Future of Battlegrounds

Haki_7

Most of my team goes to spawncamp while I run around flags like a maniac trying to end the lopsided snoozefest as soon as possible.
''3) Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

Moonspawn

I'm thinking I should put the four reasons in the original post so I don't have to keep directing people to the post where they're located. I imagine it is quite jarring. Strange that not one of the players who claim to like 8v8 has even attempted to address the problems with the format.

Jierdanit

Moonspawn wrote: »

I'm thinking I should put the four reasons in the original post so I don't have to keep directing people to the post where they're located. I imagine it is quite jarring. Strange that not one of the players who claim to like 8v8 has even attempted to address the problems with the format.

"1) Since you can't use one team against another anymore, its difficult for BG regulars to engage each other without discarding everything they know about positioning and target selection."

That has absolutely nothing to do with having 1 team less. In group fights it has always been difficult to engage people who know how to position well.

"2) The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now."

That is just wrong. Ignoring friends in BGs was happening even more regularly in 4v4v4 than it is right now. And the only way to get rid of that is to actually give people reasons to want to win BGs more than they want their friends to have a good time (that means better rewards, a working MMR and actually .

''3) Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

Spawncamping if possible is encouraged in absolutely every PVP format ever, since its one of the best ways to make sure the enemy loses. Spawncamping happened frequently in 4v4v4 too.

"4) People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place."

Thats a people issue, not a game mode issue. Also that was one of the biggest problems of 4v4v4. People just gave up fighting for first place as soon as it looked like they wouldnt win and instead just focussed on getting second place. That is a big reason that the vast majority of 4v4v4 matches ended up being the strongest 2 teams bullying the weakest team instead of fighting each other.

People dont address the "problems" because none of the stuff you say is actually correct and you just keep spouting the same nonsense expecting people to agree with you, while at the same time saying that everyone who doesnt agree with you is just a toxic bully who wants to farm PvE players.

Moonspawn

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I'm thinking I should put the four reasons in the original post so I don't have to keep directing people to the post where they're located. I imagine it is quite jarring. Strange that not one of the players who claim to like 8v8 has even attempted to address the problems with the format.

"2) The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now."

That is just wrong. Ignoring friends in BGs was happening even more regularly in 4v4v4 than it is right now. And the only way to get rid of that is to actually give people reasons to want to win BGs more than they want their friends to have a good time

@Haki_7 Do you believe me now?

Jierdanit

Moonspawn wrote: »

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I'm thinking I should put the four reasons in the original post so I don't have to keep directing people to the post where they're located. I imagine it is quite jarring. Strange that not one of the players who claim to like 8v8 has even attempted to address the problems with the format.

"2) The most extreme form of anti-gaming imaginable is a thousand times easier now."

That is just wrong. Ignoring friends in BGs was happening even more regularly in 4v4v4 than it is right now. And the only way to get rid of that is to actually give people reasons to want to win BGs more than they want their friends to have a good time

Haki_7 Do you believe me now?

Also no wonder you dont see people adressing your "problems" if the only things you look at are what you want to see to fit your point of view

You seem to think there is some huge conspiracy responsible for people ignoring each other in BGs, when basically the only reasons are that people are friends with each other and that BG rewards/leaderboards are basically meaningless so I have absolutely no incentive to target people that I am friendly with.

MincMincMinc

MincMincMinc wrote: »

• Make MMR not leaderboard based and solely based on KDA account wide not resetting each patch
• Have your healing value of your last match as a saved variable and balance each match's teams to have similar healing
• Make spawns level with the ground with one way walls so the losing team doesnt have to drop one at a time into shark infested waters while taking multiple GCDs worth of damage mid air.
• Bundle everything into one que, 4v4 8v8 4v4v4 they are all fine, a working simple mmr system solves your casual vs competitive issue. The game does not have a large enough playerbase to split up into multiple different categories.
• Allow keyboard players to que for ALL ques at the same time by default. (yes gamepad players have this in their UI, but simply the keyboard UI does not allow us to que for all at the same time.)
• The weekly reset leaderboard should be objective based and give actual good monetary rewards like alchemy mats, gold mats, perfect roe, hakeijos, gold jewelry, motifs, etc.
• Matches should be 15mins in length and objective win conditions should be monitored and balanced to meet this threshold so certain gamemodes do not end in 2mins while others go the full 15mins

There's like 20 BG threads rehashing all the same info, might aswell just quote myself since it all applies here

NxJoeyD

Moonspawn wrote: »

''3) Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

Spawncamping if possible is encouraged in absolutely every PVP format ever, since its one of the best ways to make sure the enemy loses. Spawncamping happened frequently in 4v4v4 too.

"4) People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place."

It may be encouraged but it really shouldn’t be and, no, it isn’t always a “thing”.

Some games have multiple spawn points through a map whereby a returning player can spawn in at any one of those spots, away from the original spawn. Sometimes the respawn is random other times the respawn has a logic where it utilizes what it determines is the least risky one.

