Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

gariondavey · December 14

Khressandra wrote: »

what do you mean no balance? this looks perfectly balanced. it's fine, we're all fine here. How are you?

Please check out the add-on "better scoreboard" my friend made for the bg community! It adds a lot of information to the scoreboard like classes, damage and healing for all players.

BasP · December 14

Due to the Golden Pursuits I did my first Battlegrounds in a long time and, speaking as someone who generally doesn't do PvP outside of MYM, I have to say that I actually like the casual 8v8 solo BG's. I think I even prefer them over the old 4v4v4 BG's myself.

While I've had a couple of lopsided matches, there were also a few with pretty close scores (and most were somewhere in between). The games all seemed to start fairly quickly as well. Granted, I've only played around fifteen 8v8's thus far, so there's a good chance that I've just been lucky.

Games like this one are fun:

Whether I'm going to continue doing the new Battlegrounds mostly depends on the way MMR works now. The previous time I did BGs for a little while it seemed like I was only matched against real PvP'ers at a certain point that were far more skilled than I am. It also felt like my MMR didn't degrade, because I kept facing better players all of the time. Now I definitely don't mind dying or losing myself, but I didn't like being a liability to those that were unfortunate enough to be teamed up with me. And because I don't like PvP that much, I chose to just stop doing Battlegrounds altogether instead of trying to improve my skill and builds.

If I keep getting matched with players of relatively similar skill levels most of the time though, I could see myself queuing for the 8v8 solo Battlegrounds a couple of times a week. Hence, I think that it would be a shame to lose that queue.

gariondavey wrote: »

Please check out the add-on "better scoreboard" my friend made for the bg community! It adds a lot of information to the scoreboard like classes, damage and healing for all players.

Your friend made that addon? Nice! It's definitely handy.

Moonspawn · December 14

Jierdanit wrote: »

That would still mean that at most 2 out of 3 teams have a good time, because the 3rd team would be focused the second any of them step out of spawn.

Everyone would have fun because the two stronger teams would be compelled to fight. The horrible situation you're describing would only happen without the relic debuff, because the fight between the two stronger teams would often stalemate to the point of not being worth it. They would fight, relic holders would die, jump to other players, and the new holders would die too. It would be impossible to trap the weaker team.

Jierdanit wrote: »

Because a lot of people simply don't care about the objective. They are just going to keep killing the weakest team, even if they can't get any points by doing so.

If they don't protect their relic holders, the relic will jump to them, and they will die.

Jierdanit wrote: »

And the "sperate stomping grounds for the DM sweatlords" would simply be higher MMR.

I was referring to the second queue option: ''4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)''
Deathmatch is the only mode where everyone is always united in purpose (its first stage is already complete), and can be balanced simply by refining the MMR (second stage).

Jierdanit wrote: »

Just straight up punishing people for not being near the objective sounds like a pretty bad "solution" to me.
If you need to force people to take part in the objective its pretty likely that its not a particularly well thought out objective in the first place.
The reason I'm often not taking part in the objectives is because they are not fun to me. If you forced me to either play the objective or not be able to play at all I would be much more likely to just stop doing BGs.

With my suggestions, ''playing the objective'' in every single mode would simply be a matter of fighting somewhat close to the objective, instead of across the map. I think a radius of 40 meters is the sweet spot, but this can be adjusted.

Jierdanit wrote: »

If you want an actually balanced experience team vs team BGs with a proper MMR would do a much better job.

I'm glad you think so. I'll leave that to you. I got my plate full thinking about three-teams bgs.

gariondavey · December 15

BasP wrote: »

Due to the Golden Pursuits I did my first Battlegrounds in a long time and, speaking as someone who generally doesn't do PvP outside of MYM, I have to say that I actually like the casual 8v8 solo BG's. I think I even prefer them over the old 4v4v4 BG's myself.

While I've had a couple of lopsided matches, there were also a few with pretty close scores (and most were somewhere in between). The games all seemed to start fairly quickly as well. Granted, I've only played around fifteen 8v8's thus far, so there's a good chance that I've just been lucky.

