Battlegrounds: Cycle of Self-Destruction

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Let's just bring back 3-sided BGs so the community can finally have a chance to grow.

Always going to be funny to read this when 3-sided BGs had barely any playerbase and were almost dead before the change.

That's three.

No point queuing for unrewarding and nonsensical BGs that forced players with different objectives into the same matches. Now that the reward problem has been solved, all that's missing is the separate DM queue.

The reward problem hasnt been solved.

The rewards are still awful. The actual PvP players who are doing BGs are doing so because they like them, not because of the rewards.
If the mode was as great as you claim the people would be playing it even without better rewards.

I would be happy if the rewards were actually good, but acting like rewards were the main problem with 3 team BGs (and not the fact that they were inherently horribly designed), is simply ridiculous.

That's four.

You theorize that BG participation has increased due to something other than the new rewards. Why are you so afraid of putting your theory to the test by allowing players to choose?

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

Think of the fun we could be having in [rickroll], instead of being stuck in whatever this is:

Despite his complaints, Haki admitted earlier ITT that "this" is adequate in the absence of 3s. So one must deduce that either Haki's other matches are much closer, or lopsided 2s are still fun enough to keep playing.

That's five.
Haki is not complaining. He's simply posting the problem where the solution is.

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

Haki is not complaining. He's simply posting the problem where the solution is.

The posts do not explain anything. He makes a sideways remark about how only 3s are "real" then posts a cherry picked video or scoreboard devoid of any context or analysis, nearly identical to his previous posts. He now refuses to even read his own thread, only spam more of these near identical screenshot or scoreboard posts. It seems like this is an issue for moderators, but until then, I will defend 2s and bring positivity towards 2s to this thread.

RealLoveBVB

Only things 8v8 are good for is easy achievement hunting, easy kills (as half group is always filled with 17k hp players), and the XP for said low hp players on the winning side.
I've rarely had any sweaty match yet, while most 4v4v4 were thrilling and you had to actually try hard.

xylena_lazarow

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

while most 4v4v4 were thrilling and you had to actually try hard

It's too bad you're not on PC, aside from the MMR reset I'm 100% certain you would meet a challenge in 2s here. Low MMR 3s were no challenge at all for me, high MMR 3s were only challenging when it was 3 sweaty ball groups, so one's enjoyment of that was also tied to how much one enjoyed very low scoring heal-dominated ball group GvG.

RealLoveBVB

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

while most 4v4v4 were thrilling and you had to actually try hard

It's too bad you're not on PC, aside from the MMR reset I'm 100% certain you would meet a challenge in 2s here. Low MMR 3s were no challenge at all for me, high MMR 3s were only challenging when it was 3 sweaty ball groups, so one's enjoyment of that was also tied to how much one enjoyed very low scoring heal-dominated ball group GvG.

PC EU here. Sometimes also meeting Haki and Jierdanit in our lopsided matches

Jierdanit

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

PC EU here. Sometimes also meeting Haki and Jierdanit in our lopsided matches

These don't look terribly lopsided to me, but I guess we all have different standards.

Haki_7

Both teams had equivalent healing. Fought for 2 minutes, but as soon as they got wiped once they promptly gave up. If only the incentive to go for second place was still there 😢.

RealLoveBVB

Played BGs today for the battle tokens again (always 2 quests, the victory for today, the 1.000 medal points for tomorrow).

Queueing in prime time (7.30 pm) for 23 mins.



I've never had such long queue times in 4v4v4 matches.



The match was somewhat sweaty. Enemies got our relic very fast, since then they mostly defended it with almost all players.
We grabbed the relic in the last 2 minutes, the match went through the whole duration. Well, I thought a draw and I got the quest done at least, but no? Both teams have the same amount of points, yet only one team won. Is the game rolling a dice in such situations? Waiting 38 minutes for nothing...

At least I got haki and the power of lopsided matches to carry me through...

Jierdanit

If both teams have the same amount of points the team with the higher average medal score wins (which is a horrible way to do it).

xylena_lazarow

Haki_7 wrote: »

If only the incentive to go for second place was still there.

This is also what so many players disliked about 3s. It made the experience incoherent when you've got a lobby of 6 players trying for 1st place, and 6 players avoiding anything hard to go for 2nd from the start. It also made it feel significantly less competitive when you can still "win" by placing 2nd out of 3 teams.

It would seem that 2s and 3s cater to quite different tastes in gaming.

cuddles_with_wroble

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Haki_7 wrote: »

If only the incentive to go for second place was still there.

