Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Moonspawn · May 15

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

PvPers can't stop you, then. What about Super PvPers?

If I really don't want to fight, nobody in 3s is gonna stop me from disengaging to go play like a rat somewhere else. Not very hard to turn around and press the Streak button twice.

We were talking about stopping you from winning the match, not stopping you from streaking away.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

In 2s, the arenas are smaller and everyone is focused on you, there's no room to do that without losing the objective or falling behind on kills, so I'll work with my team to win. There are far fewer random variables in 2s that render your strat efforts a waste of time. It's playing probabilities like poker.

The rest of your post suggests you don't even agree that 3-sided encouraged players to not stray from the team. I don't know what to make of that, considering how many texts have already been written on the subject.

Moonspawn · May 15

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

@Xarc Is there anything that you dislike about 3-sided BGs that is not on this list?

1) Having to worry about the possibility of being sandwiched (because of the third team).
2) Not allowing the third team to complete the objective uncontested.
3) Being forced to deal with killstealing (because of the third team).
4) Identifying an impossible victory and helping your teammates achieve second place.
5) Learning about positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the unique challenges of the 3-sided format.
6) Playing against opponents who apply what they've learned from all of the above.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 15

Xarc wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

the mmr system is based off of your overall medal score in each match rather than your actual k/d or obj performance, the other important thing to know about mmr is that it never goes down so your always gaining mmr. this awful mmr system is the main reason so many matches are lopsided, the highest mmr players are split between obj players who just spam bgs and the sweaty deathmatchers so basically every match is guaranteed to be lopsided unless it pulls all the players from 1 group

if mmr never goes down, then there's bound to be a time when everyone will be mixed up, the good and the bad? It has to reset at some point, right? And if so, when?

it has been reset once i believe but yes everyone being mixed is why the matches are 1 sided

there should be a real mmr system based on performance and k/d like a soft ranked system so that all of the sweaty players are in their own bracket, bcs as we all agree getting 50 kills is just as lame as having 50 deaths and it isnt fun for either side

bgs imo should be 5v5 or 6v6 with either a healer que or a ban on healers and objs that force fights but also rotations so that every playstyle is valid. gw2 arena is a great example

Xarc · May 15

Moonspawn wrote: »

Xarc wrote: »

I started playing BG after 11years of cyrodiil
Cyrodiil is not fun anymore with ballgroups, bombers, always the same things to do, no more fun for me.

BG are quite better now with 4vs4 & 8vs8

Here are some remarks:
a) maps are redundant (not enough maps) after a while

b) we should have jump damage immunity when jumping from the spawn base to go fight in the arena

c) I dont know how works MMR, would be interesting to know more about it, and know exactly what is our rank & maybe other players rank

d) sometimes it's very unbalanced, and the score is approximately X vs 0
And so sometimes players leave or AFK at the base

e) Some players dont care the flag system, and play any game as if it were a deathmatch.

@Xarc Is there anything that you dislike about 3-sided BGs that is not on this list?

1) Having to worry about the possibility of being sandwiched (because of the third team).
2) Not allowing the objective to get done uncontested (by the third team).
3) Being forced to deal with killstealing (because of the third team).
4) Identifying an impossible victory and helping your teammates achieve second place.
5) Learning about positioning, target selection, teamwork and decision-making from the unique challenges of the 3-sided format.
6) Playing against opponents who apply what they learn from all of the above.

I didnt like the 3 sided BG
I think it was inspired by the Cyrodiil tri-faction just to be an MMO that offered something other than team vs. team play. But ultimately, I think this first version of BG didn't achieve the success ZOS hoped for.

your 1) was the main reason I didnt like the first version. Some maps were really poorly designed, like the one with the different spawn levels and teleport zones everywhere, it just sucked. At the strategic level, nothing was predictable, but that was the fault of the map, not the 3-team system.
On the other hand, the 3-team system had its own limitations too and it generated a lot of frustration to be sandwiched for no reason.

