Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Markytous

Yeah naw. I consistently get ridiculous and mean KDAs in BGs and I still don't like them. This has nothing to do with my winning or losing. I wup in there. The entire design philosophy has been lost and now we have a system which is trying its best (and failing) to be Counter Strike with sticks. Three-Banners War. Almalexia, Vivec, Sotha Sil. Health, Magicka, Stamina. Three, Three, Three. Pit Daemons and Firedrakes... (STORM LORDS RETIRED???) Why? ESO is a game of rules of three. Its more FUN that way. ESO is feeling more and more like Super Smash Bros. where everyone plays it at parties and that one weird kid in the back is secretly a pro who makes every match all about himself (its the only game they play). ESO doesn't need to be for the showerless in all forms of its PVP. 4v4v4 didn't need removal. If 8v8 needed to be implemented then implement it. Don't force me to play stuff I don't want to. I simply don't queue anymore.

Also for goodness sake remove the different queues between solo and group - people queue in unison in solos and still get in the same match! Group queue breaks when one person drops out, wasting the time of 15 players. There aren't enough players to support 16 player req. queues in this. Of course this is used as an excuse to force 8v8 and remove 4v4v4 (bbbbut the low player count!) but pushing out players should never be the solution. Needing more per queue?? Having queues break consistently???? No spooky 3AM BGs because there's not enough players to fill the 16 player req.?? Never was an issue before BGs were killed with 8v8.

4v4 doesn't exist. That mode is non-content. You queue in, see your teammate with 18k HP and still have to wait 7 minutes til it's over. "BUT YOUR MMR!" why should I force myself to play non-fun until it gets fun? 4v4v4 was always fun. You'd get matches that some player(s) drop out and the queue/match wouldn't just break like 8v8 does. There are too many infrastructure issues with 8v8 and 4v4 is a total waste of time.

Lastly, most players don't enjoy Balorgh Mech Acuity Ult spam. Players such as myself don't have an attention span for needing to reassure myself over and over by abusing overperforming stuff and making matches feel horrible for everyone but myself. Spawncamping the enemy or being shot by ridiculous ranged damage while in spawn are all anti-fun mechanics. Issues that never plagued 4v4v4! You'd encounter a "good player" and coordinate with your team (4) and counterplay (good player in quotes because abusing OP sets and having good mechanics are different things)(crutching on Rallying Cry). There's more GAME inside the game in 4v4v4. It's not a simple, uncoordinated slapfight like 8v8 offers. "It gets good at higher MMR" Uhhh 4v4v4s were always fun at all MMRs.

BGs were stolen from me. Cyrodiil was stolen from me due to ball groups and lag. IC is all thats left.

Decimus

Moonspawn wrote: »

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:

The irony of this statement is palpable.

Moonspawn wrote: »

''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.''

Using some logic here, do you think those "newcomers" would have a better time if I fought them alongside my entire team?

If anything I'm giving them a chance at getting a kill if I make a mistake, rather than sitting in my team and just getting crosshealed and leaving the "newcomers" with zero chance.


The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever, since they don't see their damage even register and get deleted in an instant if they're not playing like a ball group themselves.

Luckily in team vs team this is rewarded much less than in 3-way format, punished even when there's multiple objectives.

Fundamental problem, glad it's gone.

Markytous

Decimus wrote: »

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever, since they don't see their damage even register and get deleted in an instant if they're not playing like a ball group themselves.

Luckily in team vs team this is rewarded much less than in 3-way format, punished

Having 8 teammates pumping smart and AOE heals/shields is more effective than 4 though. Every added member to the ball makes the ball stronger so wouldn't you agree that the bigger group ball playing would be more unkillable than a smaller one?

Btw I appreciate the nod to IC. I love IC. Its literally all I do now in ESO - its just that good imo.

Decimus

Markytous wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever, since they don't see their damage even register and get deleted in an instant if they're not playing like a ball group themselves.

Luckily in team vs team this is rewarded much less than in 3-way format, punished

Having 8 teammates pumping smart and AOE heals/shields is more effective than 4 though. Every added member to the ball makes the ball stronger so wouldn't you agree that the bigger group ball playing would be more unkillable than a smaller one?

Btw I appreciate the nod to IC. I love IC. Its literally all I do now in ESO - its just that good imo.

Yes, but this is only a thing in organized group BGs where people don't care about winning the objective and all agree to just deathmatch, or in actual deathmatch in solo queue as well where teams are super unbalanced. Happens sometimes, but it's still possible to peel off people from the stack camping your spawn and wind up with a decent KDR - can't win them all.

Take it from someone who's got a 75% WR in solo Q BGs across close to 700 games, people who play in a ball group manner and all run to one flag as a group when there's multiple around tend to lose those BGs.

Moonspawn

Decimus wrote: »

The irony of this statement is palpable.

I was hoping that, if you read it enough, you would eventually come to your senses. Apparently I was too optimistic. Might as well put it in your forum signature.

Decimus wrote: »

Using some logic here, do you think those "newcomers" would have a better time if I fought them alongside my entire team?
If anything I'm giving them a chance at getting a kill if I make a mistake, rather than sitting in my team and just getting crosshealed and leaving the "newcomers" with zero chance.

Then you and your teammates would find either success or failure, depending on your ability to face the challenges of 3-sided—together. And if you lost? You'd do that together too.

Decimus wrote: »

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever, since they don't see their damage even register and get deleted in an instant if they're not playing like a ball group themselves.

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever stay in BGs forever, since it's easy to learn and strong as hell in 3-sided (for various reasons, but mainly the threat of the sandwich).

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever stay in BGs forever, since it's easy to learn and strong as hell in 3-sided (for various reasons, but mainly the threat of the sandwich).

Huh? So you are saying you enjoy 3-sided because it encourages ball grouping?

Decimus

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Using some logic here, do you think those "newcomers" would have a better time if I fought them alongside my entire team?
If anything I'm giving them a chance at getting a kill if I make a mistake, rather than sitting in my team and just getting crosshealed and leaving the "newcomers" with zero chance.

Then you and your teammates would find either success or failure, depending on your ability to face the challenges of 3-sided—together. And if you lost? You'd do that together too.