Games like this one are fun:

Whether I'm going to continue doing the new Battlegrounds mostly depends on the way MMR works now. The previous time I did BGs for a little while it seemed like I was only matched against real PvP'ers at a certain point that were far more skilled than I am. It also felt like my MMR didn't degrade, because I kept facing better players all of the time. Now I definitely don't mind dying or losing myself, but I didn't like being a liability to those that were unfortunate enough to be teamed up with me. And because I don't like PvP that much, I chose to just stop doing Battlegrounds altogether instead of trying to improve my skill and builds.

If I keep getting matched with players of relatively similar skill levels most of the time though, I could see myself queuing for the 8v8 solo Battlegrounds a couple of times a week. Hence, I think that it would be a shame to lose that queue.

gariondavey wrote: »

Please check out the add-on "better scoreboard" my friend made for the bg community! It adds a lot of information to the scoreboard like classes, damage and healing for all players.

Your friend made that addon? Nice! It's definitely handy.

Yes, @M0R_Gaming. Absolute top shelf guy

Haki_7 · December 15

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 1: Waiting 37 minutes in Queue for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFhcqmz--Zc

Haki_7 · December 15

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 2: Waiting 27 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If6XP4bceW0

Chrisilis · December 15

I was in a BG a few minutes ago and I think I just realised why the deserter penalty went from 5 minutes to 30. I think its because these matches are so incredibly bad now, so incredibly unbalanced that the entire losing team would just quit if they only had to wait 5 minutes to try again. Games would've resulted in the losing team bailing out because why would anyone spend 5, 10 minutes in a hopeless death fest if they didn't have to.

To me, this implies they knew how bad this was going to be, how not ready this was to be rolled out and they rolled it out anyway with a harsher deserter penalty as a bandaid. Bet the numbers wouldn't look so good if half the players deserted every match. Musta had a deadline.

I'm on PS5 NA and don't have test server access but surely somebody pointed all these issues out in advance? Surely someone pointed out shelving classic bg's wasn't a universally popular idea? I appreciate the fact that in the dev feedback article they acknowledge that a lot if us have requested 3 team format back. They also said they won't make any changes until at least update 45 so I guess this is it for now.

Aldoss · December 15

Chrisilis wrote: »

I'm on PS5 NA and don't have test server access but surely somebody pointed all these issues out in advance?

No one was truly able to point this out because the "true" duration of the PTS is only 3 weeks long. They expected us to somehow coordinate with no real heads up to test this feature.

I sat in queue on the PTS during the first week for about an hour a night and never got a match. I know some people got 1 or 2 matches.

We are playing the beta test of this feature right now, but we were told that this was a full content patch.

They should have informed us months before U44 that this was what their plan was. They should have organized player matches months before the update to aggregate feedback.

But ZOS doesn't communicate.

Shelving the old BGs is not universally unpopular. I love the new format. But ZOS 100% deserves all the criticism and public embarrassment they're getting right now for this failure of a patch.

As someone who chose to vote with their wallet back in U35, I can only hope that enough other players have become inspired to do to same, otherwise, the management that controls this process won't feel motivated to change anything.

No crown sale discount is worth this.

Thumbless_Bot · December 15

Aldoss wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

We are playing the beta test of this feature right now, but we were told that this was a full content patch.

They should have informed us months before U44 that this was what their plan was.

If there is one lesson learned that I believe zos devs should take from this bg release it is, without question, this one.

Miracle19 · December 15

Not a bad idea. There should be no such thing as solo queue as this is not a solo game. Otherwise, 2 4v4v4 queue, and 1 ranked 4v4 DM + custom lobbies (4v4v4 with the option to start with only 2 teams) is a great foot forward.

fizzylu · December 15

dk_dunkirk wrote: »

I'm guessing you and your guildies are hardcore PVPers, and winning even more easily in the new format?

Lol, I'd say you called it right here.

If you look at a lot of the earlier threads about the new BGs, most of the posts about preferring them is from players who speak about the more strategic playing you could do for objectives in 4v4v4 as a bad thing. For example; being sneaky to grab a relic while others are fighting to defend/get it, avoiding one fight to win an objective elsewhere, navigating the map/objectives in a way that avoids the team that's just steamrolling everyone, or even clearly not being a fan of situations where they are winning in a fight against one enemy team but get jumped by the third party.

