Update 44 PVP Battlegrounds Follow-up

kiwi_tea

I appreciate the response.

The two pain points you mention warrant an immediate response, so fair enough.

As to longer term issues - Two things that aren't mentioned in your post is your team's perspective on the health and balance of ESO PVP, and what the development team's overall vision is for PVP. Regular communication about this would be earthshattering. I'd also like to briefly second the call for more transparency. Is the incredibly powerful healing in PVP intentional (eg, intended to allow more players to participate without dying)? How do developers perceive the so-called "tank meta"? What is the reasoning behind hiding MMR ratings in BGs? Does this reflect the aforesaid vision that developers have for PVP?

I look forward to hearing more about plans for ESO's PVP systems, and hope what we hear can be (a) more candid (b) much more frequent.

Please don't let the intemperate reactions of some PVP players (who, in their very limited defense, have felt ignored and abandoned for a very long time now) prevent you from being frank with us.

[Edit: I also appreciate the acknowledgement that the *way* the VOD was removed was tactless, while also appreciating the desire to unlist it. A little would have gone a long way there, and it has just in this acknowledgement. Thanks.]

Zabagad

ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »

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 the follow up, but...

While the "More on that very soon" sounds promising, I'm really worried about the part in bold (bold by me).
I know it's your game, but I haven't heard a single voice from any of the players who took part in that test who would sign: "does not result in the play experience we want" (we = the players)

Yes, there were some laggy moments (not sig. more then now), but the overall experience was so much more fun for us.
At least that was my (and based on the threads and chats) many others experience of the test...

For all the rest I 100% agree with the answer from @Joy_Division (actual #21 before mods )

Sarannah

Currently only using two team BG's for the daily BG bonus, and this has been a bad experience!

My biggest issue with two team BG's is not being able to get the daily bonus in any reasonable fashion. Make this daily bonus a 100% to gain, maybe 50% on the first loss, and the other 50% on the second loss, on top of the already existing BG bonusses. And if one wins, reduce the bonus to what was left of the daily BG bonus if players have already received part of it.

This may even increase BG populations, as casuals would be more enticed to queue for the daily bonus.

PS: Other issues with two team BG's: Too much incoming damage, too many lopsided matches, no tactics at all, gear/dps gap too noticable, too easily getting outnumbered in small side area fights, balance issues too noticable, comebacks are practically impossible, spawncamping, etc.

Necrotech_Master

johnJrant wrote: »

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

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?

because i dont enjoy sweaty competitive play, i want to have fun with it

8v8 is a much more enjoyable fun experience to me, so its almost annoying that 4v4 is the default option

if you want people to learn or get interested in pvp, they need to do 8v8 first to get a taste for it, not get curbstomped in a 4v4 right from the get go with ultra sweaty people looking for good fights, that just turns people off of the experience, and provides a worse uncompetitive experience for those sweaty players

competitive mode is just that, for competitive sweaty players who care about using meta builds and all that, but for a casual that is the worst experience possible for them when they dont fully understand whats going on

you have said before that you want the highly competitive fights and want less casual/inexperienced players in there, well the best way to prevent that is by changing the default queue as most casuals will just queue into the first option available

ive been playing the game since launch and have dabbled in every form of pvp in the game as they came out (cyro, IC, and BGs), and have at least 1 grand overlord toon so im not inexperienced with pvp, but i would say i take a more non-competitive casual approach to it, i play to have fun, not to get curbstomped by overly sweaty tryhards

IndigoDreams

Let me know when 3 teams is a topic again.

JonnytheKing

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!  

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Reading between the lines of the PR speech, all I hear is that you've learned nothing and that nothing will change because, as you stated, no one did anything wrong. Once again, it seems we'll be treated like the troublemakers, Playing the victim won't help anyone. I fail to see how criticizing someone's job performance qualifies as bullying.

we need actions, we need to see those actions, your words mean nothing.

i know you can do better jess.

JonnytheKing

VixxVexx wrote: »

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

its crazy they think this is ok

XSTRONG

One thing I noticed on PS5eu is that Battleground que is really short now, it takes no time at all to get a 8vs8 or 4vs4 solo.

Before the update you could be in que for ages, now you can do alot of battlegrounds without having to wait in que for the whole evening.