I forget how hard logic can be these days, my bad. Let me rephrase it differently:
Moonspawn's "Problem"
Player A ditches team and fights "newcomers" outnumbered, who then "don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making", implying "newcomers" are performing poorly against one strong player.

Moonspawn's "Not A Problem"
Player A sticks with team and obliterates "newcomers", because if these players performed poorly against Player A when outnumbering him/her, surely they'll do better when it's Player A with Players B C & D?

Also, we are talking about team vs team format here since it is what you're complaining about, but this very same formula applies to 3-way format as well. Surely you can see how flawed your whole argument is?


As a side note, I wouldn't be talking about "successes and failures" while still being too scared to post my win rate and KDR, so far to me it sounds like you're only familiar with the latter.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever, since they don't see their damage even register and get deleted in an instant if they're not playing like a ball group themselves.

The gameplay where people stay together and get crosshealed by each other (i.e. ball group style gameplay) is exactly the gameplay that makes the "newcomers" quit BGs forever stay in BGs forever, since it's easy to learn and strong as hell in 3-sided (for various reasons, but mainly the threat of the sandwich).

Ah yes, so you want to roll the dice on getting the strongest team composition and team mates who actually want to stick together... and then steamroll teams that don't. Sounds very competitive and fun /s

It makes sense that players who are too scared to post their win rate/KDR would prefer relying on RNG to win games rather than personal skill.


A quick search on community sentiment on ball groups by the way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=ball+groups

Thumbless_Bot

Markytous wrote: »

Yeah naw. I consistently get ridiculous and mean KDAs in BGs and I still don't like them. This has nothing to do with my winning or losing. I wup in there. The entire design philosophy has been lost and now we have a system which is trying its best (and failing) to be Counter Strike with sticks. Three-Banners War. Almalexia, Vivec, Sotha Sil. Health, Magicka, Stamina. Three, Three, Three. Pit Daemons and Firedrakes... (STORM LORDS RETIRED???) Why? ESO is a game of three, three, three.

No spooky 3AM BGs because there's not enough players to fill the 16 player req.?? Never was an issue before BGs were killed with 8v8.

4v4 doesn't exist. That mode is non-content. You queue in, see your teammate with 18k HP and still have to wait 7 minutes til it's over.

Lastly, most players don't enjoy Balorgh Mech Acuity Ult spam. Players such as myself don't have an attention span for needing to reassure myself over and over by abusing overperforming stuff and making matches feel horrible for everyone but myself.

BGs were stolen from me. Cyrodiil was stolen from me due to ball groups and lag. IC is all thats left.

Pretty much this. Zos spent 18-24 months decimating bgs. Thanks fer nothin'.

Moonspawn

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn's "Problem"
Player A ditches team and fights "newcomers" outnumbered, who then "don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making", implying "newcomers" are performing poorly against one strong player.

The problem is not giving the newcomers the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of 3-sided, which is the perfect counter to one or two players trying to pick them off one by one.

Decimus wrote: »

Player A sticks with team and obliterates "newcomers", because if these players performed poorly against Player A when outnumbering him/her, surely they'll do better when it's Player A with Players B C & D?

How? If the newcomers had the option to learn from the challenges of 3-sided wouldn't they simply turtle up and retreat? (in 2-sided, this would only delay the inevitable) And in Player A's thirst to ''obliterate'' the newcomers he would be caught and annihilated inside a sandwich when the third team came around. Also, there would most likely be newcomers and PVPers in every team. Player A wouldn't even be able to isolate the softest targets if they knew not to chase.

Decimus wrote: »

Ah yes, so you want to roll the dice on getting the strongest team composition and team mates who actually want to stick together... and then steamroll teams that don't. Sounds very competitive and fun /s

It was extremely rare for a single team to be stronger than the combination of the other two. The most common distribution was 1 or 2 BG regulars per team, and the rest of the slots were filled with players looking for the daily.

Decimus wrote: »

A quick search on community sentiment on ball groups by the way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=ball+groups

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

Imperial_Archmage

Just wanted to drop in and say that I would like to profoundly apologize for being completely useless to any of the teams I end up on. I am literally only doing this long enough to get the Eld Angavar Staff and then I will happily go back to never engaging with PvP in any shape or form again. I have about 70 more items left in the pool of possible style pages so at worse it will take a few more weeks.

It’s so frustrating being forced into this game mode just because I want a certain reward and I am sure it’s equally frustrating for the players who actually enjoy PvP to have folks like me pollute the pool for solo queues. Unless y’all are sadistic and enjoy griefing cannon fodder, lol.

Thumbless_Bot

Imperial_Archmage wrote: »

Just wanted to drop in and say that I would like to profoundly apologize for being completely useless to any of the teams I end up on. I am literally only doing this long enough to get the Eld Angavar Staff and then I will happily go back to never engaging with PvP in any shape or form again. I have about 70 more items left in the pool of possible style pages so at worse it will take a few more weeks.

It’s so frustrating being forced into this game mode just because I want a certain reward and I am sure it’s equally frustrating for the players who actually enjoy PvP to have folks like me pollute the pool for solo queues. Unless y’all are sadistic and enjoy griefing cannon fodder, lol.

You aren't polluting anything. It's a game. Try to have fun. You might enjoy them a bit more if you build for pvp. Maybe not. Just a thought.

Imperial_Archmage

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Imperial_Archmage wrote: »

Just wanted to drop in and say that I would like to profoundly apologize for being completely useless to any of the teams I end up on. I am literally only doing this long enough to get the Eld Angavar Staff and then I will happily go back to never engaging with PvP in any shape or form again. I have about 70 more items left in the pool of possible style pages so at worse it will take a few more weeks.

It’s so frustrating being forced into this game mode just because I want a certain reward and I am sure it’s equally frustrating for the players who actually enjoy PvP to have folks like me pollute the pool for solo queues. Unless y’all are sadistic and enjoy griefing cannon fodder, lol.

You aren't polluting anything. It's a game. Try to have fun. You might enjoy them a bit more if you build for pvp. Maybe not. Just a thought.