Two teams creates a situation where the "stronger" team is going to win no matter what, while 4v4v4 matches gave the underdogs or "weaker" teams a chance to win by playing smart and throwing the "stronger" team off their game.... and after reading this sentence, I'm sure some are going to want to say something along the lines of "that's how it should be -- the stronger team should win", because that's what has been said before when I've made comments like this. But I agree with the many people on the forums that the "stronger" team not always having an in the bag win was way more fun, dynamic, and worked far better with ESO's combat. I went from BGs being my first or second most played activity in game to not playing them at all because I just find them extremely boring and unengaging now, whether I'm winning or losing. And that does also mean that I am playing ESO in general significantly less as well, investing my gaming time into another MMO.

Haki_7 · December 16

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 3: Waiting 21m23s in solo queue only to get kicked for inactivity (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/N7OPCM3nTOQ

Thumbless_Bot · December 16

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 3: Waiting 21m23s in solo queue only to get kicked for inactivity

https://youtu.be/N7OPCM3nTOQ

It's because your mmr is too high. You're at the end of Highlander and there can be only one. You must now defeat Kurgan. That is all that remains.

Thumbless_Bot · December 16

Miracle19 wrote: »

Not a bad idea. There should be no such thing as solo queue as this is not a solo game. Otherwise, 2 4v4v4 queue, and 1 ranked 4v4 DM + custom lobbies (4v4v4 with the option to start with only 2 teams) is a great foot forward.

99% of my play time is spent doing solo stuff including solo BGs, solo IC and solo Cyro. I would never want to join in groups of any kind for pvp content. The level of toxicity that would seep into my soul from that, well, I just dont think I could bear it <said as Doc Holiday>.

The rare occasions I do group content is when I'm leveling a toon for undaunted and need to do dungeons or when... no, nope... that's pretty much it.

peacenote · December 16

Aldoss wrote: »

The group queue is 99% casual duos.

The chance of getting someone on your 8v8 with less than 18k hp is extremely high, but they end up in the group queue because they want to play this social game with at least one other friend.

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

Idk about the 99% metric, or the "casual" or "sweatlord" designations

but just here to say that the overall sentiment is my experience exactly.

I love BG's specifically because I can play with my friends on a team. Usually, as a duo. I am likely better than a casual but definitely not a "sweatlord." When I queue as a duo, it almost never pops. Ever. We give up, or forget about it altogether because it takes so long we end up switching toons doing stuff while waiting which of course kicks us from queue. When I queue as a solo, it's quick. But quick to me means I am able to fill the time before it pops with housekeeping items like gathering surveys, listing stuff in the guild trader, etc. but it's not SO long that I finish those activities and think "Why was I killing time? Oh..... right, BG's" which is what always happens, at least to me, queued as a duo.

I think we're living in a world right now where queuing as a group is slower than queuing as solo, or you could say queuing as solo is faster than queuing as a duo. That doesn't mean that some people won't find the solo queue "slow" based on time of day, server, tolerance for waiting, etc. but for me duo is much worse, and it's frustrating because that is what I want to do in BG's.

Chrisilis · December 16

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 3: Waiting 21m23s in solo queue only to get kicked for inactivity

https://youtu.be/N7OPCM3nTOQ

It's because your mmr is too high. You're at the end of Highlander and there can be only one. You must now defeat Kurgan. That is all that remains.

Im sorry, maybe Im getting this wrong but are you saying the better a player you are... you have to wait longer for the system to find comparable players? So MMR... means top tier players get to play LESS because there are less of them?

Thumbless_Bot · December 16

Chrisilis wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 3: Waiting 21m23s in solo queue only to get kicked for inactivity

https://youtu.be/N7OPCM3nTOQ

It's because your mmr is too high. You're at the end of Highlander and there can be only one. You must now defeat Kurgan. That is all that remains.

Im sorry, maybe Im getting this wrong but are you saying the better a player you are... you have to wait longer for the system to find comparable players? So MMR... means top tier players get to play LESS because there are less of them?

I was kidding but truth lies in jest, so that's what I think is happening. It shouldn't be happening though. If population is low, then put the 8 or 16 in a bg and get on with it no matter the mmr. That's what should happen.