It’s still possible to spawn camp but not in such a coordinated way because nobody will know which spawn point would be utilized.

Spawn camping in ESO BG’s is not ok because MRR simply doesn’t work, not even close.

Further, BG matchmaking isn’t like PvE queues; like dungeons; whereby roles are taken into account. In BG’s you’ll get one side that has a healer and one side that has none; in which case it’s a loss out of the gate. If the MRR actually worked OR we had some semblance of balanced matchmaking then, sure, we don’t have to speak about spawn camping because the times when it would occur would be due player actions, not because the game set the match up that way.

Jierdanit

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

''3) Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

Spawncamping if possible is encouraged in absolutely every PVP format ever, since its one of the best ways to make sure the enemy loses. Spawncamping happened frequently in 4v4v4 too.

"4) People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place."

It may be encouraged but it really shouldn’t be and, no, it isn’t always a “thing”.

Some games have multiple spawn points through a map whereby a returning player can spawn in at any one of those spots, away from the original spawn. Sometimes the respawn is random other times the respawn has a logic where it utilizes what it determines is the least risky one.

It’s still possible to spawn camp but not in such a coordinated way because nobody will know which spawn point would be utilized.

Spawn camping in ESO BG’s is not ok because MRR simply doesn’t work, not even close.

Further, BG matchmaking isn’t like PvE queues; like dungeons; whereby roles are taken into account. In BG’s you’ll get one side that has a healer and one side that has none; in which case it’s a loss out of the gate. If the MRR actually worked OR we had some semblance of balanced matchmaking then, sure, we don’t have to speak about spawn camping because the times when it would occur would be due player actions, not because the game set the match up that way.

I never said that spawn camping is ok or should be encouraged.

It absolutely shouldnt be encouraged and it would be a lot better if ZOS introduced some way to limit spawncamping.

The only thing I said is that spawncamping happened in 4v4v4 just as it happens in 8v8 because Moonspawn seems to think that 4v4v4 BGs were perfect when they were just as flawed (if not more flawed) than 2 team BGs.

Moonspawn

MincMincMinc wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

• Make MMR not leaderboard based and solely based on KDA account wide not resetting each patch
• Have your healing value of your last match as a saved variable and balance each match's teams to have similar healing
• Make spawns level with the ground with one way walls so the losing team doesnt have to drop one at a time into shark infested waters while taking multiple GCDs worth of damage mid air.
• Bundle everything into one que, 4v4 8v8 4v4v4 they are all fine, a working simple mmr system solves your casual vs competitive issue. The game does not have a large enough playerbase to split up into multiple different categories.
• Allow keyboard players to que for ALL ques at the same time by default. (yes gamepad players have this in their UI, but simply the keyboard UI does not allow us to que for all at the same time.)
• The weekly reset leaderboard should be objective based and give actual good monetary rewards like alchemy mats, gold mats, perfect roe, hakeijos, gold jewelry, motifs, etc.
• Matches should be 15mins in length and objective win conditions should be monitored and balanced to meet this threshold so certain gamemodes do not end in 2mins while others go the full 15mins

There's like 20 BG threads rehashing all the same info, might aswell just quote myself since it all applies here

Your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about not placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Is that correct?

xylena_lazarow

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/681726/do-you-want-the-old-bgs-back

42% plurality for 2-sided

55% head to head win for 2-sided

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

42% plurality for 2-sided

55% head to head win for 2-sided

Do you know how to solve any of these problems? The only solution I see is to go back to the three-teams format.

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you know how to solve

Nope. Not a game dev. Moot anyway, you don't have the numbers. 45% isn't changing anything.

There support for optional or event-limited return of 3s, there's your political audience.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you know how to solve

Nope.

That's unfortunate. Maybe one day these problems can be solved.

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moot anyway, you don't have the numbers. 45% isn't changing anything.

There support for optional or event-limited return of 3s, there's your political audience.

Assuming such beings exist, should the votes of players obsessed with anti-gaming and those of the people they manipulate count for anything?

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

Assuming such beings exist, should the votes of players obsessed with anti-gaming and the people they manipulate count for anything?

yeah democracy

Thumbless_Bot

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/681726/do-you-want-the-old-bgs-back

42% plurality for 2-sided

55% head to head win for 2-sided

Come on... really?

This view is like looking at a comb over and saying it's a full head of hair because from this one particular view it looks like a full head of hair. Unbelievable...

Let's dig in a bit... shall we?

First, and very important, three team is at 33% and two team gets 20%, as of this writing. Seemed to have skipped over that nugget entirely.

Second, the opposite options, keeping theee teams and bringing back two teams for this or that weekend etc, are not there.

It is very apparent from this poll that people want 3 team bgs.

