Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Moonspawn · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

But what's the 2-sided meta?

Ball grouping.

If your 8 person team can (mostly) move together, cross heal, and AoE bomb, then you're favored over an opponent that can't. Doing this protects noobs with stacked cross heals, targeting interference, and direction.

When the objective requires your 8 person team to split, like to defend the relic in CTR or to hold multiple flags in Crazy King, you should still have a core ball group, and only the sweatlords and tanks should be on anything alone.

As one of the sweatlords who goes out alone in 8v8, it's pretty rare to even find any 1vX and usually it's just a 1v2. Usually it's more mundane stuff like actually doing the other objectives while the noobs stay with the ball group on the primary objective. There's a fair number of 1v1s, but my favorite tactic is to flank the enemy ball group from behind with my Thrive+Talons combo, which has been effective in breaking ball stalemates. I'm fast enough to get out if I need.

We're right back to you denying the very existence of the natural phenomenon described by Decimus (which he considers good, while I know its not) because you seem to be playing a different game than everyone else. I suspect we'll just keep coming back to this. Maybe try playing as a healer in 8v8 until you see it.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I'm not against bringing 3s back as part of the queue, just against people trashing 2s as lopsided or toxic,

What is ''trashing'' 2s ? Posting scoreboards of lopsided matches and saying they're lopsided?

fizzylu · May 24

@Xarc
That was basically my exact experience the last time I was trying to get into 4v4s since I don't find 8v8s competitive at all. It would feel pointless to continue fighting in most matches within a few minutes, and I'd end up just streaking around the field playing "how long does it take for them to kill me" or just sit in spawn and watch the disaster unfolding in front of me from the best seat. That's why I finally had to accept that ESO just isn't something I should be putting serious time into anymore.

And 8v8s at least keep the fighting going better, but that's simply just because so much is going on with the amount of players on both teams.... but most of it is just a hot mess where a couple of strong people on both teams are fighting everyone else while they run around not sure what to do, and shocker, is still usually a pointless fight for one side.

I really miss 4v4v4s : (

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Moonspawn wrote: »

What is ''trashing'' 2s ? Posting scoreboards of lopsided matches and saying they're lopsided?

That plus repeatedly trying to say that 2s are not "real" BGs. I haven't seen Haki say anything positive about 3s here in months, just pure negativity towards 2s. And as we've noticed, it's not hard for me to post a close 2-sided match every time Haki posts a lopsided one. Cherry picking is not a strong argument.

I talk to you because you're one of the few here who has made any effort to articulate what's so great about 3s.

Moonspawn · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

What is ''trashing'' 2s ? Posting scoreboards of lopsided matches and saying they're lopsided?

That plus repeatedly trying to say that 2s are not "real" BGs. I haven't seen Haki say anything positive about 3s here in months, just pure negativity towards 2s. And as we've noticed, it's not hard for me to post a close 2-sided match every time Haki posts a lopsided one. Cherry picking is not a strong argument.

I talk to you because you're one of the few here who has made any effort to articulate what's so great about 3s.

I think I can explain why Haki says these aren't real BGs, but it will take some time to parse through the pages. How many scoreboards does he need to post a day to prove that he's not cherry picking?

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Moonspawn wrote: »

How many scoreboards does he need to post a day to prove that he's not cherry picking?

Probably a detailed log of literally every single BG he plays. Time in queue, time in lobby, estimated MMR, scoreboard screenshot, dates and timestamps. The devs already have all this data.

Moonspawn · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

How many scoreboards does he need to post a day to prove that he's not cherry picking?

Probably a detailed log of literally every single BG he plays. Time in queue, time in lobby, estimated MMR, scoreboard screenshot, dates and timestamps. The devs already have all this data.

The devs aren't the ones accusing Haki of cherry picking matches. You are. So how many scoreboards per day will it be?

Xarc · May 24

fizzylu wrote: »

@Xarc
That was basically my exact experience the last time I was trying to get into 4v4s since I don't find 8v8s competitive at all. It would feel pointless to continue fighting in most matches within a few minutes, and I'd end up just streaking around the field playing "how long does it take for them to kill me" or just sit in spawn and watch the disaster unfolding in front of me from the best seat. That's why I finally had to accept that ESO just isn't something I should be putting serious time into anymore.