Avran_Sylt · December 16

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 3: Waiting 21m23s in solo queue only to get kicked for inactivity

https://youtu.be/N7OPCM3nTOQ

It's because your mmr is too high. You're at the end of Highlander and there can be only one. You must now defeat Kurgan. That is all that remains.

Im sorry, maybe Im getting this wrong but are you saying the better a player you are... you have to wait longer for the system to find comparable players? So MMR... means top tier players get to play LESS because there are less of them?

I was kidding but truth lies in jest, so that's what I think is happening. It shouldn't be happening though. If population is low, then put the 8 or 16 in a bg and get on with it no matter the mmr. That's what should happen.

Give the top players quick matches, even if it means they get into lobbies where they make the experience miserable for everyone else but themselves.

Teaches newcomers learned helplessness and that they shouldn't even queue in the first place, kills population statistics, and as such ZoS will have to return to 4v4v4!

Oh that's clever, kill them with "kindness".

DewiMorgan · December 17

For the gold thingus, I did some BGs. They were considerably less fun than back in the 3-party thing, because there was no hide, no strategy of which group to attack, nothing: just "everyone run to the next target in a mob".

3 groups meant I usually did well, because I'm more of a strategy-thinker than a sweaty/twitcher. 2 groups means I do poorly. Not my playstyle, but I guess if people like it, or having fewer groups in the game means lower queue times, then great.

For most, the wait times of standing around doing nothing waiting for the countdown timer to start and to spawn were tediously painful.

For my last one, I got summoned into the end of an in-progress game, died quickly, then the battle was won. That was the best: I got that credited to me as a completion even though I only played a few seconds, but pretty sure that was not meant to happen.

fizzylu · December 17

DewiMorgan wrote: »

For the gold thingus, I did some BGs. They were considerably less fun than back in the 3-party thing, because there was no hide, no strategy of which group to attack, nothing: just "everyone run to the next target in a mob".

Yeah, this is why I find the matches extremely boring whether I'm winning or losing. It's all so mind-numbing compared to the 4v4v4 matches.
Before I fully gave up on these new BGs and swapped my focus to another MMO, I remember one of the last matches I had was a flag holding one (don't recall which one). Both teams were just circling around to the two flags that were up.... just over and over again. Going in circles around the arena.... to the two flags. So. Much. Fun. And of course the stronger team, which I was on, just won every fight -- making the whole circling to the flags process not just boring, but pointless for the other team. Can't imagine how they felt that match considering even while winning I wished I wasn't there.

Thumbless_Bot · December 17

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Chrisilis wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 3: Waiting 21m23s in solo queue only to get kicked for inactivity

https://youtu.be/N7OPCM3nTOQ

It's because your mmr is too high. You're at the end of Highlander and there can be only one. You must now defeat Kurgan. That is all that remains.

Im sorry, maybe Im getting this wrong but are you saying the better a player you are... you have to wait longer for the system to find comparable players? So MMR... means top tier players get to play LESS because there are less of them?

I was kidding but truth lies in jest, so that's what I think is happening. It shouldn't be happening though. If population is low, then put the 8 or 16 in a bg and get on with it no matter the mmr. That's what should happen.

Give the top players quick matches, even if it means they get into lobbies where they make the experience miserable for everyone else but themselves.

Teaches newcomers learned helplessness and that they shouldn't even queue in the first place, kills population statistics, and as such ZoS will have to return to 4v4v4!

Oh that's clever, kill them with "kindness".

It beats the alternative, but i really do see your point.

Thumbless_Bot · December 17

fizzylu wrote: »

DewiMorgan wrote: »

For the gold thingus, I did some BGs. They were considerably less fun than back in the 3-party thing, because there was no hide, no strategy of which group to attack, nothing: just "everyone run to the next target in a mob".

Yeah, this is why I find the matches extremely boring whether I'm winning or losing. It's all so mind-numbing compared to the 4v4v4 matches.
Before I fully gave up on these new BGs and swapped my focus to another MMO, I remember one of the last matches I had was a flag holding one (don't recall which one). Both teams were just circling around to the two flags that were up.... just over and over again. Going in circles around the arena.... to the two flags. So. Much. Fun. And of course the stronger team, which I was on, just won every fight -- making the whole circling to the flags process not just boring, but pointless for the other team. Can't imagine how they felt that match considering even while winning I wished I wasn't there.