This is also what so many players disliked about 3s. It made the experience incoherent when you've got a lobby of 6 players trying for 1st place, and 6 players avoiding anything hard to go for 2nd from the start. It also made it feel significantly less competitive when you can still "win" by placing 2nd out of 3 teams.

It would seem that 2s and 3s cater to quite different tastes in gaming.

no, its just that all of the things you liked about 3s are not present in 2s due to terribly designed game modes and horrible team balance.

i URGE you to go play some guild wars 2 arena so that you can see what a real pvp game mode looks like

Calastir

Can this topic be shut down please? It's just spam at this point.

(edit: Just reported post #534 on page 18 as showing intent of bumping this topic.)

Haki_7

90% of all my Chaosball matches end up becoming staring contests with ball carriers, healing them. My team goes to spawncamp the enemies. I guess it was impossible to simply fix the cheesy places of the 3-sided maps. Now we have a whole new problem, but with no solution whatsoever.

xylena_lazarow

cuddles_with_wroble wrote: »

no, its just that all of the things you liked about 3s are not present in 2s due to terribly designed game modes and horrible team balance. i URGE you to go play some guild wars 2 arena so that you can see what a real pvp game mode looks like

Huh? I don't like anything about 3s. You sure you're replying to the right person?

Every PvP game in existence has lopsided matches sometimes. I tried GW2 at one point but liked ESO's kinesthetics better, ESO still beats its competition for physically feeling like you're playing your character.

fizzylu

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

Lol, where is the proof of this? BGs were released as 3-sided. If people didn't like the 3-sided format, it would have never become a sizeable community of players to begin with. And little thing to note, the only reason I even got into ESO after quitting a week after it's release was because of the fun and diverse gameplay of the 3-sided BGs. And let's extra not act that moves Zenimax makes in regards to new or reworked content is related to what would be popular with gamers in general, but even specifically this playerbase. They have long been out of touch with this game and it's community, and yes, I'd even say MMO players entirely.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

There's no omission. They created the community, then doomed it to failure with an incoherent format. Moving to 2s was a smart move to avoid sunk cost fallacy. ZOS obviously has the data to back up their decision. If you want 3s to return, your argument will need to be stronger than the devs' data. Vague complaints about 2s are not.

And funny that you say this since you ignore any post where someone actually talks about what they loved about the old BGs, what they thought made them great, they're own enjoyable experiences in them and those of the people they played with, how those players no longer play, and simple facts like:

The BG playerbase took it's biggest hit when they removed group queueing for a period of time, quite a long one at that. Lots of players did not even come back after they finally restored group BGs to the game because they had moved on. And the PvP community as a WHOLE has taken huge punches and kicks when it comes to gameplay and balancing since the release of Greymoor. Blaming the supposed small amount of players BGs had on them being 3-sided is just ignoring a bunch of information and facts, like even the one that Cyrodiil and IC were also "dying" or "dead". And that's even leaving out the huge slap in the face fact that BGs never even saw proper new content or updates brought to them practically since their release when things like new maps, modes, and better/more rewards were in high demand from BG players for years—and all of that went ignored. Do you truly think that last fact alone did not cost the game players throughout the years? Can you really sit here and comfortably say that Zenimax had specific data that BGs weren't popular because of the 3-sided format alone after reading all of this, instead of it just clearly being another case of them throwing a random idea at the wall without properly running it past the playerbase before developing it? They don't even see if things stick, they just make it no matter how the players react.

And where is the proof that the new BGs are any more popular? Because I'm not seeing or feeling it in game, or on these forums despite you loving to say only a few people post about the 4v4v4 BGs. Obviously it's gotten more quiet on the side of those that liked the old BGs compared to when they were first removed, but thank the gods for that because I hope people would have the mind to not sit around begging a company that doesn't even listen to them for something while continuing to give them their money and gaming time despite that. But excluding when they were still considered new, queue times are just as long. I'm still getting put into matches with familiar names back to back. And weren't those the two big things that were "proof" the old BGs were dead and unpopular?

xylena_lazarow

fizzylu wrote: »

Lol, where is the proof of this?

ZOS outright deleting the entire game mode isn't proof to you? I've rarely seen game devs do this.

fizzylu

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

Lol, where is the proof of this?

ZOS outright deleting the entire game mode isn't proof to you? I've rarely seen game devs do this.