Now the deal is simple and easy to understand : Two teams face off, whether it's 4vs4 or 8vs8, it's simple and effective, thank you ZOS.
And especially thank you to the developers for making simple maps, not with twisted spawns and verticality just for the sake of verticality. We need to stop making things complicated when what players simply want is to fight.
Adding little challenges like lava jets and poisoned water in the middle is nice, or gaps where you can push your opponents; it adds spice and is fun.
I hope new maps will appear without going overboard, keeping things simple and effective.

There are always balance issues within groups, but I think the MMR aspect comes into play, but maybe sometimes the game makes do with the available roster...

There might be something to do regarding the damage/heal/tank rankings. Some players feel left out and don't understand why a healer earns more points than them even though they've gotten 20 kills, because the medal system is weird.

Aldoss · May 15

2's vs 3's no longer matters to me. My wife and I don't play anymore because ZOS has told us with their inaction on group BG queue that they don't want us to play this game anymore.

However, what I will add to this discussion is how refreshing it has been, now that we've switched and have been spending our time playing a game with a working MMR system.

It's so much more of a pleasant experience. When our MMR is 600 (on a presumed 2400 scale), but we get paired against someone ranked 1,000, it's just such a better experience. I know going into the match that this person is more experienced than I am. I pay attention to what they do more. When I make a mistake or when I get trounced, I don't feel like a failure or like it was wasted time. I lose 4 points on my rating, but I got to glimpse at the play style of this other person and use that knowledge to better my own for next time. It also doesn't happen all the time and we mostly get paired with other players who are within 50-100 points of us.

The idea that ZOS doesn't want this for BGs is insane to me, especially when they say that they have an MMR rating, and that it's not based on medal score, but they refuse to publish it for players to see.

The amount of hate and animosity that has been bred over the years is crazy, and a lot of it could have been curbed by just announcing what these numbers were and giving people the ability to have more insight into why they were getting deleted by another player.

xylena_lazarow · May 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

We were talking about stopping you from winning the match, not stopping you from streaking away.

Streaking away wins the match. It means instead of dying and giving the enemy points, I'm now across the map third-partying some other engagement and picking up 3 easy kills, then streaking away again once the enemy tries to focus me. I keep doing this the entire match, my team wins and I finish 11-0 or whatever.

These sorts of rat playstyles are significantly more difficult to pull off in 2s, there's nowhere to really run or hide, there's no distracted enemies to third party and steal kills from, and you're much more likely to find yourself being focused by a group or in a difficult 1v1. You need to know where your teammates are and retreat to them if necessary.

Moonspawn · May 16

Jierdanit wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 80: Waiting 22 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/8QM5XaLpJ-4

17 minutes*

Plus 5 minutes of waiting for players equals 22.

Moonspawn · May 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

We were talking about stopping you from winning the match, not stopping you from streaking away.

Streaking away wins the match. It means instead of dying and giving the enemy points, I'm now across the map third-partying some other engagement and picking up 3 easy kills, then streaking away again once the enemy tries to focus me. I keep doing this the entire match, my team wins and I finish 11-0 or whatever.

These sorts of rat playstyles are significantly more difficult to pull off in 2s, there's nowhere to really run or hide, there's no distracted enemies to third party and steal kills from, and you're much more likely to find yourself being focused by a group or in a difficult 1v1. You need to know where your teammates are and retreat to them if necessary.

Numerous text have already been written explaining how the 3-sided format encouraged players to not stray from the team. The EU hive mind members think this was a bad thing because it complicated their lifelong goal of avoiding one another and farming newcomers. Claiming that streaking around stealing kills was a winning strategy in anything other certain deathmatches goes against everything we've been discussing so far.

xylena_lazarow · May 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

Numerous text have already been written explaining how the 3-sided format encouraged players to not stray from the team.

I've read your texts. It's an unusual point of view, which is why I've been interested. My experience is that you're only encouraged to stay together in 3s if the team has the skill to play as a ball group, otherwise I'm best served going out on my own to play like a rat. I don't even care much what my team is doing at that point.

Here's another interesting point of view on 3s that I came across while dueling. I respect this player's honesty and enthusiasm in embracing the format's cheese. Plain old "fun" is often the best argument.

Moonspawn · May 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I've read your texts. It's an unusual point of view, which is why I've been interested.

Not my texts. They were written by the people desperately trying to prevent the return of 3-sided no matter what.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

It's an unusual point of view, which is why I've been interested.