And 8v8s at least keep the fighting going better, but that's simply just because so much is going on with the amount of players on both teams.... but most of it is just a hot mess where a couple of strong people on both teams are fighting everyone else while they run around not sure what to do, and shocker, is still usually a pointless fight for one side.

I really miss 4v4v4s : (

I do not think the problem is format (4vs4 or 4vs4vs4)
I think a big part of the problem comes from the players themselves, but also from the medal system and the distribution of players in groups.
Whether it's 4vs4, 8vs8, 4vs4vs4, or any other format, nothing will change about people treating every BG like a deathmatch. We need to address the problem differently.

By the way, I'll add another layer, but two maps is really not enough.

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Moonspawn wrote: »

So how many scoreboards per day will it be?

X scoreboards, where X is the number of matches he played that day.

Moonspawn · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

So how many scoreboards per day will it be?

X scoreboards, where X is the number of matches he played that day.

@Haki_7 xylena wants you to post all your scoreboards. @xylena_lazarow what do you think it's the maximum number that can be posted a day without them being deleted by the mods?

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Moonspawn wrote: »

what do you think it's the maximum number that can be posted a day without them being deleted by the mods?

Spreadsheets or tables will do, no need for image dumps. The more concise, the better. In order to prove anything meaningful, it would need to include all the lists from the previous post as well, not just scoreboards.

Moonspawn · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

what do you think it's the maximum number that can be posted a day without them being deleted by the mods?

Spreadsheets or tables will do, no need for image dumps. The more concise, the better. In order to prove anything meaningful, it would need to include all the lists from the previous post as well, not just scoreboards.

Way too much work, and subject to tampering. Gotta be scoreboards, preferably as many as possible throughout the day.

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Moonspawn wrote: »

Way too much work, and subject to tampering. Gotta be scoreboards, preferably as many as possible throughout the day.

Yeah, scientific rigor is work. Posting isolated scoreboards is easy, but proves nothing on its own. Those scoreboards can be months old, repeated from earlier in the thread, or even tampered with.

Moonspawn · May 24

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Way too much work, and subject to tampering. Gotta be scoreboards, preferably as many as possible throughout the day.

Yeah, scientific rigor is work. Posting isolated scoreboards is easy, but proves nothing on its own. Those scoreboards can be months old, repeated from earlier in the thread, or even tampered with.

As long as it's done throughout the day, and slowly enough to not get deleted. We gotta make sure to thoroughly examine each picture for signs of tampering.

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Moonspawn wrote: »

As long as it's done throughout the day, and slowly enough to not get deleted. We gotta make sure to thoroughly examine each picture for signs of tampering.

For that amount of work, you might as well keep the proper data as you go too. Otherwise you're just adding extra work without the rigor. It's also not like any of us are computer forensics experts...

Haki_7 · May 24

Let's hold hands, go back to 3-teams BGs, and pray for this hell to be undone:

Jierdanit · May 24

Haki_7 wrote: »

Let's hold hands, go back to 3-teams BGs, and pray for this hell to be undone:

I mean that is literally just one person who is clearly too good for that BG (even though 6 deaths is not too impressive and looks like its just a full damage build that got lucky).
The rest of the BG actually seems very well balanced.

xylena_lazarow · May 24

Jierdanit wrote: »

I mean that is literally just one person who is clearly too good for that BG (even though 6 deaths is not too impressive and looks like its just a full damage build that got lucky). The rest of the BG actually seems very well balanced.

Looks like 1 high MMR player trying to do DM, and 15 low MMR players doing the intended CTR.

fizzylu · May 25

Xarc wrote: »

I do not think the problem is format (4vs4 or 4vs4vs4)
I think a big part of the problem comes from the players themselves, but also from the medal system and the distribution of players in groups.
Whether it's 4vs4, 8vs8, 4vs4vs4, or any other format, nothing will change about people treating every BG like a deathmatch. We need to address the problem differently.

By the way, I'll add another layer, but two maps is really not enough.

For me, my experience with the 3 team format was much better so that was me just voicing my own feelings on the subject. But yes, players are always going to be an issue to some extent because not everyone is taking it as seriously and/or don't know how to play tactically and perform as well.... but like I just touched upon, objective gameplay, for me, was much more enjoyable in the old BGs. It was far more dynamic and always kept me engaged, and definitely didn't leave me in most matches thinking I could be doing literally anything else with my time.

