Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds Follow-up

ZOS_JessicaFolsom

Hey all, we wanted to give you a short update on some fixes and improvements we have in progress for PVP Battlegrounds, following Update 44, as well as respond to just a bit of your related feedback. 

First, we wanted to lightly touch on the Update 44 livestream. Sometimes we try new things, and they don't land the way we’d planned. We take these experiences, learn from them, and move forward with the goal of applying those learnings to and making the “next time” better. Part of that process includes listening to our community’s feedback and taking that into consideration as we plan future efforts. We also want to acknowledge that we did set the Update 44 livestream VOD to unlisted on Twitch. While no one on the stream did or said anything wrong, we were seeing an increase in abusive comments and harassment toward our developers as a result and decided to do what was right for them. That said, we recognize that we should have mentioned to you all that we took that action when we did, and why. 

Going back a bit to earlier this year, we’ve seen some of you ask what became of the Cyrodiil testing we did. While we did post a short post-test follow-up here, we recognize that we could have provided a bit more detail. Ultimately, the test – a stress test, really – was to measure game performance and overall player experience in Cyrodiil when we raise the population cap closer to what it was at launch. It was a “What’s possible” test. The results of that test were valuable, and have informed discussions we’ve been having since then about next steps. Ultimately, with how much the game has grown and changed in the last 10 years, just raising the population cap to what it was at launch does not result in the play experience we want. Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon. 

Onto the present and the Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds changes. Since we launched Update 44, we have seen a significant increase in PVP Battlegrounds participation. This was one of our primary goals for the Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds changes. We wanted to streamline the overall battlegrounds experience in ESO and make it more fun, easier to hop into and enjoy, the structure easier to understand, and generally make them more accessible for all our players. We acknowledge that some of our players have expressed enjoying the previous 3-sided format more and are continuing to monitor feedback paired with in-game data. We are not planning any other major changes to ESO’s PVP Battlegrounds in the near future; rather, we’ll be focusing on addressing some of the main pain points outside of general personal preferences between the 3-sided versus 2-sided formats. The main two fixes and improvements are: 

• Continuing to investigate cases where Battlegrounds matches sometimes still start with less than full teams. This is a high priority and includes adding additional logging to help aid the investigation. 
• Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 

Thank you all for continuing to share your constructive feedback and suggestions with us!  

VixxVexx

So a bunch of tests, discussions, investigations, and promises. Been there done that.
What about some action and execution?

ESO_Nightingale

i don't have anything to say about this particular topic, but, i've said it before.

Your current commitment to communication is really what we're looking for as a community. these posts are what we need to see from the community team's end. the people who are mad are mad for valid reasons, but i really hope it doesn't just result in them flaming you guys when you're genuinely trying to step up and give us what we asked for. that is unfortunately what seemed to have happened last time and it resulted in you guys shying away. there are those people who just fly off the handle, and there will always be, but i hope a lot of the community can really give you the constructive feedback you all need to make the game better. At the end of the day we all love this game, but now its up to action from the developers themselves to see how this ends up going.

React

Thanks for this update. Is there any chance you could tell us what the current population caps are, precisely? There's a lot of speculation surrounding this topic.

Moonspawn

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

[*] Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 
[/list]

It's not possible for any MMR matchmaking logic to work in a game where some are playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

Balanced matches are the one thing that could draw in newcomers to become interested in PVP itself (not just the daily). Unfortunately what we have right now is the complete opposite. Even with the increased rewards, we're currently experiencing a cycle of self-destruction that starts with lopsided matches, leading to fewer players and increased queue times. If nothing is done the best we can hope for is to end up right where we were before Update 44: A small and loyal BG community that never grows, while the vast majority of players only ever step foot inside a battleground for the daily reward. As disappointing as this outcome would be, I honestly fear we're heading into a much darker place.

Thankfully there is a way to utilize all of the work that has been done so far, without throwing anything away. Not the new BGs, and certainly not the old ones. We start by reducing the existing queue options to only these three:

1) 4v4v4 Objectives Queue, solos only

Most players would come looking for the daily here. In my opinion, the only real way the PVP community will grow is if THESE newcomers become interested in PVP. It would be nice if they weren't met by sweatlords with a personal vendetta against Zenimax for not allowing the existence of the queue option below.

2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

This is the most important step towards balanced matches. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

3)Two-Teams Custom Lobbies (4v4, 8v8, 3v3, 2v2, XvX)

The community has always asked for custom lobbies. The rewards here would probably need to be restricted to bragging rights, perhaps a separate leaderboard with wins and losses. Thanks to the new BGs being originally designed for Group vs Group, the work is mostly done. Countering how hopelessly lopsided most matches are in two-teams BGs will happen when entire teams collectively agree to change builds and strategies midgame. This has always been the domain of Premades, where it belongs. Expecting casual solo players to do this is bound to be disastrous, which is what we're seeing right now.