Also not ''my'' point of view. It's the one point of consensus in this entire 35 pages thread.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

My experience is that you're only encouraged to stay together in 3s if the team has the skill to play as a ball group, otherwise I'm best served going out on my own to play like a rat. I don't even care much what my team is doing at that point.

You might have been best served, but your team was left outnumbered.

Decimus · May 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I've read your texts. It's an unusual point of view, which is why I've been interested.

Not my texts. They were written by the people desperately trying to prevent the return of 3-sided no matter what.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

It's an unusual point of view, which is why I've been interested.

Also not ''my'' point of view. It's the one point of consensus in this entire 35 pages thread.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

My experience is that you're only encouraged to stay together in 3s if the team has the skill to play as a ball group, otherwise I'm best served going out on my own to play like a rat. I don't even care much what my team is doing at that point.

You might have been best served, but your team was left outnumbered.

I'm not sure if the problem is at reading or comprehension - it's been told to you multiple times that all that mattered in 3-way BGs was RNG.

It wouldn't matter if a bunch of 20k health players stayed together in a BG, you could very well just 1v4 a group like that (although your team would be left 3v4 meanwhile against 3rd team). What mattered was high rolling a team with crossheals and then sticking together and running to flags... and this only mattered when it came to winning the battleground, it wouldn't matter for the PvPers farming kills somewhere else on the map against the third team.

In team vs team, this is no longer a winning strategy even if you high roll the crossheals - if your team simply just sticks together and runs around like a ball group, you are going to lose Domination, Crazy King & very likely Chaosball & Capture the Relic as well.

Good riddance to this mentality & people winning only due to matchmaking RNG - people now have to learn game mechanics, map strategy and play effective builds not designed around 3rd partying.

xylena_lazarow · May 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

You might have been best served, but your team was left outnumbered.

If your team struggles to play as a group that much, solo clearing the way for them to flip objectives becomes a valid and effective strat, significantly easier to do in 3s than 2s, but the 3-sided strat enjoyers should appreciate this, no?

Moonspawn · May 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

You might have been best served, but your team was left outnumbered.

If your team struggles to play as a group that much, solo clearing the way for them to flip objectives becomes a valid and effective strat, significantly easier to do in 3s than 2s, but the 3-sided strat enjoyers should appreciate this, no?

I'm sorry xylena, but if you disagree with the point of consensus, then I don't think I can convince you. I'm certain there are plenty of players who think the winning strategy in every match should be isolating and farming newcomers (while the other side is encouraged to do the exact same thing), so no one needs to worry about the survival of the 2-sided format.

I'd like to share why I think most BG regulars didn't care for the objective modes and just used to deathmatch instead.

''Here comes player X to steal our relic through the wall again. Thanks, Wheeler''
''I stopped to fight on this flag and before I knew it the match was over. Who designed this?''
''There goes player Y cheesing the chaosball, like usual. Why do I even log in?''
- Screw this. I'm just going to get some kills.

Sounds familiar?

Haki_7 · May 17

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Haki_7 · May 17

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 81: Waiting 25 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/J4iP2fBZiyg

Haki_7 · May 18

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

xylena_lazarow · May 18

Haki_7 wrote: »

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest

Honest question: what motivates you to keep queuing for BGs at all if this is your experience?

Haki_7 · May 18

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 82: Waiting 27 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/vE4YzS6s51Q

xylena_lazarow · May 18

Haki_7 wrote: »

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 82

If you aren't having fun, what is driving you to keep playing?

Major_Toughness · May 18

I like how Haki doesn't respond to anyone but reads the replies.

For example he now doesn't accidentally show that he is queuing at 06:30am on map since I pointed it out.

Also kinda sad to literally sit there watching the timer every queue rather than doing someone else in-game. But tbh at that time in the morning probably has a nap.

