoE damage) lands, or by dodge rolling it (yes, they made the last tick dodgeable a couple patches ago).

It'd also be cool if they revamped and reintroduced "Malacath Arena" (Mor Khazgur) & other old BG maps, as some of them were pretty cool.

It'd require changing it to a team vs team structure, but I'm sure that can be done.

I like how you just keep repeating this over and over without any shame whatsoever:

''Instead of being punished, I want to be rewarded for ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers who don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of the 3-sided format. This is balance. People learning not to chase me, staying together and focusing me when I'm vulnerable? Ball group style gameplay, last thing battlegrounds need. Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.''