• Two-Teams BGs in the form of Custom Lobbies.
• Three-Teams BGs for those who want it.
• Only 3 queues, so the population is not spread thin.
• No more mutual hatred between DM sweatlords and objective players.
• No more farming new players all day for lack of alternative.
• A clear progression path through the queues from casual to competitive.
• The community would, after all this time, finally have a chance to grow.

sarahthes

Moonspawn wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

[*] Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 
[/list]

No MMR matchmaking logic will ever work in a game where some are playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

Balanced matches are the one thing that could draw in newcomers to become interested in PVP itself (not just the daily). Unfortunately what we have right now is the complete opposite. Even with the increased rewards, we're currently experiencing a cycle of self-destruction that starts with lopsided matches, leading to fewer players and increased queue times. If nothing is done the best we can hope for is to end up right where we were before Update 44: A small and loyal BG community that never grows, while the vast majority of players only ever step foot inside a battleground for the daily reward. As disappointing as this outcome would be, I honestly fear we're heading into a much darker place.

Thankfully there is a way to utilize all of the work that has been done so far, without throwing anything away. Not the new BGs, and certainly not the old ones. We start by reducing the existing queue options to only these three:

1) 4v4v4 Objectives Queue, solos only

Most players would come looking for the daily here. In my opinion, the only real way the PVP community will grow is if THESE newcomers become interested in PVP. It would be nice if they weren't met by sweatlords with a personal vendetta against Zenimax for not allowing the existence of the queue option below.

2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

This is the most important step towards balanced matches. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

3)Two-Teams Custom Lobbies (4v4, 8v8, 3v3, 2v2, XvX)

The community has always asked for custom lobbies. The rewards here would probably need to be restricted to bragging rights, perhaps a separate leaderboard with wins and losses. Thanks to the new BGs being originally designed for Group vs Group, the work is mostly done. Countering how hopelessly lopsided most matches are in two-teams BGs will happen when entire teams collectively agree to change builds and strategies midgame. This has always been the domain of Premades, where it belongs. Expecting casual solo players to do this is bound to be disastrous, which is what we're seeing right now.

• Custom Lobbies for those who want it.
• Three-teams BGs for those who want it.
• Two-teams BGs for those who want it.
• Only 3 queues, so the population is not spread thin.
• No more mutual hatred between DMers and objective players.
• No more farming new players all day for lack of alternative.
• A clear progression path through the queues from casual to competitive.
• The community would, after all this time, finally have a chance to grow.

We had a Deathmatch only queue for a while. It just meant that people in the random/objectives queue got shoved into Deathmatch, exclusively.

Personofsecrets

I hope that balance can be looked at as a way to address the one sidedness that often happens in battlegrounds and pvp in general.

Balorgh and Mechanical Acuity make it too easy for players to do massive damage while still building for sustain and survivability.

Classes with diverse and powerful kits lead to canned or inevitable gameplay. It's also the case that one team having such class when another tean doesn't can be a massive advantage.

Sorcerer being able to put down negates on flags and streak from objective to objective is a large advantage in flag games. Their kit also allows them to survive, stun through block, and not have to worry about resources. It's confusing why this class get's so much. Their power overload is also toxic since they can just use an Aetherial Well before every BG.

Templar receives super efficient purging and healing. They get a stun through block which can knock people off of objectives or even off the edge of the map entirely. They also get sweep which is quickly generated and a strong execute skill.

While being the worse offender of abusing the proc sets mentioned above, it's also possible for Warden to just give everyone on the team more health.

Some of these differences in kits I suppose can be interesting to try and overcome, but they also have great propensity to just cause super lopsided non-games. A team with a Sorc versus a team without one should just be winning all flag games for no other reason than team composition.

Moonspawn

sarahthes wrote: »

We had a Deathmatch only queue for a while. It just meant that people in the random/objectives queue got shoved into Deathmatch, exclusively.

I don't understand. The objective queue would include DM, but the first and second queues would be completely separate. Players in different queues would never run into each other.

chessalavakia_ESO

Thanks for the follow up.

sarahthes

Moonspawn wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

We had a Deathmatch only queue for a while. It just meant that people in the random/objectives queue got shoved into Deathmatch, exclusively.

I don't understand. The objective queue would include DM, but the first and second queues would be completely separate. Players in different queues would never run into each other.

Splitting the population meant that both queues had unacceptably long waits. The solution was backfilling the DM queue from the objectives queue, and that meant that getting anything other than DM was rare because one person queueing for DM would have their entire match backfilled from the other queue. If not, they'd be waiting for sometimes upwards of an hour for their queue to pop.

Krymsyn_Panda

I feel like just looking at the data for BGs is not seeing the forest for the trees, which is an overarching worry of players I talk to. I personally have put 3 characters on the leaderboards over the last 3 weeks. Why? To get the new shiny rewards. As I draw in on my 50th BG currency, I am almost done with BGs and what they offer. My participation makes the numbers look big, but in fact that will drop off sharply.

Why will I stop playing BGs once I have all the collectibles? Healing and Scoring.

Going into a match where no one can die is the worst PvP experience I've ever had in ANY game. You just stand around and look at each other and wait out the 15 minutes. I have seen healing brought up multiple times by players but yet it is still not addressed in your post.

Why is everyone a healer in BGs? Not only is it way overtuned that even when I go in on a glass cannon build, killing some builds is near impossible, but most importantly the leaderboards are STILL based on medal score. This was brought up in PTS and is still not addressed in your post. I am in no way a great PvP player, but I was able to get multiple characters on the leaderboards easily by just sharing sets between characters and healing.