Haki_7 · May 19

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

cuddles_with_wroble · May 19

Haki has been around in high mmr bgs for literal years, I for sure believe he has 20 - 40 min que times bcs that’s what I have and I see him all the time. Also I don’t think he’s NA time zone but he plays on NA and I also see him dueling in stormhaven between bgs if there is people there

Jierdanit · May 19

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Haki has been around in high mmr bgs for literal years, I for sure believe he has 20 - 40 min que times bcs that’s what I have and I see him all the time. Also I don’t think he’s NA time zone but he plays on NA and I also see him dueling in stormhaven between bgs if there is people there

I also see him on EU sometimes, usually in BGs where I don't have more than at most a 10 minute queue. Even though its usually a bit before EU primetime.

Surprisingly though he never shows the queue times for those BGs.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 19

Jierdanit wrote: »

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

Haki has been around in high mmr bgs for literal years, I for sure believe he has 20 - 40 min que times bcs that’s what I have and I see him all the time. Also I don’t think he’s NA time zone but he plays on NA and I also see him dueling in stormhaven between bgs if there is people there

I also see him on EU sometimes, usually in BGs where I don't have more than at most a 10 minute queue. Even though its usually a bit before EU primetime.

Surprisingly though he never shows the queue times for those BGs.

Makes sense, I would assume his mmr is lower since he doesn’t have 10 million matches played ifykyk

Haki_7 · May 19

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

xylena_lazarow · May 19

Haki_7 wrote: »

Two-teams BGs

But you keep playing, which makes it look as if you're still having enough fun in 2s to outweigh the bad, which makes it look to the devs like the 2s are indeed a success, as even the 3-sided enjoyers who complain are still playing 2s religiously.

Haki_7 · May 19

Three-teams BGs: Endless possibilities

Two-teams BGs: Lopsided snoozefest 😪

Markytous · May 19

I have seen too many instances of folks implying that group pvp and ball-group play are the same exact thing. Nobody who says this is arguing in good faith and have an alterior motive behind advocating for whichever side they support.

If you want BGs but don't want people to play as a team (which apparently is automatically classified as ballgrouping despite NO snowtreaders, spamming hots/shields and on discord waiting for the ulti-rip), why not advocate for a 16 player free-for-all instead? If some of you are allergic to teamwork in Battlegrounds, why even rally behind 2 or 3 team formats?

Nobody likes ballgroups but ballgroup players. Lets not be so fallacious as to pretend all teamplay is a ball group. "OMG I saw my teammate use Budding Seeds once thats a heal for t-t-tteamwork this ballgroup stuff is so lame!!" Nobody says this so please. Just advocate for BGs Free-For-All matches.

xylena_lazarow · May 19

Markytous wrote: »

why not advocate for a 16 player free-for-all instead?

Hell yeah that would be awesome, and yeah I've brought this up before.

I think you're getting too hung up on semantics. I say "ball grouping" because most players have the same general idea of what that means, it's a hell of a lot easier than repeatedly saying "staying stacked as you move, cross healing, and AoE bombing" as that's pretty much the tactics informal groups are usually trying to do anyway. At least the new BGs maps incentivize splitting up for objectives, or splitting to flank the opposing team and break a stalemate.

Markytous · May 20

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Markytous wrote: »

why not advocate for a 16 player free-for-all instead?

Hell yeah that would be awesome, and yeah I've brought this up before.

I think you're getting too hung up on semantics. I say "ball grouping" because most players have the same general idea of what that means, it's a hell of a lot easier than repeatedly saying "staying stacked as you move, cross healing, and AoE bombing" as that's pretty much the tactics informal groups are usually trying to do anyway. At least the new BGs maps incentivize splitting up for objectives, or splitting to flank the opposing team and break a stalemate.

I appreciate that the distinction has been made between teamplay and ballgrouping. One can only dream 8v8, 4v4v4 and 16 FFA could all exist at the same time. If it were like this from the start, nobody would be calling for closure of a mode and more time would be spent queuing up for content that we individually enjoy! I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that waiting longer for a good match is worth the wait. Forcing people to play certain ways never works. I used to love BGs and I'm one of those who feel 4v4v4 was stolen from me (paid for with Morrowind on release). Now I just roam IC with my wife cuz we used to queue 4v4v4 for laughter and stupid casual chaos... I miss those moments. We don't have the same fun now. Play a match we hate, go back to IC, log off after bagging 20k-30k Tel Vars a night. I just want PVP players to all be happy.