Obstacle courses, as I like to refer to them, and really lopsided matches. These are just two examples of this format not really being fun and, the worst part is, there really is no fix either of these things.

I would recommend trying and/or sticking with 8v8. The maps are larger and, due the sheer number of people, the matches can be less dry and a little more dynamic.

fizzylu · December 17

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

I would recommend trying and/or sticking with 8v8. The maps are larger and, due the sheer number of people, the matches can be less dry and a little more dynamic.

I've played both modes plenty and don't enjoy either remotely enough to force myself to bother with them. I have other games I can be playing, and that's exactly what I have been doing for the last few weeks now.

Solantris · December 17

I came back from a year hiatus after hearing about the BG changes and my head hurts. I don't have the solution but I can't deny there's an unsustainable problem.

20-60 minute queues for a lopsided experience is honestly just horrible for everyone involved, whether you're the slamm-ee or the slam-er. Duoing with my friend and dropping 70, 50, 40, 30 kill games is boring and uncompetitive. I know some will disagree, but I am personally not a fan of shooting fish in a barrel nor being the fish in a barrel. ESO's combat is its fun point for me, where is the combat in any of this? Said friend and I group queued for over 3 hours on the weekend, only for it to pop when I went to the bathroom. These days we have to que solo and just hope we share a game if we want to play together at all, and when the queue finally pops, we're ruining pvp for other people and our own experience is...lacking, to say the least.

We met some brand new transfer players from WOW in the queue last weekend. They were awesome people, reached out to us, didn't mind that we clapped some cheeks. We were able to pass on some mechanical information and generally had a good time teaching them things. But I can't help but wonder, why the hell are players like us being pitched against players who frankly don't stand a chance? We have over a decade of ESO experience between us. I don't mean to be an elitist ***, but the complete and utter, inherent, mechanical, undeniable unsustainability in this has to be pointed out. They're nice people and I'm glad we met, I'm glad they are the kind of players to recognize an experience differential and ask us, and we are the kind of players to take that kindly and happily share our knowledge. But how many times is this exact scenario playing out with nothing but negativity felt on all sides?

Why did we meet them? Why are they expected to fight us? Why are we expected to fight them?

The below are from the past week or so, and they're just the ones I randomly thought to screengrab. Frankly, games like this should be outliers. Matchmaking should stop this, but it doesn't. Why?

From Shrimpoh: "The balancing of things is done in a way that makes it hard to appreciate the reason we PvP in the first place. It’s all well and good fighting and getting a bunch of kills but when the experience is either diminished by excessive queues (not even including broken ones) and one sided balancing, individual value in those games feels negligible."

The world will never be the same when Haki leaves us, and neither will my heart. But the way things are, I don't blame him.

Edit to add, no Garion. I'm not getting better scoreboard. I know you're here somewhere. I know you want to say it. I'm not doing it. It's been 4 years.

Chrisilis · December 17

fizzylu wrote: »

DewiMorgan wrote: »

For the gold thingus, I did some BGs. They were considerably less fun than back in the 3-party thing, because there was no hide, no strategy of which group to attack, nothing: just "everyone run to the next target in a mob".

Yeah, this is why I find the matches extremely boring whether I'm winning or losing. It's all so mind-numbing compared to the 4v4v4 matches.
Before I fully gave up on these new BGs and swapped my focus to another MMO, I remember one of the last matches I had was a flag holding one (don't recall which one). Both teams were just circling around to the two flags that were up.... just over and over again. Going in circles around the arena.... to the two flags. So. Much. Fun. And of course the stronger team, which I was on, just won every fight -- making the whole circling to the flags process not just boring, but pointless for the other team. Can't imagine how they felt that match considering even while winning I wished I wasn't there.

You really hit the nail on the head with this. Matches ARE boring whether or not your winning. After Ive killed the same guy 10 times on the tiny map I start to feel bad. When its my turn to get killed 10 (or 20) times I just roll with it cus hey, its my turn to get blitzed. But its so BORING.