While I appreciate this new energy for increased communication, and hope it continues, I worry that feedback is still being dismissed and balance is done simply by spreadsheets.

Soarora

Thank you for the detailed communication! It’s good to see.

runa_gate

BGs are more popular because of the Golden Pursuits and tokens from the daily for the warbear mount. With those two factors it's impossible to say whether BGs are more "popular" or not, they just happen to be incentivized at the moment.

If the redesign's intention was to make matches even more one-sided by allowing people to stay in the spawning area then the changes have been a resounding success.

xylena_lazarow

The intended casual queue should be the first one listed, definitely not 4v4 comp.

Aldoss

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Hey all, we wanted to give you a short update on some fixes and improvements we have in progress for PVP Battlegrounds, following Update 44, as well as respond to just a bit of your related feedback. 

First, we wanted to lightly touch on the Update 44 livestream. Sometimes we try new things, and they don't land the way we’d planned. We take these experiences, learn from them, and move forward with the goal of applying those learnings to and making the “next time” better. Part of that process includes listening to our community’s feedback and taking that into consideration as we plan future efforts. We also want to acknowledge that we did set the Update 44 livestream VOD to unlisted on Twitch. While no one on the stream did or said anything wrong, we were seeing an increase in abusive comments and harassment toward our developers as a result and decided to do what was right for them. That said, we recognize that we should have mentioned to you all that we took that action when we did, and why. 

Going back a bit to earlier this year, we’ve seen some of you ask what became of the Cyrodiil testing we did. While we did post a short post-test follow-up here, we recognize that we could have provided a bit more detail. Ultimately, the test – a stress test, really – was to measure game performance and overall player experience in Cyrodiil when we raise the population cap closer to what it was at launch. It was a “What’s possible” test. The results of that test were valuable, and have informed discussions we’ve been having since then about next steps. Ultimately, with how much the game has grown and changed in the last 10 years, just raising the population cap to what it was at launch does not result in the play experience we want. Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon. 

Onto the present and the Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds changes. Since we launched Update 44, we have seen a significant increase in PVP Battlegrounds participation. This was one of our primary goals for the Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds changes. We wanted to streamline the overall battlegrounds experience in ESO and make it more fun, easier to hop into and enjoy, the structure easier to understand, and generally make them more accessible for all our players. We acknowledge that some of our players have expressed enjoying the previous 3-sided format more and are continuing to monitor feedback paired with in-game data. We are not planning any other major changes to ESO’s PVP Battlegrounds in the near future; rather, we’ll be focusing on addressing some of the main pain points outside of general personal preferences between the 3-sided versus 2-sided formats. The main two fixes and improvements are: 

• Continuing to investigate cases where Battlegrounds matches sometimes still start with less than full teams. This is a high priority and includes adding additional logging to help aid the investigation. 
• Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 

Thank you all for continuing to share your constructive feedback and suggestions with us!  

Thanks Jessica. Just to confirm, is this the thread you were talking about that was going to be the follow up to the Feedback thread in general?

If it is, then I'm disappointed. I'm really confused at ZOS' willingness to invest a year's worth of resources into a content patch, only to release the content patch completely broken, and then not rush to correct it.

There's no more investigations that need to be done regarding BGs not starting when they're 8v7. They don't start. That's all that matters and something should have been done immediately when you started receiving hundreds of posts from people saying that lobbies aren't getting filled.

Letting a match start when it's 8v7 is helpful, sure, but that's a bandaid fix and will frustrate the players that get stuck without a full team. That also doesn't solve the fact that single digit players on PCNA ever willfully solo queue into the group queue. If a match starts 8v7, it will 99% stay as 8v7 the entire match.

You need to get started immediately on changing to matchmaking queue logic to only create a BG lobby when all players have confirmed that they are ready. This is the exact same logic that exists for the Dungeon Finder queue. You already know how to do it. It needs to be done asap.

As for the second point: how is MMR currently determined? No one from ZOS has ever actually said. All we've been told is that "it's not based on medal score", but that doesn't help a player that has 16k hp know why they got paired against a vet BG players who has played BGs every day for 8 years that will destroy that 16k hp player within 1 GCD, giving them no chance to learn from their mistake.

The above situation happens constantly. My wife and I have played BGs nearly every day since 2020. Last night we had 3 matches with teammates who had less than 18k hp in group 4v4. How are they getting there?

Don't get me wrong - thank you for communicating. Thank you for addressing us. However, the content of this post is just really the same underwhelming response that we've always received.

We need actions. I really wanted to not have to wait until U45 for all the failures of BGs to get "tinkered" with. You need to make actions immediately, otherwise, that year's worth of investment into this patch will have been wasted.

BG queues are already down. We're waiting longer and seeing less new names in lobbies. The honeymoon is over and people were disappointed. You missed the boat and I'm sad about that because I was excited to see BGs become something more prominent in the ESO ecosystem.

Pity.

Moonspawn

sarahthes wrote: »

Splitting the population meant that both queues had unacceptably long waits. The solution was backfilling the DM queue from the objectives queue, and that meant that getting anything other than DM was rare because one person queueing for DM would have their entire match backfilled from the other queue. If not, they'd be waiting for sometimes upwards of an hour for their queue to pop.