Oh I tried but it’s too much hassle to gear all my characters for PvP and because of the way the system for acquiring style pages works you’re basically forced to cycle all of your characters for the daily reward.

As for enjoying it, I highly doubt it because I keep encountering players running the “immortal” turtle builds where they do no damage and don’t engage you in combat but just camp objectives needlessly prolonging the battleground and turning it into an extremely frustrating experience for everyone involved. I honestly don’t understand why ZOS allow those kinds of builds to exist at all.

Thumbless_Bot

Markytous

Imperial_Archmage wrote: »

Just wanted to drop in and say that I would like to profoundly apologize for being completely useless to any of the teams I end up on. I am literally only doing this long enough to get the Eld Angavar Staff and then I will happily go back to never engaging with PvP in any shape or form again. I have about 70 more items left in the pool of possible style pages so at worse it will take a few more weeks.

It’s so frustrating being forced into this game mode just because I want a certain reward and I am sure it’s equally frustrating for the players who actually enjoy PvP to have folks like me pollute the pool for solo queues. Unless y’all are sadistic and enjoy griefing cannon fodder, lol.

I feel for you. 4v4v4, 3-Team Battlegrounds gave first-time daily win rewards to 2 of the 3 teams before they scrapped them and replaced them with 2-Team Format. AP Farming is more rewarding now, sure, but before getting Battlegrounds motifs was faster and more fun overall. Nowadays you queue forever, find a match, potentially get kicked back to waiting again due to a disconnect then back to queue forever. Get into a match and deal with Cyro Ballgroup gamers, bombers and super tanks every match. For a player new to PVP this Battlegrounds overhaul was a nightmare. I'm sorry you had to suffer this way.

ruskiii

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

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

If you replace your spot with a player of the niveau of everyone else in that match, then you would have a perfectly balanced match.

I think if your mmr would work and you get matched into battles with players on your skill-level, then you would also have balanced matches.

But veterans seems to be a dying species, so you always get matched with cuties

The MMR doesnt work because it resets monthly, as soon as you get out of seal clubbing territory you get dropped back into it when a new month starts.

I'm pretty sure that most of people's problems with the new BGs could be made significantly better if they
1) stop resetting mmr.
2) make casual 8v8 the first option to stop putting noobs who dont check drop down menus into competitive mode.
3) let games start with incomplete teams and fill as the match goes on like they used to

Decimus

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn's "Problem"
Player A ditches team and fights "newcomers" outnumbered, who then "don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making", implying "newcomers" are performing poorly against one strong player.

The problem is not giving the newcomers the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of 3-sided, which is the perfect counter to one or two players trying to pick them off one by one.

Decimus wrote: »

Player A sticks with team and obliterates "newcomers", because if these players performed poorly against Player A when outnumbering him/her, surely they'll do better when it's Player A with Players B C & D?

How? If the newcomers had the option to learn from the challenges of 3-sided wouldn't they simply turtle up and retreat? (in 2-sided, this would only delay the inevitable) And in Player A's thirst to ''obliterate'' the newcomers he would be caught and annihilated inside a sandwich when the third team came around. Also, there would most likely be newcomers and PVPers in every team. Player A wouldn't even be able to isolate the softest targets if they knew not to chase.

Decimus wrote: »

Ah yes, so you want to roll the dice on getting the strongest team composition and team mates who actually want to stick together... and then steamroll teams that don't. Sounds very competitive and fun /s

It was extremely rare for a single team to be stronger than the combination of the other two. The most common distribution was 1 or 2 BG regulars per team, and the rest of the slots were filled with players looking for the daily.

Decimus wrote: »

A quick search on community sentiment on ball groups by the way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=ball+groups

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

At this point I'm not even sure if you PvP, or ever have.

Let me get this straight, the 20k health bowblades and beamcanists are suddenly just going to "turtle up and retreat" due to some esoteric knowledge granted to them by the aura of 3-way battlegrounds? I think we're done here.

Good players will always farm the bad ones, this is how it has always been and how it always will be. This is from 2022, 3-way BGs:

BGs where the less experienced players are getting absolutely farmed isn't "extremely uncommon", it's the norm. It's either one team farming the other two, or two teams farming the weakest one... or if teams are somewhat balanced it's still the BG regulars farming the squishies in opposing teams for good KDR because it'd be pointless to play objective in 3-way garbage.


The connection between 4 solo players with crossheals running in a pack crosshealing (maybe with a full healer thrown in) each other and a ball group in Cyrodiil crosshealing each other is pretty obvious to me.

Both also like to run after outnumbered, less organized players without said crossheals, creating an environment devoid of any skill.


You seem to be living in your own reality here.

Markytous

ruskiii wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

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

If you replace your spot with a player of the niveau of everyone else in that match, then you would have a perfectly balanced match.

I think if your mmr would work and you get matched into battles with players on your skill-level, then you would also have balanced matches.

But veterans seems to be a dying species, so you always get matched with cuties

The MMR doesnt work because it resets monthly, as soon as you get out of seal clubbing territory you get dropped back into it when a new month starts.

I'm pretty sure that most of people's problems with the new BGs could be made significantly better if they
1) stop resetting mmr.
2) make casual 8v8 the first option to stop putting noobs who dont check drop down menus into competitive mode.
3) let games start with incomplete teams and fill as the match goes on like they used to

They need to fix the 1 disconnector trolling 15 players out of their match and 30 minutes of irl time per troll attempt before even considering anything else. I don't queue because the wait time for funless matches is needlessly long and is actively being sabotaged by people protesting 2-Team format (rightfully so because they're awful). I just want to PVP but the queue loop is a forever wait for an 8v8 unsophisticated flogging session that resolves in 20-30 seconds due to imbalanced teams. 30 minutes wait due to queue breaking/not popping then 5-10 minutes enduring barbaric, tactless zergfest gameplay.

Point #3 yep basically that as a yesterday fix 100% agreed.

Markytous

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

I don't see how anyone can accuse 3-Team format of being more "ballgroupy" than 2-Team format. By admission, the concession was made that more players equals stronger ball groups. 4 is less than 8. Ball groups shouldn't be brought up if one is arguing support of 8-player teams. Its a simple rule. More players you have on a team, the likelihood of it becoming ballgroup-like in nature increases. Conversely, less players per team encourages more self-sufficient build-making aka LESS aoe heal/shield spam. This is rudimentary in numerics.