The new maps were interesting but way to small and cant make up for the fact that gameplay is repetitive and yes, mind-numbing in this new format. Stand on flag. Wallop each other. Run 10 ft. Wallop. Run 10 ft. Wallop. BORING.

There have been a lot of great suggestions on this thread about improving 4v4, 8v8 and even 3 team but for all of me I just want them to turn 4v4v4 back on as is. Same maps, same modes, same objectives, random mode, random map. Classic.

I dont really want to keep playing this game if even while your winning you wish you werent there.

Thumbless_Bot · December 17

fizzylu wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

I would recommend trying and/or sticking with 8v8. The maps are larger and, due the sheer number of people, the matches can be less dry and a little more dynamic.

I've played both modes plenty and don't enjoy either remotely enough to force myself to bother with them. I have other games I can be playing, and that's exactly what I have been doing for the last few weeks now.

Sorry this was meant for @Avran_Sylt

Solantris · December 17

Me personally, I prefer the two teams. I like to swet. But also, I recognize that different people play the game differently. The homies here are right in that things are different for different people. Putting on 3team mode will alienate 2 team mode fans, and vice versa.

Ren_TheRedFox · December 17

Not gonna lie, the current state of battlegrounds is sad. Literally a spawn slaughterfest of players who are more experienced than others in PvP and stacking kills. MMR is important, but unfortunately there aren't enough players to really utilize it. Either you're a high MMR player queuing for 30 minutes or you're an experienced player pairing up with low MMR players and slaughtering the other team.

ForumSavant · December 17

It's almost as if certain things were recommended that were just blatantly ignored.

Aldoss · December 17

peacenote wrote: »

Aldoss wrote: »

The group queue is 99% casual duos.

The chance of getting someone on your 8v8 with less than 18k hp is extremely high, but they end up in the group queue because they want to play this social game with at least one other friend.

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

Idk about the 99% metric, or the "casual" or "sweatlord" designations but just here to say that the overall sentiment is my experience exactly.

I love BG's specifically because I can play with my friends on a team. Usually, as a duo. I am likely better than a casual but definitely not a "sweatlord." When I queue as a duo, it almost never pops. Ever. We give up, or forget about it altogether because it takes so long we end up switching toons doing stuff while waiting which of course kicks us from queue. When I queue as a solo, it's quick. But quick to me means I am able to fill the time before it pops with housekeeping items like gathering surveys, listing stuff in the guild trader, etc. but it's not SO long that I finish those activities and think "Why was I killing time? Oh..... right, BG's" which is what always happens, at least to me, queued as a duo.

I think we're living in a world right now where queuing as a group is slower than queuing as solo, or you could say queuing as solo is faster than queuing as a duo. That doesn't mean that some people won't find the solo queue "slow" based on time of day, server, tolerance for waiting, etc. but for me duo is much worse, and it's frustrating because that is what I want to do in BG's.

Exactly. The people here arguing against this are living an "F you, I got mine" fantasy, but it's still actually working against them. Here's how:

1. There are more sweat lords in solo queue (evidence: sweat lords want to PvP and will go to where they can actually do that. Right now, solo pops more than group, so they queue for that)
2. There is more volatility in solo (evidence: explained below*)
3. MMR can't work as well as it could because of a split queue (evidence: explained below*)

2*. There are three main builds in the solo queue: dpsers/1vXers, healers, and baby seals. A notable loss are support builds. The match maker isn't smart enough to know when there are two main healers in a 16 player lobby and split them up and that often leaves a lobby with one team having a healer and another not or one team having two and the other not.

People don't often play true support builds (outside of a healer) because it's really discouraging to play one in a lobby where everyone is RP'ing as Rambo or is a baby seal and doesn't know wtf is happening.

It's a lot more common to see sets like powerful assault, arkasis, olorime's, or crimson oath's rive in the group queue because there's typically at least one other person that you can rely on to make beneficial use of that set.

***In before people claim this as evidence that group queuers in solo would trounce soloers: the existence of a set does not mean the user knows how to use it or is otherwise great at PvP. All I'm saying is that there are *slightly* fewer selfish sets in the group queue than you'd find in the solo queue. More on this below.