Its hard to believe that with only two queues, BOTH had unacceptably long waits. Anyway, filling the DM sweatlord's queue with the casuals trying to do the daily is the opposite of my suggestion. They should never be forced into the same match no matter the circumstances, not ever. This is exactly what makes both these groups stop playing BGs altogether.

Furthermore, reducing the 4 current queues to 3 concentrates the population, reducing queue times.

manukartofanu

I read the first message in the thread and still don't understand. Could you please clarify? Has the kick for inactivity while you're lying dead in a deathmatch without the possibility of respawn been fixed or not? From the post, it seems like it's not a priority. I just can't figure out if the development team has already fixed it or simply doesn't consider it important to fix.

RomanRex

Aldoss wrote: »

BG queues are already down. We're waiting longer and seeing less new names in lobbies. The honeymoon is over and people were disappointed. You missed the boat and I'm sad about that because I was excited to see BGs become something more prominent in the ESO ecosystem.

Pity.

I completely agree with this.

I’ve consistently ranked in the top 10 of the leaderboards every week since the update went live because I was motivated by the rewards. Now that I’ve obtained the mount and all the style pages, I’ll likely shift my focus to other activities.

That said, I’m concerned about the future of battlegrounds. From what I’ve observed, participation seems likely to decline further. Many of the dedicated players I used to see regularly (prior to Update 44) have already moved on to other PvP games, and I worry that this trend will continue.

While I’ve tried the new 8v8 mode a few times, I’ve found it to be chaotic. Teams often include players who aren’t wearing PvP-optimized gear or who appear unfamiliar with the mode’s objectives, which makes the experience unenjoyable.

Although less frequent, the cue is still broken and wasting 5 minutes of time for people. That’s frustrating. I hope the development team takes this feedback into consideration to help sustain the battlegrounds community.

LadyGP

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Going back a bit to earlier this year, we’ve seen some of you ask what became of the Cyrodiil testing we did. While we did post a short post-test follow-up here, we recognize that we could have provided a bit more detail. Ultimately, the test – a stress test, really – was to measure game performance and overall player experience in Cyrodiil when we raise the population cap closer to what it was at launch. It was a “What’s possible” test. The results of that test were valuable, and have informed discussions we’ve been having since then about next steps. Ultimately, with how much the game has grown and changed in the last 10 years, just raising the population cap to what it was at launch does not result in the play experience we want. Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon. 
 

Oh my. Please please please tell me this is a hint and big changes in the pipeline coming to Cyro next year. Even if it's just a performance/back end change that would then allow the cap to be raised... I'll take it!

NGL - this is giving me hope.

I also want to take a second and acknowledge now much I appreciate this kind of communication from ZoS. This is a great first step in improving the coms and I really hope they embrace this and expand upon it in 2025. Tell us things even if you know we aren't going to like what is being said - at least we get the information - I think most people can respect that. Being unhappy for an outcome is different than being unhappy for a lack of communication - if that makes sense.

Anyways, thanks @ZOS_JessicaFolsom and the whole team that is working behind the scenes to get us info we have been asking for.

Destai

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Hey all, we wanted to give you a short update on some fixes and improvements we have in progress for PVP Battlegrounds, following Update 44, as well as respond to just a bit of your related feedback.

Thanks for keeping the conversation going! This is really good communication, keep it up!

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

First, we wanted to lightly touch on the Update 44 livestream. Sometimes we try new things, and they don't land the way we’d planned. We take these experiences, learn from them, and move forward with the goal of applying those learnings to and making the “next time” better. Part of that process includes listening to our community’s feedback and taking that into consideration as we plan future efforts. We also want to acknowledge that we did set the Update 44 livestream VOD to unlisted on Twitch. While no one on the stream did or said anything wrong, we were seeing an increase in abusive comments and harassment toward our developers as a result and decided to do what was right for them. That said, we recognize that we should have mentioned to you all that we took that action when we did, and why. 

I totally respect that you guys did it to preserve your staff's well being. I'm glad you recognize the need for proactivity in these things and I think that's a huge area where you guys could improve. We saw that VOD taken down and then the US show cancelled. Neither of which really received much explanation. Would appreciate more detail before something becomes a bigger issue.

That being said, I hope there is a "next time" with Brian. My two cents, may be start with a stream on what combat's overall trajectory is. Where's hybridization going, what the current concerns & projects are, which changes didn't land well - you get the idea. Maybe even start a thread to ask us what we'd like to ask him.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Going back a bit to earlier this year, we’ve seen some of you ask what became of the Cyrodiil testing we did. While we did post a short post-test follow-up here, we recognize that we could have provided a bit more detail. Ultimately, the test – a stress test, really – was to measure game performance and overall player experience in Cyrodiil when we raise the population cap closer to what it was at launch. It was a “What’s possible” test. The results of that test were valuable, and have informed discussions we’ve been having since then about next steps. Ultimately, with how much the game has grown and changed in the last 10 years, just raising the population cap to what it was at launch does not result in the play experience we want. Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon. 

Thanks for acknowledging this one. I know I specifically called this out as an example, so appreciate it being seen. Ultimately, if you guys are asking something of us - whether it's live testing or PTS or whatever - getting context on why is going to be helpful. It helps us set our expectations and target feedback if we better know what's being done with it. Excited to hear about the updates.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Thank you all for continuing to share your constructive feedback and suggestions with us!  