Decimus

Markytous wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

I don't see how anyone can accuse 3-Team format of being more "ballgroupy" than 2-Team format. By admission, the concession was made that more players equals stronger ball groups. 4 is less than 8. Ball groups shouldn't be brought up if one is arguing support of 8-player teams. Its a simple rule. More players you have on a team, the likelihood of it becoming ballgroup-like in nature increases. Conversely, less players per team encourages more self-sufficient build-making aka LESS aoe heal/shield spam. This is rudimentary in numerics.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 3-way format and instead go fight the other team? Ah, right - you leave your team to 3v4 (i.e. at a disadvantage) vs the 3rd team.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 2-way format and instead fight outnumbered somewhere on the map? You create an imbalance on the other side of the map, allowing your team to outnumber instead on that side.

Now the question:
Which one of these formats encourages people to always stick to their team (i.e. play like a ball group) and which one rewards good personal performance?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one, it's pretty obvious.


The number of players in each team is irrelevant as long as you're encouraged to be at multiple locations on the map and you get something positive out of fighting & surviving outnumbered. This works just like it does in League of Legends, WoW, DOTA, CS, Valorant, Marvel Rivals etc etc.


If ball group style gameplay was a big issue in 8v8 I'd be the first one to complain about it since I do solo Q BGs daily, something I can't say about a lot of posters here.

Thumbless_Bot

Markytous wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

I don't see how anyone can accuse 3-Team format of being more "ballgroupy" than 2-Team format. By admission, the concession was made that more players equals stronger ball groups. 4 is less than 8. Ball groups shouldn't be brought up if one is arguing support of 8-player teams. Its a simple rule. More players you have on a team, the likelihood of it becoming ballgroup-like in nature increases. Conversely, less players per team encourages more self-sufficient build-making aka LESS aoe heal/shield spam. This is rudimentary in numerics.

There is a term for this:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance

Either that or a bit of gaslighting.

Both permeate these forums and this topic especially.

Moonspawn

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn's "Problem"
Player A ditches team and fights "newcomers" outnumbered, who then "don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making", implying "newcomers" are performing poorly against one strong player.

The problem is not giving the newcomers the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of 3-sided, which is the perfect counter to one or two players trying to pick them off one by one.

Decimus wrote: »

Player A sticks with team and obliterates "newcomers", because if these players performed poorly against Player A when outnumbering him/her, surely they'll do better when it's Player A with Players B C & D?

How? If the newcomers had the option to learn from the challenges of 3-sided wouldn't they simply turtle up and retreat? (in 2-sided, this would only delay the inevitable) And in Player A's thirst to ''obliterate'' the newcomers he would be caught and annihilated inside a sandwich when the third team came around. Also, there would most likely be newcomers and PVPers in every team. Player A wouldn't even be able to isolate the softest targets if they knew not to chase.

Decimus wrote: »

Ah yes, so you want to roll the dice on getting the strongest team composition and team mates who actually want to stick together... and then steamroll teams that don't. Sounds very competitive and fun /s

It was extremely rare for a single team to be stronger than the combination of the other two. The most common distribution was 1 or 2 BG regulars per team, and the rest of the slots were filled with players looking for the daily.

Decimus wrote: »

A quick search on community sentiment on ball groups by the way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=ball+groups

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

At this point I'm not even sure if you PvP, or ever have.

Let me get this straight, the 20k health bowblades and beamcanists are suddenly just going to "turtle up and retreat" due to some esoteric knowledge granted to them by the aura of 3-way battlegrounds? I think we're done here.

Good players will always farm the bad ones, this is how it has always been and how it always will be. This is from 2022, 3-way BGs:

BGs where the less experienced players are getting absolutely farmed isn't "extremely uncommon", it's the norm. It's either one team farming the other two, or two teams farming the weakest one... or if teams are somewhat balanced it's still the BG regulars farming the squishies in opposing teams for good KDR because it'd be pointless to play objective in 3-way garbage.


The connection between 4 solo players with crossheals running in a pack crosshealing (maybe with a full healer thrown in) each other and a ball group in Cyrodiil crosshealing each other is pretty obvious to me.

Both also like to run after outnumbered, less organized players without said crossheals, creating an environment devoid of any skill.


You seem to be living in your own reality here.

It seems to me that you just repeated this yet again:

''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.''

Assuming that was not your intention (for the third time) maybe communication would be easier if we refer to ''ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers'' as ''seal clubber style''. And I believe that sticking with the team, helping one another, focusing the damage on the correct targets, etc... should be called something other than ''ball group style'' because it appears to be causing some serious confusion with what they do in Cyrodil. Since it is the perfect counter to the first, maybe it should be called ''anti- seal clubber style''.

Looks like you agree that 3-sided BGs favored the anti-seal clubber style. Why are you so against people having the option to learn it there?

Markytous

Decimus wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

I don't see how anyone can accuse 3-Team format of being more "ballgroupy" than 2-Team format. By admission, the concession was made that more players equals stronger ball groups. 4 is less than 8. Ball groups shouldn't be brought up if one is arguing support of 8-player teams. Its a simple rule. More players you have on a team, the likelihood of it becoming ballgroup-like in nature increases. Conversely, less players per team encourages more self-sufficient build-making aka LESS aoe heal/shield spam. This is rudimentary in numerics.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 3-way format and instead go fight the other team? Ah, right - you leave your team to 3v4 (i.e. at a disadvantage) vs the 3rd team.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 2-way format and instead fight outnumbered somewhere on the map? You create an imbalance on the other side of the map, allowing your team to outnumber instead on that side.

Now the question:
Which one of these formats encourages people to always stick to their team (i.e. play like a ball group) and which one rewards good personal performance?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one, it's pretty obvious.


The number of players in each team is irrelevant as long as you're encouraged to be at multiple locations on the map and you get something positive out of fighting & surviving outnumbered. This works just like it does in League of Legends, WoW, DOTA, CS, Valorant, Marvel Rivals etc etc.