3*. MMR works best when it has the ability to link and match more total players. If you have 10 beginners to PvP in the solo queue and 5x duos of beginners in the group queue, they can't be paired together. If there are 6x sweatlords in the solo queue, then the matchmaker will start a lobby with those 6x sweatlords and the 10x beginners will be lined up for the slaughter.

This argument against making the casual queue be solos and duos makes two false assumptions, 1. That sweat lords are the only ones that group together (which is currently not the case because of the slow queue) and 2. That gear and voice comms are more important than a player's skill (because people grouping together have the advantage of coordinating their sets and might also be in voice comms).

1*. Sweat lords would absolutely group together, if given the opportunity, but again, there are plenty of sweat lords in the solo queue. Give the match maker the ability to put them against each other. Right now, it doesn't exist. It shouldn't matter if a sweat lord is solo or duo'd. If they're in a queue to PvP, they want to PvP. Sweat lords aren't the ones arguing against having a combined solo and duo casual queue because they recognize already that combat situations in this game are pretty trivial and there's no real need for voice comms. Does it help? Absolutely, but it's not required. Sweat lords in solo queue already coordinate together when they get grouped because it makes sense to do it. They drop ults together because they'll both know the opportunity when it presents itself.

2*. Gear is not more important than a player's skill, but the process of coordinating and creating builds that complement each other inherently implies characteristics that would qualify someone as being higher MMR anyway. No newbies are coordinating their sets, even if they're grouped. Anyone doing that already has a higher MMR and should be getting put against stronger and better skilled players. Voice comms are also not as much of an advantage as people want to claim it is. If you're ball grouping? Then maybe, yeah. Duo? Absolutely not. Combat situations are pretty straight forward in this game and sweat lords know that. They'll adopt similar strategies instinctively and typically drop ults instinctively. This behavior is what fuels the "my solo is getting matched against a pre-made" delusion. I have no doubt that this happens 0.1% of the time (someone in my guild in group queue got put into a U50 BG a few weeks ago. This game has problems). But in this case, 99% of the time, those people in the solo queue you think are in voice comms are just good PvPers who know how to not make stupid decisions that get them killed.

This all comes back to the fact that the queuing population is too low and there are too many queues. When two sweat lords choose to group, they will 100% get most of their matches with almost complete lobbies of baby seals in them and they will farm them, because that's what they do (and this game does nothing to incentivize them from doing it).

When sweat lords queue into solo, they will 100% get most of their matches with some baby seals in them. There will also be some sweat lords on the other team, but if you've payed attention at all in those matches, they will almost always ignore each other because it's much easier to just disengage and go after the baby seals.

This behavior is why I suspect many people want the 4v4v4 back because it increased the number of targets for these sweat lords to target. It helped a baby seal blend in and go unnoticed, but it didn't solve the problem which was baby seals getting placed against sweat lords in the first place.

The casual 8v8 queue should be combined into solos and duos to reinstate the health of its lobbies. The match maker needs a bigger pool of players to be able to work and right now they're getting separated. I'd suggest that those arguing against this are likely profiting off the imbalanced lobbies and having a great time getting fast matches, all of which have quite a few baby seals that they are more than happy to murder.

I know this because that's currently what my lobbies are like in both the group and solo queues. My wife and I are not sweat lords, but we've been pvping consistently since 2020. We're not super optimized, but we do know how to play our builds. Every 4v4 lobby in the group queue has at least 1x duo of baby seals. Most 8v8 lobbies are full of them and it will be just us and maybe one or two other duos of similarly skilled players and we'll see results like what @Solantris just posted above. There are plenty of new players that are interested in BGs, but the environment being created is not set up to help them in any way because every lobby they get will have at least 1 or more sweat lords in them that will murder them.

I also play in solos sometimes after my wife goes to bed. The only difference between these different queues is that solos pops 2x-5x faster than the group queue. Everything else about them is the same (except that there are typically more PvPers who I know by name in the solo queue). If the queues were to be combined, you'd suddenly have more full lobbies with skilled players fighting against other skilled players and newbies fighting against newbies, thus creating a healthier balance that actually allows new PvPers an environment where they can learn the ins and outs without getting griefed.