We'll try to keep them coming!

Joy_Division

Not sure how we got here. We went from ZOS actually asking us a forum for how to communicate in the BG thread to a short post, 1/3 of it not about actual PvP, but an explanation of why content was taken down (which I don't care about at all. It wasn't worth watching).

It's not just about the length or wondering what ever happened to that talk about a Reddit Ask Us Anything that might have taken the forum of a dialogue. What about the actual issues that people were complaining about? The overabundance of healing? The lopsided nature of the new BGs? The abundance of tank builds whose main purpose was exactly what the PoV of the stream showcased: just there to "annoy people"?

There's nothing about these issues. That's what I am most concerned about.

Even if Battlegrounds was 1000% bug free and the matches always started with full teams, I would still not play them because ESO's current combat iteration is boring, marked by extreme contrasts with proc-fueled burst combos that take players from 100-0 or literally players repeatedly unloading their entire arsenal of skills without hardly moving the enemy's health bars.

I will grant that a lot of the feedback received about the stream was rude, condescending, abusive, and unfair. Nevertheless, that feedback was mostly directed at frustrations with the current state of combat and balance issues. That's what a lot of folks want ZOS to communicate to us about.

I get it. There's 10 years of compounding balance updates that have been skewed heavily in favor of defense/healing that is going to be time consuming and laborious to even begin to unpack. So, I wasn;t expecting any sort of plan or even any specifics. But what I was kind of hoping for was a vision of what ZOS wanted their PvP to be.

What am we supposed to take from this?

The results of that [population cap] test were valuable, and have informed discussions we’ve been having since then about next steps. Ultimately, with how much the game has grown and changed in the last 10 years, just raising the population cap to what it was at launch does not result in the play experience we want. Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon.

.
It's just generalizations. It don't tell us anything.

What exactly was valuable about those tests? What was learned? What sort of discussions did ZOS have? What next steps were being considered? What is ZOS thinking regarding larger changes?

Also, nobody was asking to raise the population caps to what was at launch. We know that would never work. But the reality is they are too low. They are. Everyone knows it. Everyone complains about it. The caps are so low that these organized groups have become so empowered relative to the overall population that every single night they mercilessly farm the very "casuals" ZOS wants to interest in PvP. I have played in these groups and even I think it's absolutely ridiculous this has been going on for years on end now.

We just want some transparency about what's ZOS is thinking about the future of PvP. I believe fixing the BG que is high priority. I believe that ZOS is thinking of ways to improve the MMR for better match-making. I even believe there are vague ideas about the future of Cyrodiil. Fair enough. But what about the actual combat? What does ZOS want their combat to be? I have no idea. I can only assume since we've had years and years or organized groups instant-killing randoms/solos/pugs/casuals with a proc set so overpowered that is the only tactic groups ever use now, that is what ZOS wants their PvP to be since they have never said otherwise or attempted to address this in an update.

Noerra

Thank you so much for the update! I've been enjoying the Battlegrounds very much, especially the 8v8. And I want to share my experience and feedback in hopes that it is helpful to ZoS moving forward. Overall, I feel very positive.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Hey all, we wanted to give you a short update on some fixes and improvements we have in progress for PVP Battlegrounds, following Update 44, as well as respond to just a bit of your related feedback. 

First, we wanted to lightly touch on the Update 44 livestream. Sometimes we try new things, and they don't land the way we’d planned. We take these experiences, learn from them, and move forward with the goal of applying those learnings to and making the “next time” better. Part of that process includes listening to our community’s feedback and taking that into consideration as we plan future efforts. We also want to acknowledge that we did set the Update 44 livestream VOD to unlisted on Twitch. While no one on the stream did or said anything wrong, we were seeing an increase in abusive comments and harassment toward our developers as a result and decided to do what was right for them. That said, we recognize that we should have mentioned to you all that we took that action when we did, and why. 

The abusive comments are too much, I agree, and at the same time if we can look past the upset there is a value beneath it. Players were shocked to see how inexperienced and unaware the lead combat and pvp designer was. No one expects him to be amazing, but just knowing simple things like heavy attacks restore resources or how to make a viable build for pvp was kinda disappointing. I don't want to hang on the negative though - I'd instead like to be positive and constructive.

I think next time it would be better to collab with a streamer from the pvp community that everyone knows and respects! Some one who is also really good and can make Brian look good just by being in the same group. If you haven't noticed there is a streamer named Seekar that has been uploading Battlegrounds videos every single day and who has voiced that he want's to be a positive presence in the eso community and whom has apologized for his past negativity.

I would recommend that before the ZoS does another BG/PvP Stream that Brain and Seekar collaborate on his build and practice a few matches together before going live.

As for SypherPK, he really isn't a ESO player anymore and he is very out of touch with how the game is currently. After the BG stream event he was criticizing ESO heavily which is not a good look for the game and is actively detouring people away from it. Sekaar on that other hand, I would think, would be more inspiring to viewers and get them excited to try ESO-Battlegrounds for themselves.