No, Zenimax does a lot of things other companies would not do when it comes to managing their game and pleasing (more like displeasing) it's players. They did that to force players into not having an option. Why would that be? Probably because they don't have the resources to maintain both with the shoddy servers and the time/money costs to keep them both working properly. Of course adding new things to them would also be double the work because players would start to question why one mode is getting something but the other isn't. And the big one; that way if the new BGs they spent all that time creating weren't a glowing success, no one would obviously know because there is no way to actually see how many prefer the old ones because they're still playing them instead.

You really have to go back to "well, Zenimax did it and they must know best" when there is proof even outside of the BG subject that Zenimax did not, and does not, even always know what's what? In fact, they're usually wrong and completely miss the mark. Like we're really going to sit here and ignore the fact that this game has a dwinding playerbase and struggles to keep active players in every area of the game? I mean, you can.... but I won't, I can't play along with that. Go on and continue with all the denial you do in this thread because, well, that's the only thing you can do to spin the story to fit the narrative you want it to.

RealLoveBVB

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

Lol, where is the proof of this?

ZOS outright deleting the entire game mode isn't proof to you? I've rarely seen game devs do this.

ZOS is also kinda deleting classes now.
Does it mean classes were never liked?

With 8v8 they tried to breath new life into BGs, to encourage players to come back.
This doesn't mean, the old design was bad. But sometimes you have to do changes to be successful again, but it sadly didn't work out with the new BGs.

Joy_Division

fizzylu wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

Lol, where is the proof of this?

You mentioned it here:

BGs never even saw proper new content or updates brought to them practically since their release when things like new maps, modes, and better/more rewards were in high demand from BG players for years—and all of that went ignored.

ZOS doesn't invest into systems it does not feel are marketable to its target audience, something that was made crystal clear to me when I was a rep and spoke to the devs personally while sharing a few beers with them. They acknowledged that we reps had a lot of good ideas they would love to work on, but there were always other priorities (meaning things that were more relevant to the masses of their customers).

Blaming the supposed small amount of players BGs had on them being 3-sided is just ignoring a bunch of information and facts, like even the one that Cyrodiil and IC were also "dying" or "dead".

I certainly would consider Cyrodiil and IC as dead systems. I wouldn't draw any distinction between them and BGs at all. Neither make ZOS much money or see widespread participation among the playerbase. So, like BGs, Cyrodiil and IC have gone years and years being on autopilot.

That being said, it seems pretty obvious why ZOS decided to switch from the three sided format to the two sided: they looked at their numbers and decided the three sided format was not popular. Why else would they invest more money and resources to changing the format when it would be so much easier and cheaper to simply build upon a successful system? They didn't need to run anything by the playerbase (not that ZOS has done that ever). The playerbase already told ZOS what it thought of the old BG format by not participating in that system to a degree that it was worth sustaining. They are following the same procedure with the Vengeance Cyrodiil remake.

I would agree with you in that I wouldn't solely blame the same amount of BG players on the three team format. Given ESO's low PvP participation, I would say the main culprit is the version of PvP which ZOS has given us going on quite a few years now. It just isn't appealing to either its own customer base or the wider MMO community at large. The balance isn't good, the fights are either 5 second burst downs or drawn out 5 minute stalemates, "ball groups" are oppressively strong, build variety doesn't really exist (everyone runs around with 35K health max resist "tanks" that never ran out of resources, yet still have tremendous burst), and some mechanics are absolutely terrible (Rush of Agony). If the actual PvP gameplay was fun, people would play it regardless of format.

Haki_7

Destruction of Battlegrounds Chapter 85: Waiting 23 minutes for a lopsided match (Solo 8v8 PC/NA)

https://youtu.be/5oEFl0q8jw0

fizzylu

Joy_Division wrote: »

ZOS doesn't invest into systems it does not feel are marketable to its target audience, something that was made crystal clear to me when I was a rep and spoke to the devs personally while sharing a few beers with them. They acknowledged that we reps had a lot of good ideas they would love to work on, but there were always other priorities (meaning things that were more relevant to the masses of their customers).

I just can't agree with this because I've seen this game lose way too many players to delude myself into believing they have been deciding things based off of what the masses want. It was even not too long ago that they started doing simple surveys to actually help them figure out what players ACTUALLY want and what content they are ACTUALLY participating in. They even did release a statement that they are going to try to do stuff like that more often so they can ACTUALLY have the player feedback in consideration when deciding on things to develop. And are we forgetting the time when huge amounts of players voiced their opinion on U35 and stated how it would backfire for the game, and Zenimax pulled a "trust me, I'm an expert" card? And how those huge amounts of players, well, a lot of them stopped playing after being ignored by Zenimax who knew "best"?