If ball group style gameplay was a big issue in 8v8 I'd be the first one to complain about it since I do solo Q BGs daily, something I can't say about a lot of posters here.

Depending on the game mode, 3-Team Format didn't allow for you to stack 4 because multiple objectives or attack/defend scenarios would require a confident player(s) to take initiative and split. Ideally into duos to attack/defend. The lower team size reinforces more self-sufficient build styles and a team of healers/tanks simply cannot win anything but domination. As a proficient 1vX you will eventually get flagged and dogpiled in 2-Team format if you make a dent against any cohesive team. Personal skill matters less and less the bigger the teams as everyone has a means to contribute and compile efforts. Channels become crowded with said efforts which blur. Less tactics or critical thinking because there are too many stimulus to interact with for this to be considered competitive at all. "Just don't go there" isn't interactive gameplay and in 8v8 capture the relic most teams just stack up and move (either on attack or defense) as a ball to try for a play. Acting as a 1 vs the X that now exists in large numbers in BGs due to 8 player teams is more meaningless than ever and encourages super-tank or bomber gameplay.

I respect your time and efforts in PVP. I know you're experienced and I appreciate the time you put into your posts. I happen to disagree that 2-Team has been conductive to making a fun, dynamic place for PVP of all levels of expertise especially for new players. You and I eat these new players alive and thats part of the new experience for sure! However BGs were far more relaxed before and gave affirmation that efforts were being made on a small way when 2nd place existed for players to get rewards from. The thing I can say which is absolutely a positive is the AP Rewards for the Worthy overhaul that came with 2-Team BGs has been fantastic. It makes the irritation I wrestle with when trying to get into a modern BG somewhat pay off. I just wish the moment to moment wasn't such a pain in the neck. (Edit: pressed post accidentally lol)

Decimus

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn's "Problem"
Player A ditches team and fights "newcomers" outnumbered, who then "don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making", implying "newcomers" are performing poorly against one strong player.

The problem is not giving the newcomers the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of 3-sided, which is the perfect counter to one or two players trying to pick them off one by one.

Decimus wrote: »

Player A sticks with team and obliterates "newcomers", because if these players performed poorly against Player A when outnumbering him/her, surely they'll do better when it's Player A with Players B C & D?

How? If the newcomers had the option to learn from the challenges of 3-sided wouldn't they simply turtle up and retreat? (in 2-sided, this would only delay the inevitable) And in Player A's thirst to ''obliterate'' the newcomers he would be caught and annihilated inside a sandwich when the third team came around. Also, there would most likely be newcomers and PVPers in every team. Player A wouldn't even be able to isolate the softest targets if they knew not to chase.

Decimus wrote: »

Ah yes, so you want to roll the dice on getting the strongest team composition and team mates who actually want to stick together... and then steamroll teams that don't. Sounds very competitive and fun /s

It was extremely rare for a single team to be stronger than the combination of the other two. The most common distribution was 1 or 2 BG regulars per team, and the rest of the slots were filled with players looking for the daily.

Decimus wrote: »

A quick search on community sentiment on ball groups by the way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=ball+groups

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

At this point I'm not even sure if you PvP, or ever have.

Let me get this straight, the 20k health bowblades and beamcanists are suddenly just going to "turtle up and retreat" due to some esoteric knowledge granted to them by the aura of 3-way battlegrounds? I think we're done here.

Good players will always farm the bad ones, this is how it has always been and how it always will be. This is from 2022, 3-way BGs:

BGs where the less experienced players are getting absolutely farmed isn't "extremely uncommon", it's the norm. It's either one team farming the other two, or two teams farming the weakest one... or if teams are somewhat balanced it's still the BG regulars farming the squishies in opposing teams for good KDR because it'd be pointless to play objective in 3-way garbage.


The connection between 4 solo players with crossheals running in a pack crosshealing (maybe with a full healer thrown in) each other and a ball group in Cyrodiil crosshealing each other is pretty obvious to me.

Both also like to run after outnumbered, less organized players without said crossheals, creating an environment devoid of any skill.


You seem to be living in your own reality here.

It seems to me that you just repeated this yet again:

''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.''

Assuming that was not your intention (for the third time) maybe communication would be easier if we refer to ''ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers'' as ''seal clubber style''. And I believe that sticking with the team, helping one another, focusing the damage on the correct targets, etc... should be called something other than ''ball group style'' because it appears to be causing some serious confusion with what they do in Cyrodil. Since it is the perfect counter to the first, maybe it should be called ''anti- seal clubber style''.

Looks like you agree that 3-sided BGs favored the anti-seal clubber style. Why are you so against people having the option to learn it there?

Is reading on your list of "unique challenges"? Here is what I wrote on February 7th:

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.

If you're going to quote ("<-this symbol) people, quote them correctly and don't twist their words to suit your delusions.

With that out of the way, you do realize that BGs can alternate between team fights and solo encounters? You'd do well to play some other team vs team games to have a general idea of how video games work... I'm having to explain very elementary, basic concepts here.

You can play in a group when it's required, but you can also go off on your own if that is what the situation calls for (which very often is the case with multiple objectives) and if that is within your skill set... you are not punished for doing so in team vs team, where as in a 3-way format you're almost always leaving your team outnumbered.

You can learn to do both in team vs team battlegrounds... or you can stick to your comfort zone.


At the risk of repeating myself: spamming heals and crossheals and sticking together in a ball is playing like a ball group. That is where the term comes from: ball (first word) group (second word).

Whether you get a group capable of playing as one or not is a result of RNG (matchmaking), and I can see why individuals scared of posting their win rates/KDRs would prefer their success be determined by chance, rather than skill.

Luckily it doesn't matter quite as much in team vs team battlegrounds, as the team that has the stronger composition isn't necessarily going to win if they employ the wrong tactics and just all stick together all game long thinking it's Cyrodiil and their objective is to 3 2 1 ultidump as many outnumbered players as possible.


Good riddance.