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Going back a bit to earlier this year, we’ve seen some of you ask what became of the Cyrodiil testing we did. While we did post a short post-test follow-up here, we recognize that we could have provided a bit more detail. Ultimately, the test – a stress test, really – was to measure game performance and overall player experience in Cyrodiil when we raise the population cap closer to what it was at launch. It was a “What’s possible” test. The results of that test were valuable, and have informed discussions we’ve been having since then about next steps. Ultimately, with how much the game has grown and changed in the last 10 years, just raising the population cap to what it was at launch does not result in the play experience we want. Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon. 

Great! Thanks for the clarification! Excited for the future of ESO!

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

Onto the present and the Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds changes. Since we launched Update 44, we have seen a significant increase in PVP Battlegrounds participation. This was one of our primary goals for the Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds changes. We wanted to streamline the overall battlegrounds experience in ESO and make it more fun, easier to hop into and enjoy, the structure easier to understand, and generally make them more accessible for all our players. We acknowledge that some of our players have expressed enjoying the previous 3-sided format more and are continuing to monitor feedback paired with in-game data. We are not planning any other major changes to ESO’s PVP Battlegrounds in the near future; rather, we’ll be focusing on addressing some of the main pain points outside of general personal preferences between the 3-sided versus 2-sided formats. The main two fixes and improvements are: 

• Continuing to investigate cases where Battlegrounds matches sometimes still start with less than full teams. This is a high priority and includes adding additional logging to help aid the investigation. 
• Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 

Thank you all for continuing to share your constructive feedback and suggestions with us!  

Thanks for sharing and clarifying the direction effort.

I have a lot of feedback to give on the topic of BGs currently. There is a lot I love about them but, of course, I have suggestions.

First off I would like to share the positive: I love the new maps, the power ups, and the bigger teams in 8v8s. I prefer this much more than the previous 4v4v4 personally. Great job!

Secondly, I'd like to share the aspects of the current battlegrounds that I am not enjoying:

• 4v4s just aren't working. More times than not one team will just afk and it takes the game 2 minutes to spawn the afk'd players below. This is not a very enjoyable experience and is the reason that I do not queue for them anymore. I don't want to play on a team that afks or be on the winning side waiting 2 minutes for the game to spawn them down.
• You can tell after the first clash who is going to win the 4v4 with about 90% accuracy. In 8v8s you have more diversity of various levels of skilled players and a mix of good and bad builds. This diversity buffers the one-sidedness better so there is more opportunity for the momentum of a match to turn around, or at the very least not be so one-sided. In 4v4's you know who's going to win right away and then people just afk.
• Having 4 queue methods (4s solo and group, 8s solo and group) is dividing up the players too much contributing to long wait times.
• To play with a friend we have to queue in group, but this often time turns out to be a unplesant experience because (1) we have to wait a very long time to get into a game, and (2) because we are queuing just the two of us, we are often up against a team that is much more optimized and we almost always lose. We aren't terrible players, if I queue into BGs solo I almost always have a positive KD ratio and get lots of points for handling objectives... So what happens is that my friend and I just don't queue into games together. We'd rather explore imperial city or cyrodiil. It's unfortunate because I LOVE the new 8v8 style of battlegrounds, but it's such an unpleasant experience to play group 8v8 for the two reasons I listed.
• Queuing grouped in the old 4v4v4s wasn't a terrible experience because you had a third team that buffered this and offset things in a good way.

And that's really my only complaints... now onto the suggestions to fix it!

Thirdly, I would like to share my thoughts for improvement:

• Get rid of grouped and solo queuing. Combine solo and group 8v8s into just "8v8 battlegrounds" --- Queue times will be faster and "optimized" groups will feel more even matched for people queuing solo or in a small group. Just that would double my enjoyment for my friends and I. (again, right now we hardly ever queue together for grouped play because of long wait times and getting pitted up against super optimized groups just because of the queuing structure of the game)
• Rotate in the old 4v4v4 style of battlegrounds on weekend and such --- just like we do with gamemodes... "4v4v4 Weekend!"
• With 4v4s, at the very least make players teleport down from spawn after 20 or 30 seconds, down from 2 minutes. Collect feedback and go from there.
• I personally would love to hear from someone who enjoys 4v4s... I haven't talked with anyone yet that enjoys them. I think there is an argument to be made for removing 4s all together and making 4v4v4 the ranked mode.

To summarize: 8v8s are a more fun experience while 4v4s have some serious afker problems and are very one-sided. Queue times can be too long because of how split up the queuing options are. Solution: combine solo and grouped 8v8 into just "8v8 battlegrounds" = Queue times will be faster and for those that want to queue with just a friend or two, players like us are less likely to get matched up with super optimized teams producing a more enjoyable battlegrounds experience. Bring back 4v4v4s for special weekends. 4v4v4s could also become the "ranked" option for players.

johnJrant

ZOS: "We want to tell you what kind of work is being done on pvp" - The first of the three paragraphs is information on social behavior that has no real relation to work on pvp, work as such, or a high-quality product. For example, I am much more interested in the quality of the product I am paying for than in a safe space.

Is it possible to find out useful information on whether any changes are waiting for BG. And not your bragging about how you made the environment comfortable and safe?