I think Capture the relic needs a rework, as soon as a team get 100 points it ends up in a tank and healing stalemate

Lags

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!  

id like to reiterate this one more time. If the game was in a good place, if performance was in a good place, if pvp was in a good place, if the BG que was in a good place, if you guys hadn't made so many bad combat choices over the last few years, then i doubt anyone would have complained or questioned brians knowledge or skill at the game.

I dont know how many people need to say it but ill say it again, we do not expect the employees at zos to be top tier players. In pvp or whatever. That being said, when someone has the title of "lead pvp and combat designer" and you see them playing, and it looks like they dont have a lot of game knowledge, or understanding of mechanics, or things that over all concern a lot of pvp players, it is going to make you question if this is part of the reason things have been going so wrong.

From terrible balance, to mechanics, to broken sets, to extreme overhealing, to bad combat changes that make things feel more clunky, to bugs, to over powered things people are constantly complaining about, there are many things that pvpers are concerned about, and when it seems like the person who we would imagine is running this part of the game isnt really aware of any of it, or many of the intricacies of the combat of the game, it can be concerning.

This is the internet, and twitch chat is one of the worst places for stupid comments, right next to twitter. So im sorry if people were rude to brian. Brian seems like a great guy, but people have a right to be concerned when things seem to be going in the opposite way of where many of us would like them to go.

I really believe that if things were in a better place, specifically with combat, balance, and how broken healing is atm, people would not have been so up in arms about this. I have been playing since 2016. I have seen many people from zenimax play the game. And every time its about the same, they seem like an average player who doesnt really pvp much. But to be fair, we dont often see zos people pvp. Except for rich, he seems like he can sweat a bit. And over all these years i have never seen so many people complain about how zos employees play. I really think there is a connection there.

otherwise im pretty interested in this comment "Some larger changes will be needed to get us there. More on that very soon. " im about all out of hope for things changing in eso in the way that i want, especially performance after all these years, but im always following and hoping to see you guys try something new to improve things, and hoping it will work. Id love for eso to be my game again.

Above anything else though, if you guys communicated better things would get better. Both by listening to player feedback and talking to players more. Talking to cyrodiil players about cyrodiil, and trials players about trials, and newer players about the new player experience, and all players about the bad reward structure. Communication goes a long way and really could help things in this game and community. GG.

Chrisilis

XSTRONG wrote: »

One thing I noticed on PS5eu is that Battleground que is really short now, it takes no time at all to get a 8vs8 or 4vs4 solo.

Before the update you could be in que for ages, now you can do alot of battlegrounds without having to wait in que for the whole evening.

I think Capture the relic needs a rework, as soon as a team get 100 points it ends up in a tank and healing stalemate

PS5 NA here and my experience is the exact opposite, queues are taking FOREVER. 15, 20, 25 minutes per game easy and that doesnt count sitting in spawn waiting for the game to start. Example, while waiting in que for BG's yesterday I caught 149 fish and then I stopped counting.

johnJrant

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

because i dont enjoy sweaty competitive play, i want to have fun with it

8v8 is a much more enjoyable fun experience to me, so its almost annoying that 4v4 is the default option

if you want people to learn or get interested in pvp, they need to do 8v8 first to get a taste for it, not get curbstomped in a 4v4 right from the get go with ultra sweaty people looking for good fights, that just turns people off of the experience, and provides a worse uncompetitive experience for those sweaty players

competitive mode is just that, for competitive sweaty players who care about using meta builds and all that, but for a casual that is the worst experience possible for them when they dont fully understand whats going on

you have said before that you want the highly competitive fights and want less casual/inexperienced players in there, well the best way to prevent that is by changing the default queue as most casuals will just queue into the first option available

ive been playing the game since launch and have dabbled in every form of pvp in the game as they came out (cyro, IC, and BGs), and have at least 1 grand overlord toon so im not inexperienced with pvp, but i would say i take a more non-competitive casual approach to it, i play to have fun, not to get curbstomped by overly sweaty tryhards

It is incredible what complex expressions and syntaxes people try to justify their inability to do anything.
You know, when you talk about BG, you must say how much you play there. I get 8 to 20 fights a day and I'm in the top almost every week. I doubt you play as much. You are not the main consumer of this content. To be honest, it's clearly not for you if you need something simpler. if you play 10 years and cant understand how that works.

After a week of reading forums and opinions and looking at the reaction of ZOS.
I no longer want new players who don't want to do anything to win and don't understand the simplest things in 4x4.