And btw; funny how they did that survey and made those comments about communicating more with the playerbase to know what kind of content they want/are playing most AFTER the new BGs and the backlash of the stream they did of them. Coincidence? Maybe.

Oh, and trying to say Cyrodiil doesn't make the game money and isn't part of the "target audience" is wild. Please direct yourself to the numerous threads of numerous unhappy Cyrodiil players. --Not a Cyrodiil player, yet still gets this

This game has long been at a point where it seems the only people still playing are those who don't favor another MMO or online game. And it did not get like that because Zenimax has been pleasing the masses. So, who exactly is the target audience? Because from where I've been sitting, Zenimax's target audience is Zenimax.

Moonspawn

Joy_Division wrote: »

fizzylu wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

The 3-sided format caused the BGs community to shrink to almost nothing. That's why ZOS changed it.

Lol, where is the proof of this?

You mentioned it here:

BGs never even saw proper new content or updates brought to them practically since their release when things like new maps, modes, and better/more rewards were in high demand from BG players for years—and all of that went ignored.

ZOS doesn't invest into systems it does not feel are marketable to its target audience, something that was made crystal clear to me when I was a rep and spoke to the devs personally while sharing a few beers with them. They acknowledged that we reps had a lot of good ideas they would love to work on, but there were always other priorities (meaning things that were more relevant to the masses of their customers).

Blaming the supposed small amount of players BGs had on them being 3-sided is just ignoring a bunch of information and facts, like even the one that Cyrodiil and IC were also "dying" or "dead".

I certainly would consider Cyrodiil and IC as dead systems. I wouldn't draw any distinction between them and BGs at all. Neither make ZOS much money or see widespread participation among the playerbase. So, like BGs, Cyrodiil and IC have gone years and years being on autopilot.

That being said, it seems pretty obvious why ZOS decided to switch from the three sided format to the two sided: they looked at their numbers and decided the three sided format was not popular. Why else would they invest more money and resources to changing the format when it would be so much easier and cheaper to simply build upon a successful system? They didn't need to run anything by the playerbase (not that ZOS has done that ever). The playerbase already told ZOS what it thought of the old BG format by not participating in that system to a degree that it was worth sustaining. They are following the same procedure with the Vengeance Cyrodiil remake.

I would agree with you in that I wouldn't solely blame the same amount of BG players on the three team format. Given ESO's low PvP participation, I would say the main culprit is the version of PvP which ZOS has given us going on quite a few years now. It just isn't appealing to either its own customer base or the wider MMO community at large. The balance isn't good, the fights are either 5 second burst downs or drawn out 5 minute stalemates, "ball groups" are oppressively strong, build variety doesn't really exist (everyone runs around with 35K health max resist "tanks" that never ran out of resources, yet still have tremendous burst), and some mechanics are absolutely terrible (Rush of Agony). If the actual PvP gameplay was fun, people would play it regardless of format.

Three-teams BGs weren't as popular as they could have been because they were unrewarding and forced players with different objectives into the same matches. Now that the reward problem has been solved, all that's missing is the separate Deathmatch queue.

RealLoveBVB

The only "important" change in regards of rewards are the battle tokens.
As we know similar things from Cyrodiil and IC (gladiator proof and merits), we can expect always new stuff you can buy in new updates with those tokens. So I expect players at least playing one quest to collect one token per day to pe prepared for that new stuff.
I am doing so too, but it has actually nothing to do with 4v4 or 8v8, as I would play it in 4v4v4 or any other game mode they would offer, too.

RealLoveBVB

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

[snip]

If you could explain how to travel in the past, then we could do screenshots of the fun 3 team matches.
I am not someone who screenshots and saves any match. Why tho...

[edited to remove quote]

xylena_lazarow

RealLoveBVB wrote: »

If you could explain how to travel in the past

I can't explain exactly how I do it, but it's off topic anyway. Let's analyze this one. My only hint is that there were both high MMR and low MMR players here, likely because there weren't enough players queueing for 3s at all.

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

We have removed some insulting back and forth that was disruptive. Please ensure you are treating others with respect on the forums even when they have views that differ from your own. With that being said as this thread has derailed quickly, we've decided to close it down. Please be sure to keep our Community Rules in mind when posting on our forums.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team