1. Will there be further work to fix maps and add new ones? (The fittings on the current maps are clearly placed by the developer, he did not understand what he was doing when put rocks and trees. at least for MotKa)
2. Should we expect changes with AOE Hill in BG?
3. Should we expect a change in medals? (let me remind you that the losing team with a lower K/D can still advance more in the top ranking)
4. Can we expect rule changes on spawn? Why is there an opportunity to sit there for 2 minutes?
5. What steps will be taken to attract more players to the ranking battles?

These are only questions about corrections, not about something new. And instead of answering them, you say that everything is safe. Well, that's cool. But what about something more relevant to the problem rather than a social issue?

Necrotech_Master

i also somewhat enjoy the 8v8 mode, and wish the 8v8 solo queue was the default

i havent actually tried 4v4, but i honestly dont want to, considering how difficult it is just to 1v1 people sometimes in the current meta, its almost always a battle of attrition to who is outdamaging whose healing or out sustaining

i would echo what others have said and would suggest that the 8v8 have a solo or duo queue option, i think a full 4 person comped team in the group queue is already enough to heavily sway balance, but smaller groups while still having an impact would be much less impact

johnJrant

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

i also somewhat enjoy the 8v8 mode, and wish the 8v8 solo queue was the default

i havent actually tried 4v4, but i honestly dont want to, considering how difficult it is just to 1v1 people sometimes in the current meta, its almost always a battle of attrition to who is outdamaging whose healing or out sustaining

i would echo what others have said and would suggest that the 8v8 have a solo or duo queue option, i think a full 4 person comped team in the group queue is already enough to heavily sway balance, but smaller groups while still having an impact would be much less impact

i havent actually tried 4v4.....

i wish the 4v4 solo queue was stand the default.

4v4 solo on default one of the few things logically done. 4x4 fights are rated fights. More personalized fights, fights where players can show their skills much better. And naturally it is logical that they will be the first to stand. This is the softest way to get you to learn normal pvp.

if there is some kind of meta, then you can collect your own for your class and win.

Necrotech_Master

johnJrant wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

i also somewhat enjoy the 8v8 mode, and wish the 8v8 solo queue was the default

i havent actually tried 4v4, but i honestly dont want to, considering how difficult it is just to 1v1 people sometimes in the current meta, its almost always a battle of attrition to who is outdamaging whose healing or out sustaining

i would echo what others have said and would suggest that the 8v8 have a solo or duo queue option, i think a full 4 person comped team in the group queue is already enough to heavily sway balance, but smaller groups while still having an impact would be much less impact

i havent actually tried 4v4.....

i wish the 4v4 solo queue was stand the default.

4v4 solo on default one of the few things logically done. 4x4 fights are rated fights. More personalized fights, fights where players can show their skills much better. And naturally it is logical that they will be the first to stand. This is the softest way to get you to learn normal pvp.

if there is some kind of meta, then you can collect your own for your class and win.

if you havent played 4v4, why do you want the 4v4 to stay as the default when you have to manually go and change the queue dropdown?

the 8v8 is a much better casual BG experience because the team is larger

johnJrant

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

if you havent played 4v4, why do you want the 4v4 to stay as the default when you have to manually go and change the queue dropdown?

the 8v8 is a much better casual BG experience because the team is larger[/quote]

I forgot to put the quotation marks. That was your quote. I only play 4x4 myself.
8x8 fights are the best experience for you because you are hoping for a big team. It will be very difficult for you to learn anything there and it will be more difficult to move on to rating fights. You want to put "casual" in the first place again. Leave at least some aspect of the game to players who want to face some difficulties. 90% of the game now can be completed by holding down one button. Isn't "casual" enough for you in the game? Maybe BG is just not for you then?

Moreover, you say that you haven't even tried to try the "main" rated fights at all, why do you want to ruin the lives of players who spend 90% of the game in rated battles with an extra action?

Sorcnado

Same song and dance Zos. Lets get some real progress for once

gariondavey

sarahthes wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

[*] Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 
[/list]

No MMR matchmaking logic will ever work in a game where some are playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

Balanced matches are the one thing that could draw in newcomers to become interested in PVP itself (not just the daily). Unfortunately what we have right now is the complete opposite. Even with the increased rewards, we're currently experiencing a cycle of self-destruction that starts with lopsided matches, leading to fewer players and increased queue times. If nothing is done the best we can hope for is to end up right where we were before Update 44: A small and loyal BG community that never grows, while the vast majority of players only ever step foot inside a battleground for the daily reward. As disappointing as this outcome would be, I honestly fear we're heading into a much darker place.

Thankfully there is a way to utilize all of the work that has been done so far, without throwing anything away. Not the new BGs, and certainly not the old ones. We start by reducing the existing queue options to only these three:

1) 4v4v4 Objectives Queue, solos only

Most players would come looking for the daily here. In my opinion, the only real way the PVP community will grow is if THESE newcomers become interested in PVP. It would be nice if they weren't met by sweatlords with a personal vendetta against Zenimax for not allowing the existence of the queue option below.

2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

This is the most important step towards balanced matches. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

3)Two-Teams Custom Lobbies (4v4, 8v8, 3v3, 2v2, XvX)

The community has always asked for custom lobbies. The rewards here would probably need to be restricted to bragging rights, perhaps a separate leaderboard with wins and losses. Thanks to the new BGs being originally designed for Group vs Group, the work is mostly done. Countering how hopelessly lopsided most matches are in two-teams BGs will happen when entire teams collectively agree to change builds and strategies midgame. This has always been the domain of Premades, where it belongs. Expecting casual solo players to do this is bound to be disastrous, which is what we're seeing right now.