I don't give a damn about your 8x8 swamp, what's going on there, what problems are there. for me, this is an absolutely unnecessary mode that simply repeats the mini cyrodiil. I am in favor of this mode remaining and developing to pull off all the casual trash. But this is not BG. The bad players won't get better there, the good ones have nothing to do there.
I'm even ready to apologize to ZOS for the suggestion and the negativity towards pulling players to non-competitive modes.

I fully accepted the fact that TESO will have a huge layer of players who, not being capable of anything, will still want to receive rewards that they did not deserve. I do not mind and fully support the appearance of the "get rewards without participating in battle" button.

In general, all I need is just:
correction of current errors in 4x4 (4x4 players know about them and have said everything)

In no case should spoil the competitive mode even more.

To see at least some development of the competitive mode for "adults"

Not so much.

I can also say the following. If it's hard for you now, then imagine what kind of matches you will have when the guys from the top 50 fly to you without accidentally switching the mode? They will be very angry because they got into this swamp. And two good players from the top 50 will cooperate very quickly and all your 8 8x8 fans, along with the most boring current warden, will be incinerated very quickly and painfully. And imagine forgetting to switch the mode to as many as three players? And imagine the competitive mode will be completely broken? How difficult will it be for you in this case? All your gameplay will come down to the fact that you will be happy to be in a team with these players. Although it may still be like that.

*I apologize in advance if something offended anyone. Everything is written in extremely neutral tones and is intended only to express an opinion, and not to offend anyone. [snip]

[edited for trolling]

johnJrant

In order not to create a new theme, I will leave this screenshot here.

The losing team in this case did not just lose, but as you can see by the score was not very able to approach the flags. This is not even an approximately equal score, they were defeated even with such a huge amount of hill. But nevertheless, they have a huge gap in the top ranking. This needs to be fixed somehow.

I will add from the new one. The necromancer does not only have incorrect damage figures. here it's about 500k and when you see 1kk, it's actually 1.5-1.7kk. But the medal standings do not take into account buffs, debuffs, camp and other contributions to the victory. And specifically in this match, the necromancer was one of the keys to victory, but the medal standings do not take this into account.

johnJrant

That's what I think you need to do first. (applies only to BG 4x4 and the main consumers of this content)

1. Recycling of medals. Hill shouldn't have that much weight. Buffs, debuffs, and control must be taken into account. The losing team should have a lowering percentage, especially on the hill. As for me, hill losers may not be counted in the top standings at all, only damage and debuffs.

2. Do something about Hill. Fights at the end of the week for the top 50-1 turn into a terrible tedium. The only option how to remove excessive vitality without hitting the necessary one, I see in cutting AOE hill. 30 maybe 50% (Players, don't forget that Hill on target works for the group as well.)

3. Until there are interesting battles for the flag, I suggest we redo all the modes into three DM modes.
- DM 3 lives. only the general changes in the medal standings that are necessary.
- DM with point retention (fixed). A hybrid medal count of DM and capture the flag. Holding points should increase points for kills.
- DM with point retention (moving).

4. Remove all rocks and trees from 4x4 maps. Or just disable their collision. Reduce it at the corners. I don't know. The stones get in the way.


These are relatively non-demanding changes that, in my opinion, will make 4x4 much better and more honest by adding more competitive moments.

Turtle_Bot

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. 

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

@ZOS_JessicaFolsom First off, thanks for opening this thread to talk to us a bit more directly on this topic, hopefully this improved communication continues and doesn't just get left as this thread. I haven't been able to sit down properly to respond to this thread until now (Christmas/December is always super busy for me with family and even more so this year).

On to the meat of this thread though:

• Live Stream:

  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. 

  Thanks for clarifying why it was taken down, it's understandable and I agree that no-one should be on the receiving end of abusive comments.
  That being said, I really do hope that you continue to do more of these types of streams and take on board the feedback given as with some additional planning as has been outlined in the other thread, it would help make these things better in the future:
  1. having a dedicated "host" of the stream so the dev can focus on providing answers, taking on board feedback and just generally providing insightful information without the added responsibilities of being the host/moderator etc of the stream.
  2. additional research being done for the upcoming stream, this gives the dev some prior information and engagement before the stream even happens. By getting the community involved via community polls (across multiple social media platforms) in the lead up, that also gives the dev some early insights into potential topics that might come up during the stream (allowing time to gather thoughts and formulate potential answers should such a topic arise).
  3. barring community engagement before the stream, reach out to some current experienced players who's primary engagement with the game is the part the stream is about, and have them on-hand (even just watching the stream but with a way to message the dev/host to help answer questions or reword questions to be more thought provoking as I outlined in my examples on the other thread here.
  