Even now, my most recent BG in game was chaos ball where the enemy team had two balls and the majority of my team just stood around "defending" (at some point no one was even attacking us because they had two balls while we had one). I'm also not a fan of the transformation (werewolf/vampire) thing. Before that when I first decided ESO was no longer a game I should be putting time and money into after the release of the new BGs; it was one of the flag games and both teams were seriously just going in a circle around the map, with the more powerful team just killing the other. Round and round to the two flags. Circle. I sheathed my staff, stood there, just baffled (I was the winning side btw, it was still not fun).

Even if people didn't play objectives before (and that was still okay, because I would still and could pretty effectively to at least secure second place often if I was paying attention to the map and being smart about choosing when to be offensive or defensive), being stuck in a match with them didn't feel nearly as bad as it does in the two team format. So for me.... yes, the problem is format at the end of the day. Very clearly so since I loved the old BGs and always had a grand time in them, yet someone couldn't pay me to invest time into the new ones.

Haki_7 · May 25

Think of the fun we could be having in the real BGs, instead of being stuck in whatever this is:

xylena_lazarow · May 25

@Haki_7 that 504-344 Crazy King seems like a decent match. If you don't enjoy it, why still play?

Jierdanit · May 25

Haki_7 wrote: »

Think of the fun we could be having in the real BGs, instead of being stuck in whatever this is:

Seems like you might be the problem if you consider that a horribly balanced match.

That is more balanced than the average 3 way BG was.

Haki_7 · May 25

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

@Haki_7 that 504-344 Crazy King seems like a decent match. If you don't enjoy it, why still play?

Because its the closest I can get to the real BGs

xylena_lazarow · May 26

Haki_7 wrote: »

Because its the closest I can get to [edited for potential rickroll]

Instead of complaining about 2s, why not post what you think is so good about 3s?

supabicboi · May 26

Xarc wrote: »

Since this type of behavior won't change, I think it's up to ZOS to change the system. It's a system that creates a lot of frustration.

you are putting your faith in ZOS to make a difference?
yea they are the ones that are responsible, and should be making changes to the system.
but no, that wont happen, not in the nearest 6 months, if ever.

cuddles_with_wroble · May 26

The only real pro of the 3 team environment is that people are forced to move and kite a lot more instead of just stack and death ball.

The 2 biggest issues are no real mmr or matchmaking systems that lead to lopsided fights and bad game modes that discourage pvp and aren’t competitive.

Team vs team is by far better but 8v8 is crazy, make it 6v6 or 5v5 imo

Moonspawn · May 26

Jierdanit wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Think of the fun we could be having in the real BGs, instead of being stuck in whatever this is:

Seems like you might be the problem if you consider that a horribly balanced match.

That is more balanced than the average 3 way BG was.

You and xylena really can't tell there was a fair bit of spawncamping going on there? Seriously?

xylena_lazarow · May 26

Moonspawn wrote: »

You and xylena really can't tell there was a fair bit of spawncamping going on there Seriously?

The 63-6 score from earlier was probably spawn camping, but these are pretty normal numbers. Green was obviously the stronger team but it looks like Red played the flags well enough to stay in the game.

Moonspawn · May 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

You and xylena really can't tell there was a fair bit of spawncamping going on there Seriously?

The 63-6 score from earlier was probably spawn camping, but these are pretty normal numbers. Green was obviously the stronger team but it looks like Red played the flags well enough to stay in the game.

Talking about the 504-344 Crazy King. It is very clear to me that Haki was forced to go heal his spawncamping teammates until they got bored started playing the objective.

xylena_lazarow · May 26

Moonspawn wrote: »

Talking about the 504-344 Crazy King. It is very clear to me that Haki was forced to go heal his spawncamping teammates until they got bored started playing the objective.

If they got forced back like that, then it wasn't an uneven match.

Moonspawn · May 26

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Talking about the 504-344 Crazy King. It is very clear to me that Haki was forced to go heal his spawncamping teammates until they got bored started playing the objective.

If they got forced back like that, then it wasn't an uneven match.

''It is very clear to me that Haki was forced to go heal his spawncamping teammates until they got bored and started playing the objective.''

Haki joined his teammates in spawncamping the opponents to show them how boring it was so they would stop it and end the match. You can tell by the medal scores.