• Custom Lobbies for those who want it.
• Three-teams BGs for those who want it.
• Two-teams BGs for those who want it.
• Only 3 queues, so the population is not spread thin.
• No more mutual hatred between DMers and objective players.
• No more farming new players all day for lack of alternative.
• A clear progression path through the queues from casual to competitive.
• The community would, after all this time, finally have a chance to grow.

We had a Deathmatch only queue for a while. It just meant that people in the random/objectives queue got shoved into Deathmatch, exclusively.

That's because they didn't separate them. It isn't hard.

Aldoss

gariondavey wrote: »

sarahthes wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

[*] Improvements to the MMR matchmaking logic, with the goal that teams which are formed by the matchmaker being more equal MMR-wise. (i.e. - total MMR score for each team is more equal, vs just individual players.) 
[/list]

No MMR matchmaking logic will ever work in a game where some are playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

Balanced matches are the one thing that could draw in newcomers to become interested in PVP itself (not just the daily). Unfortunately what we have right now is the complete opposite. Even with the increased rewards, we're currently experiencing a cycle of self-destruction that starts with lopsided matches, leading to fewer players and increased queue times. If nothing is done the best we can hope for is to end up right where we were before Update 44: A small and loyal BG community that never grows, while the vast majority of players only ever step foot inside a battleground for the daily reward. As disappointing as this outcome would be, I honestly fear we're heading into a much darker place.

Thankfully there is a way to utilize all of the work that has been done so far, without throwing anything away. Not the new BGs, and certainly not the old ones. We start by reducing the existing queue options to only these three:

1) 4v4v4 Objectives Queue, solos only

Most players would come looking for the daily here. In my opinion, the only real way the PVP community will grow is if THESE newcomers become interested in PVP. It would be nice if they weren't met by sweatlords with a personal vendetta against Zenimax for not allowing the existence of the queue option below.

2) 4v4v4 Deathmatch Queue, solos only (maybe solos and duos)

This is the most important step towards balanced matches. Even if every objective mode was revamped by experienced BG players to actively encourage fighting, there would still be people only interested in deathmatch. All 12 players obviously need to be playing the same game. Can't have some playing chess, while others are playing checkers.

3)Two-Teams Custom Lobbies (4v4, 8v8, 3v3, 2v2, XvX)

The community has always asked for custom lobbies. The rewards here would probably need to be restricted to bragging rights, perhaps a separate leaderboard with wins and losses. Thanks to the new BGs being originally designed for Group vs Group, the work is mostly done. Countering how hopelessly lopsided most matches are in two-teams BGs will happen when entire teams collectively agree to change builds and strategies midgame. This has always been the domain of Premades, where it belongs. Expecting casual solo players to do this is bound to be disastrous, which is what we're seeing right now.

• Custom Lobbies for those who want it.
• Three-teams BGs for those who want it.
• Two-teams BGs for those who want it.
• Only 3 queues, so the population is not spread thin.
• No more mutual hatred between DMers and objective players.
• No more farming new players all day for lack of alternative.
• A clear progression path through the queues from casual to competitive.
• The community would, after all this time, finally have a chance to grow.

We had a Deathmatch only queue for a while. It just meant that people in the random/objectives queue got shoved into Deathmatch, exclusively.

That's because they didn't separate them. It isn't hard.

This is the correct answer. I assume the person was talking about the phase where ZOS made a DM-only and then made a random queue that would backfill into the DM-only queue.

It was terrible logic and spawned the infamous "1 person queuing for DM would cause 11 people to have to play DM" debate. Those of us who remember BGs before this phase remember that DM was the most popular game mode and had the most consistent lobbies, because players were only choosing to queue for DM and not random, ball games, or land grab games.

I would have hoped that they'd learn from that mistake to make this queuing system better, but alas, the matchmaking logic is just as bad as that phase was.

DaniimalsSF

Thank you for the communication. I do believe more transparency would go a long way in building and maintaining trust with your customers.

When it comes to incendiary comments remember to ignore the content because it’s not personal, it can’t be as the commenters don’t know the developers. Then try to understand and validate the thoughts and feelings of your customers. Finally engage honestly and curiously in a concrete discussion about what is possible.

My personal thoughts are that PvP needs to be more focused. It’s currently spread out across too many subpar offerings. My ideas care:

Simplify BGs to be quick and dirty.
1. Have one DM solo queue, 16 players, no teams, and use all existing maps.
2. Have one 4v4v4 queue, solo or group, objective match, and use all maps.
3. Just daily rewards and participation gold.

IC is dead.
1. Convert IC to PvE content. Saves development money for an upcoming chapter. PvEers will love it.

Expand duels.
1. Allow 1v1 up to 4v4.
2. Connect all “duels” to a ranked leaderboard. Ranked by wins.
3. Add some arenas in major cities where people can organize large events.
4. Make this the core of organized, competitive PvP, with the main goal to rank highly on a public leaderboard.

Cyrodiil
2. Put all PvP efforts moving forward into reaching its full potential!

Flame away!