  I also want to mention that as overboard as some of the comments were, the fact that there was still a massive amount of engagement after the stream, shows that the players/community are still very passionate about the success of the game and this is a good sign. While players are still speaking up for the game to get better, there is always that chance to make things right, but when that willingness to speak up completely disappears, that is when it has become too late and it is a lost cause and no amount of promises or even actions will save it.
  This sign of player willingness to speak up needs to be encouraged, engaged with and maintained via pushing forward with more open, honest and transparent communication and not reverting back to retreating back into the shell. It can be a rough process, but, there is a quote that will always stick with me: "The hardest choices in life, are the right ones. The ones that are easy, are the wrong ones."
  In this case, the hard choice is getting back out there, engaging more with the community, listening to, and understanding their concerns, frustrations, hopes and dreams for the game, explaining the teams vision for the direction of the game, and the reasoning behind that vision/direction, but it's the right choice because it brings everyone on to the same page so that the game and players can move forward.
• The performance tests

  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. 

  In relation to this point, I feel that the majority (that I have talked to) understand that things can't easily be returned to those levels due to how much has been added to the game since launch and I don't think anyone (at least those who are reasonable) will be upset that the populations can't go back to what they were at launch (as much as we miss those times). But the message I have been seeing from the players is that something urgent does need to be done to increase the populations to a good midpoint between the current caps and those launch population caps, that alleviates a lot of the current issues the low population caps are currently causing (such as the disproportionately overwhelming power of organized raids that there's simply not enough numbers to fight against such raids) while a more long term solution is worked on.
  The other important thing that comes alongside finding this middle ground for population caps is the open and honest communication to bring the community along with you guys when these tests are done. As @Joy_Division pointed out, things like explaining the overall results of a test is important, for example: "X test has found that there are certain mechanics such as stacking/healing/shielding/other, that are creating additional strain when taken to the extreme that needs to be looked into adjusting and we are looking to adjust/rework some of these abilities/sets/mechanics over the next few patches to see if/what improvements can be gained or if such interactions need to be added to the "long term" plan."
  It's still vague enough as to not break any potential IP clauses, but it does help the players to understand the reasoning for the tests, what the team has learnt from the tests and the direction the team is looking to potentially address those issues. This last point also helps those in the community who are knowledgeable on the subject to provide relevant feedback on some of the looked into changes, highlighting concerns/effects that such changes may have in other areas/ways that can then be used to better achieve the desired goals.
  
  I hope to hear more from you guys on the results/things learnt of these performance tests soon and what the devs are looking into on this. I am one player that really does miss the large scale battles that the PvP of this game was originally advertised for. Those same large scale battles that very casual friendly by allowing the casual players to dip their toes into PvP and join the action as part of a large group (as we still occasionally see during mid-year mayhem events) without dreading the inevitable encounter with the organized raids that just farm everything in their path with no reliable way to fight back except for just leaving the campaign and hope said groups get bored and leave.
• BGs

  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!  

  Battlegrounds are not my main way to PvP, so I will leave this point to those who will be able to provide more insightful feedback into this.

There is something I do want to add when it comes to complaints about balance in PvP. Battle spirit (and against monsters/against players clauses) exist in this game as a tool to separate PvP and PvE content and is, imo, one of the best tools to use to address something that is over (or under) performing in PvP or PvE without ruining it for the other. It would be awesome to see those clauses be more utilized as a way to quickly address something for either PvP or PvE without affecting the other in a negative way while a more long term solution/rework is worked on.

P.s. I also just want to give props where due and point out a recent example of good communication by ZOS. The recent outage regarding the data centers where @ZOS_GinaBruno created a thread/post and kept it frequently updated with where the team was at, until the issue was resolved. It was very refreshing to see the consistent updates, explanations of what the overall problem was, that the team is working on the issue and roughly where the team was at with fixing it. The follow up posts from @ZOS_Kevin and @ZOS_MattFiror were great to see as well, providing a brief version of what is essentially the "results" and the "moving forward" from the data center issue.