Decimus

Markytous wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

I don't see how anyone can accuse 3-Team format of being more "ballgroupy" than 2-Team format. By admission, the concession was made that more players equals stronger ball groups. 4 is less than 8. Ball groups shouldn't be brought up if one is arguing support of 8-player teams. Its a simple rule. More players you have on a team, the likelihood of it becoming ballgroup-like in nature increases. Conversely, less players per team encourages more self-sufficient build-making aka LESS aoe heal/shield spam. This is rudimentary in numerics.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 3-way format and instead go fight the other team? Ah, right - you leave your team to 3v4 (i.e. at a disadvantage) vs the 3rd team.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 2-way format and instead fight outnumbered somewhere on the map? You create an imbalance on the other side of the map, allowing your team to outnumber instead on that side.

Now the question:
Which one of these formats encourages people to always stick to their team (i.e. play like a ball group) and which one rewards good personal performance?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one, it's pretty obvious.


The number of players in each team is irrelevant as long as you're encouraged to be at multiple locations on the map and you get something positive out of fighting & surviving outnumbered. This works just like it does in League of Legends, WoW, DOTA, CS, Valorant, Marvel Rivals etc etc.


If ball group style gameplay was a big issue in 8v8 I'd be the first one to complain about it since I do solo Q BGs daily, something I can't say about a lot of posters here.

Depending on the game mode, 3-Team Format didn't allow for you to stack 4 because multiple objectives or attack/defend scenarios would require a confident player(s) to take initiative and split. Ideally into duos to attack/defend. The lower team size reinforces more self-sufficient build styles and a team of healers/tanks simply cannot win anything but domination. As a proficient 1vX you will eventually get flagged and dogpiled in 2-Team format if you make a dent against any cohesive team. Personal skill matters less and less the bigger the teams as everyone has a means to contribute and compile efforts. Channels become crowded with said efforts which blur. Less tactics or critical thinking because there are too many stimulus to interact with for this to be considered competitive at all. "Just don't go there" isn't interactive gameplay and in 8v8 capture the relic most teams just stack up and move (either on attack or defense) as a ball to try for a play. Acting as a 1 vs the X that now exists in large numbers in BGs due to 8 player teams is more meaningless than ever and encourages super-tank or bomber gameplay.

I respect your time and efforts in PVP. I know you're experienced and I appreciate the time you put into your posts. I happen to disagree that 2-Team has been conductive to making a fun, dynamic place for PVP of all levels of expertise especially for new players. You and I eat these new players alive and thats part of the new experience for sure! However BGs were far more relaxed before and gave affirmation that efforts were being made on a small way when 2nd place existed for players to get rewards from. The thing I can say which is absolutely a positive is the AP Rewards for the Worthy overhaul that came with 2-Team BGs has been fantastic. It makes the irritation I wrestle with when trying to get into a modern BG somewhat pay off. I just wish the moment to moment wasn't such a pain in the neck. (Edit: pressed post accidentally lol)

In 3-team format the most efficient way to win was moving in a stack of 4 and beelining objectives while other two teams "wasted time" fighting. If you spread out you'd always leave your team mates outnumbered against whichever team moved as 4. I had lost count of the amount of BGs where a team would just move to empty flags, all tank builds or healers and they'd just capture one after the other... while other two teams were fighting (or one was getting farmed).

Same thing happened in many Relic games where you'd be fighting 2-3 people, your team is fighting the 3rd team (3v4) and 1-2 people just capture your team's relic over and over again and win with zero kills.

Or deathmatches where it's just about who gets killing blows on the squishies... best case scenario it's a close match and there's no obvious weak team, but even those were decided by which team gets focused more than the others (RNG, either at the matchmaking stage or in target selection during the match).

My win rate went up from 57% (1st place) in 3-way format to what is currently 75%... so I do think you can play for a win in almost every match in team vs team format as well - you just need the right approach with the sigils, positioning, LOS etc.

I've won many, many Relic games for example with opponent team bringing 6-7 people to my team's base, I'd kill the 1-2 defending enemy Relic, pick it up & turn it in while my team successfully defended. That, or picking up a damage sigil and wiping the entire enemy team that's stacked up defending their Relic, allowing for myself or a team mate to pick it up and run it home.

Domination? I used to have 60% WR until I started communicating and typing to team to spread out to all flags as the game was about to begin. Went from 60% to close to 75%.

Chaosball? You go for the enemy chaosball carriers and just nuke down whoever picks one as they won't have heals in Vampire/Werewolf form and have ticking Oblivion damage.

And so on and so on...

If you enjoy PvP (and to me it sounds you do), I'd definitely give 8v8s more of a chance - it could be you've just had really bad luck with the matchmaking (this does happen from time to time, but not nearly as much as people think in 8v8 atleast). There's also ways to turn unbalanced BGs into atleast tolerable ones with the right positioning/sigils, sometimes even into wins (in times when you think it should be impossible).

I still preferred 3-way BGs to getting run down by ball groups in Cyrodiil/IC, but the team vs team format has revitalized the whole BG scene on PC/EU and has been a ton of fun.


I do agree on the rewards part, I can see frustration arise from it being more difficult to farm style pages or just get the daily rewards. I think what ZOS should do is have losses also count for the daily BG, to not make people feel like they wasted time.

This is something a lot of other games do ("participation rewards") and I've no idea why it wasn't implemented when BGs were revamped. Something like what Throne and Liberty does with their events is a good example of a functioning reward system that still encourages people to try their best and aim for good placements.

This also opens a window to provide additional rewards to the winning team, like increased chance of a style page or something akin to Undaunted Plunder that you can vendor for gold.

Markytous

Decimus wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

I don't see how anyone can accuse 3-Team format of being more "ballgroupy" than 2-Team format. By admission, the concession was made that more players equals stronger ball groups. 4 is less than 8. Ball groups shouldn't be brought up if one is arguing support of 8-player teams. Its a simple rule. More players you have on a team, the likelihood of it becoming ballgroup-like in nature increases. Conversely, less players per team encourages more self-sufficient build-making aka LESS aoe heal/shield spam. This is rudimentary in numerics.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 3-way format and instead go fight the other team? Ah, right - you leave your team to 3v4 (i.e. at a disadvantage) vs the 3rd team.