Necrotech_Master

johnJrant wrote: »

Necrotech_Master wrote: »

because i dont enjoy sweaty competitive play, i want to have fun with it

8v8 is a much more enjoyable fun experience to me, so its almost annoying that 4v4 is the default option

if you want people to learn or get interested in pvp, they need to do 8v8 first to get a taste for it, not get curbstomped in a 4v4 right from the get go with ultra sweaty people looking for good fights, that just turns people off of the experience, and provides a worse uncompetitive experience for those sweaty players

competitive mode is just that, for competitive sweaty players who care about using meta builds and all that, but for a casual that is the worst experience possible for them when they dont fully understand whats going on

you have said before that you want the highly competitive fights and want less casual/inexperienced players in there, well the best way to prevent that is by changing the default queue as most casuals will just queue into the first option available

ive been playing the game since launch and have dabbled in every form of pvp in the game as they came out (cyro, IC, and BGs), and have at least 1 grand overlord toon so im not inexperienced with pvp, but i would say i take a more non-competitive casual approach to it, i play to have fun, not to get curbstomped by overly sweaty tryhards

It is incredible what complex expressions and syntaxes people try to justify their inability to do anything.
You know, when you talk about BG, you must say how much you play there. I get 8 to 20 fights a day and I'm in the top almost every week. I doubt you play as much. You are not the main consumer of this content. To be honest, it's clearly not for you if you need something simpler. if you play 10 years and cant understand how that works.

After a week of reading forums and opinions and looking at the reaction of ZOS.
I no longer want new players who don't want to do anything to win and don't understand the simplest things in 4x4.

I don't give a damn about your 8x8 swamp, what's going on there, what problems are there. for me, this is an absolutely unnecessary mode that simply repeats the mini cyrodiil. I am in favor of this mode remaining and developing to pull off all the casual trash. But this is not BG. The bad players won't get better there, the good ones have nothing to do there.
I'm even ready to apologize to ZOS for the suggestion and the negativity towards pulling players to non-competitive modes.

I fully accepted the fact that TESO will have a huge layer of players who, not being capable of anything, will still want to receive rewards that they did not deserve. I do not mind and fully support the appearance of the "get rewards without participating in battle" button.

In general, all I need is just:
correction of current errors in 4x4 (4x4 players know about them and have said everything)

In no case should spoil the competitive mode even more.

To see at least some development of the competitive mode for "adults"

Not so much.

I can also say the following. If it's hard for you now, then imagine what kind of matches you will have when the guys from the top 50 fly to you without accidentally switching the mode? They will be very angry because they got into this swamp. And two good players from the top 50 will cooperate very quickly and all your 8 8x8 fans, along with the most boring current warden, will be incinerated very quickly and painfully. And imagine forgetting to switch the mode to as many as three players? And imagine the competitive mode will be completely broken? How difficult will it be for you in this case? All your gameplay will come down to the fact that you will be happy to be in a team with these players. Although it may still be like that.

*I apologize in advance if something offended anyone. Everything is written in extremely neutral tones and is intended only to express an opinion, and not to offend anyone. (I do not know how to write further on the forum without this postscript, because the number of insults exceeds reasonable limits. I also apologize for this postscript if it offended someone. Dudes that is a big planet, not everyone lives in San Francisco and LaLa land.)

im not sure what your getting at, all i said was i dont enjoy 4v4, and wish that the 8v8 was the default option

this would also have more casuals jumping in 8v8 because its the default option, and the first option is what most people would end up joining anyway, to as you say, keep the "casual trash" out of the 4v4 queue

i never once mentioned or talked about game balance, medals, win loss, ratings (because 8v8 has no leaderboard to begin with)

if you want to play 4v4, theres nothing wrong with that and it doesnt affect me in the slightest

8v8 IS a good place to start learning pvp for new players if they have little to no experience there, you have to start learning somewhere, and jumping right into the deep end of the pool with the sharks is not a good way to learn for most people

if you see people who are not trying to do anything to win (or anything at all) its likely because they were a casual player who picked the 4v4 queue, got their face stomped in several times and just gave up (could it have been an AFK player who auto accepted the queue maybe, but im betting its more of the former right now)

i know 4v4 isnt where it needs to be yet, with leaderboards based on medal score instead of the win/loss, amongst other combat related balance issues