What happens when you don't stick to your group in a 2-way format and instead fight outnumbered somewhere on the map? You create an imbalance on the other side of the map, allowing your team to outnumber instead on that side.

Now the question:
Which one of these formats encourages people to always stick to their team (i.e. play like a ball group) and which one rewards good personal performance?

I think everyone knows the answer to that one, it's pretty obvious.


The number of players in each team is irrelevant as long as you're encouraged to be at multiple locations on the map and you get something positive out of fighting & surviving outnumbered. This works just like it does in League of Legends, WoW, DOTA, CS, Valorant, Marvel Rivals etc etc.


If ball group style gameplay was a big issue in 8v8 I'd be the first one to complain about it since I do solo Q BGs daily, something I can't say about a lot of posters here.

Depending on the game mode, 3-Team Format didn't allow for you to stack 4 because multiple objectives or attack/defend scenarios would require a confident player(s) to take initiative and split. Ideally into duos to attack/defend. The lower team size reinforces more self-sufficient build styles and a team of healers/tanks simply cannot win anything but domination. As a proficient 1vX you will eventually get flagged and dogpiled in 2-Team format if you make a dent against any cohesive team. Personal skill matters less and less the bigger the teams as everyone has a means to contribute and compile efforts. Channels become crowded with said efforts which blur. Less tactics or critical thinking because there are too many stimulus to interact with for this to be considered competitive at all. "Just don't go there" isn't interactive gameplay and in 8v8 capture the relic most teams just stack up and move (either on attack or defense) as a ball to try for a play. Acting as a 1 vs the X that now exists in large numbers in BGs due to 8 player teams is more meaningless than ever and encourages super-tank or bomber gameplay.

I respect your time and efforts in PVP. I know you're experienced and I appreciate the time you put into your posts. I happen to disagree that 2-Team has been conductive to making a fun, dynamic place for PVP of all levels of expertise especially for new players. You and I eat these new players alive and thats part of the new experience for sure! However BGs were far more relaxed before and gave affirmation that efforts were being made on a small way when 2nd place existed for players to get rewards from. The thing I can say which is absolutely a positive is the AP Rewards for the Worthy overhaul that came with 2-Team BGs has been fantastic. It makes the irritation I wrestle with when trying to get into a modern BG somewhat pay off. I just wish the moment to moment wasn't such a pain in the neck. (Edit: pressed post accidentally lol)

In 3-team format the most efficient way to win was moving in a stack of 4 and beelining objectives while other two teams "wasted time" fighting. If you spread out you'd always leave your team mates outnumbered against whichever team moved as 4. I had lost count of the amount of BGs where a team would just move to empty flags, all tank builds or healers and they'd just capture one after the other... while other two teams were fighting (or one was getting farmed).

Same thing happened in many Relic games where you'd be fighting 2-3 people, your team is fighting the 3rd team (3v4) and 1-2 people just capture your team's relic over and over again and win with zero kills.

Or deathmatches where it's just about who gets killing blows on the squishies... best case scenario it's a close match and there's no obvious weak team, but even those were decided by which team gets focused more than the others (RNG, either at the matchmaking stage or in target selection during the match).

My win rate went up from 57% (1st place) in 3-way format to what is currently 75%... so I do think you can play for a win in almost every match in team vs team format as well - you just need the right approach with the sigils, positioning, LOS etc.

I've won many, many Relic games for example with opponent team bringing 6-7 people to my team's base, I'd kill the 1-2 defending enemy Relic, pick it up & turn it in while my team successfully defended. That, or picking up a damage sigil and wiping the entire enemy team that's stacked up defending their Relic, allowing for myself or a team mate to pick it up and run it home.

Domination? I used to have 60% WR until I started communicating and typing to team to spread out to all flags as the game was about to begin. Went from 60% to close to 75%.

Chaosball? You go for the enemy chaosball carriers and just nuke down whoever picks one as they won't have heals in Vampire/Werewolf form and have ticking Oblivion damage.

And so on and so on...

If you enjoy PvP (and to me it sounds you do), I'd definitely give 8v8s more of a chance - it could be you've just had really bad luck with the matchmaking (this does happen from time to time, but not nearly as much as people think in 8v8 atleast). There's also ways to turn unbalanced BGs into atleast tolerable ones with the right positioning/sigils, sometimes even into wins (in times when you think it should be impossible).

I still preferred 3-way BGs to getting run down by ball groups in Cyrodiil/IC, but the team vs team format has revitalized the whole BG scene on PC/EU and has been a ton of fun.


I do agree on the rewards part, I can see frustration arise from it being more difficult to farm style pages or just get the daily rewards. I think what ZOS should do is have losses also count for the daily BG, to not make people feel like they wasted time.

This is something a lot of other games do ("participation rewards") and I've no idea why it wasn't implemented when BGs were revamped. Something like what Throne and Liberty does with their events is a good example of a functioning reward system that still encourages people to try their best and aim for good placements.

This also opens a window to provide additional rewards to the winning team, like increased chance of a style page or something akin to Undaunted Plunder that you can vendor for gold.

Bro this is why I think 2-Team and 3-Team formats could coexist because now that the reward system has been changed to be very profitable, all they need to do is let us queue for the kind of PVP we want! If 8v8 wasn't the only option I wouldn't be whining so much, as I sunk hundreds of hours into 4v4v4 and I'm still heartbroken lol The participation awards were nice for the PVE players trying out PVP and while I am against the general concept of participation awards everyone wins when they make PVP profitable for everyone. We have our reasons for enjoying 2-Team or 3-Team format but I think both of these can exist at the same time just fine. I wouldn't mind longer queue times (however they just need to fix the broken lobby assembly thing in group queue or potentially stop differentiating solo and group queue if it gets too crazy).

Moonspawn

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Decimus wrote: »

Moonspawn's "Problem"
Player A ditches team and fights "newcomers" outnumbered, who then "don't even have the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making", implying "newcomers" are performing poorly against one strong player.

The problem is not giving the newcomers the option to learn positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the challenges of 3-sided, which is the perfect counter to one or two players trying to pick them off one by one.

Decimus wrote: »

Player A sticks with team and obliterates "newcomers", because if these players performed poorly against Player A when outnumbering him/her, surely they'll do better when it's Player A with Players B C & D?

How? If the newcomers had the option to learn from the challenges of 3-sided wouldn't they simply turtle up and retreat? (in 2-sided, this would only delay the inevitable) And in Player A's thirst to ''obliterate'' the newcomers he would be caught and annihilated inside a sandwich when the third team came around. Also, there would most likely be newcomers and PVPers in every team. Player A wouldn't even be able to isolate the softest targets if they knew not to chase.

Decimus wrote: »

Ah yes, so you want to roll the dice on getting the strongest team composition and team mates who actually want to stick together... and then steamroll teams that don't. Sounds very competitive and fun /s

It was extremely rare for a single team to be stronger than the combination of the other two. The most common distribution was 1 or 2 BG regulars per team, and the rest of the slots were filled with players looking for the daily.

Decimus wrote: »

A quick search on community sentiment on ball groups by the way: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=ball+groups

I don't see the connection between ballgrouping in Cyro and a team of 4 solo players trying to find a way to work together in a 3-sided match.

At this point I'm not even sure if you PvP, or ever have.

Let me get this straight, the 20k health bowblades and beamcanists are suddenly just going to "turtle up and retreat" due to some esoteric knowledge granted to them by the aura of 3-way battlegrounds? I think we're done here.

Good players will always farm the bad ones, this is how it has always been and how it always will be. This is from 2022, 3-way BGs:

BGs where the less experienced players are getting absolutely farmed isn't "extremely uncommon", it's the norm. It's either one team farming the other two, or two teams farming the weakest one... or if teams are somewhat balanced it's still the BG regulars farming the squishies in opposing teams for good KDR because it'd be pointless to play objective in 3-way garbage.


The connection between 4 solo players with crossheals running in a pack crosshealing (maybe with a full healer thrown in) each other and a ball group in Cyrodiil crosshealing each other is pretty obvious to me.

Both also like to run after outnumbered, less organized players without said crossheals, creating an environment devoid of any skill.


You seem to be living in your own reality here.

It seems to me that you just repeated this yet again:

''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.''

Assuming that was not your intention (for the third time) maybe communication would be easier if we refer to ''ditching my team to go 1vX newcomers'' as ''seal clubber style''. And I believe that sticking with the team, helping one another, focusing the damage on the correct targets, etc... should be called something other than ''ball group style'' because it appears to be causing some serious confusion with what they do in Cyrodil. Since it is the perfect counter to the first, maybe it should be called ''anti- seal clubber style''.

Looks like you agree that 3-sided BGs favored the anti-seal clubber style. Why are you so against people having the option to learn it there?

Is reading on your list of "unique challenges"? Here is what I wrote on February 7th:

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.

If you're going to quote ("<-this symbol) people, quote them correctly and don't twist their words to suit your delusions.

With that out of the way, you do realize that BGs can alternate between team fights and solo encounters? You'd do well to play some other team vs team games to have a general idea of how video games work... I'm having to explain very elementary, basic concepts here.

You can play in a group when it's required, but you can also go off on your own if that is what the situation calls for (which very often is the case with multiple objectives) and if that is within your skill set... you are not punished for doing so in team vs team, where as in a 3-way format you're almost always leaving your team outnumbered.

You can learn to do both in team vs team battlegrounds... or you can stick to your comfort zone.


At the risk of repeating myself: spamming heals and crossheals and sticking together in a ball is playing like a ball group. That is where the term comes from: ball (first word) group (second word).

Whether you get a group capable of playing as one or not is a result of RNG (matchmaking), and I can see why individuals scared of posting their win rates/KDRs would prefer their success be determined by chance, rather than skill.

Luckily it doesn't matter quite as much in team vs team battlegrounds, as the team that has the stronger composition isn't necessarily going to win if they employ the wrong tactics and just all stick together all game long thinking it's Cyrodiil and their objective is to 3 2 1 ultidump as many outnumbered players as possible.


Good riddance.

From what you wrote, could you extract the part where the answer to my question is? It seems that the entire post just explained why the 3-sided format favored the anti-seal clubber playstyle, which was unnecessary, because I already agreed.
The question was: ''Looks like you agree that 3-sided BGs favored the anti-seal clubber style. Why are you so against people having the option to learn it there?''

Haki_7

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

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.

I see no difference.

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 77: Waiting 35 minutes for a non-starter match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6r18QFNPTw

Moonspawn

Despite the increased participation of daily seekers, the BG guilds have actually shrunk since the removal of the 3-sided format. Completely normal phenomenon.

I wonder how many full BG guilds would we have by now if they had simply updated the rewards and created a separate DM queue. 5? 10? ... 20?

Jierdanit

.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Despite the increased participation of daily seekers, the BG guilds have actually shrunk since the removal of the 3-sided format. Completely normal phenomenon.

I wonder how many full BG guilds would we have by now if they had simply updated the rewards and created a separate DM queue. 5? 10? ... 20?

At least for PC/EU that is simply wrong.

The few remaining BG guilds were basically dead before 2 way BGs were released and were continuously losing players (even though apparently according to you 4v4v4 was so popular).
Since then at least one guild that I know of is growing quite a lot with plenty of new BG players.

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote: »

.

Moonspawn wrote: »

Despite the increased participation of daily seekers, the BG guilds have actually shrunk since the removal of the 3-sided format. Completely normal phenomenon.

I wonder how many full BG guilds would we have by now if they had simply updated the rewards and created a separate DM queue. 5? 10? ... 20?

At least for PC/EU that is simply wrong.

The few remaining BG guilds were basically dead before 2 way BGs were released and were continuously losing players (even though apparently according to you 4v4v4 was so popular).
Since then at least one guild that I know of is growing quite a lot with plenty of new BG players.

Except I never said 3-sided was popular. It never had the chance to be. Not without the rewards we have right now to lure people in, and a separate DM queue to create the necessary conditions to keep them there.

I know that the collusion of the EU hive mind is a lot easier with just two teams. Believe me, I know. But is it really worth throwing away everything that Battlegrounds could be? Is it really worth the future of PVP itself?