Zos, Give us both options and stop creating artificial demand for two teams by not allowing us to queue for three team, a version the community obviously prefer.

ercknn

They said at some point they will bring 4v4v4 back.
It just takes this company so long to do anything. It’s beyond being patient at this point.
The sprinkles of communication and lackluster support for battlegrounds based on player demand is sad.

Most players are just asking for something that’s already been in the game before. Just put it back the way it was, that really shouldn’t take too long; at least as long as it has (a year)

xylena_lazarow

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

First, and very important, three team is at 33% and two team gets 20%, as of this writing.

Please reread post #191. You are demonstrating how misleading the poll was. Here's my copy paste.

Consolidating the bizarre poll options the best I can:

Affirmative for 3-sided: Red = 39 (34%)
Affirmative for 2-sided: Blue+Yellow+Green = 48 (42%)
Both always available: Purple+Orange = 28 (24%)

This poll is skewed because it splits the 2-sided enjoyer vote into three pieces. There are 24 votes to keep 2-sided as is, only adding the 3-sided for special events, in addition to the 24 simply for 2-sided.

Most players are favorable to 3-sided returning in some form, but not as the primary format, where a clear plurality of players want it kept as is. Head to head without the neutral responses, the 87 votes are split 55% affirmative for 2-sided, and 45% affirmative for returning to the old 3-sided. Okay sample size for a tiny player base. Decisive win for 2s.

Thumbless_Bot

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

First, and very important, three team is at 33% and two team gets 20%, as of this writing.

Please reread post #191. You are demonstrating how misleading the poll was. Here's my copy paste.

Consolidating the bizarre poll options the best I can:

Affirmative for 3-sided: Red = 39 (34%)
Affirmative for 2-sided: Blue+Yellow+Green = 48 (42%)
Both always available: Purple+Orange = 28 (24%)

This poll is skewed because it splits the 2-sided enjoyer vote into three pieces. There are 24 votes to keep 2-sided as is, only adding the 3-sided for special events, in addition to the 24 simply for 2-sided.

Most players are favorable to 3-sided returning in some form, but not as the primary format, where a clear plurality of players want it kept as is. Head to head without the neutral responses, the 87 votes are split 55% affirmative for 2-sided, and 45% affirmative for returning to the old 3-sided. Okay sample size for a tiny player base. Decisive win for 2s.

Misleading.

Either you realy dont get it or you are being disingenuous. I will assume you don't get it so I will break it down more.

Prefer 2 teams: 20%

This means that 20% of players want nothing to do with 3 team format. This is important. I dont think this audience should be ignored.

DELETE 2 TEAMS and keep 3 teams: 33%

The bolded part above means not only restore 3 teams but delete 2 teams. This is important. This means that 33% of people think 2 teams are so bad they should be yeeted from Nirn. These people should also not be ignored.

Keep the 2 team matches and add 4v4v4 as special events: 14%

THERE IS NO OPTION FOR THE OPPOSITE: restore 3 team matches and add 2 team as special events doesnt exist.

Same as above, but 4v4v4 comes back weekly (maybe every sunday: 5%

AGAIN. NO OPTION: SAME AS ABOVE BUT WEEKLY.

14 + 5 = 19. This 19% is really useless because there is no counter option. But let's add them to be favorable to 2 teams.

20 + 19 = 39. This is the total support for 2 teams viewing the options most favorable to that format ( 2 team ).

Have both modes in separate queues (possibly delete 4v4 or 8v8: 17% what i voted for and I think it's obvious where I stand in this issue.

This means that 17% of people are okay removing one set of 2 team bgs to get 3 teams back.

There is no other reasobable way to interpet this. It says "possibly" which means maybe we keep 2 team formats, mayne we don't, either way we ADD 3 TEAMS BACK. This group wants 3 teams back.

Going back to the above point, i really think most people don't want to remove content. This option lets us have our 3 team bgs back while damaging 2 team lovers the least.

33 + 17 is 50%.

The last option is 6% but is for bringing back 3 teams. But we will call this one a wash, again, to be most favorable to 2 teams.

So, viewing the poll in the light most favorable to 2 teams, it is 50 to 39 in favor of 3 teams. It's all there in black and white.

P.S. if you want to take the 17% away from 3 team because you do not think the intentions of the voter are clear that's fine. You have to take the 19% away from 2 team then because intentions are at least as questionable. This leaves us back at 33 and 20.

As of this writing it's now 35% that want 2 teams removed completely, so 35 and 20 or a 7 to 4 ratio.

PSS: this poll doesnt matter. Tbe numbers don't matter. I know that and I know this is an academic exercise between two people that both love bgs and have a different opinion on them.

zos won't bring back 3 teams, but i felt a need to respond to your post because it was misleading and just not accurate... and I thought it would help.with my insomnia.

Im not commenting on the primary mode piece of your post except to say it's a bit of red herring... as ive shown above... with a comb over...

The numbers show 50% People want three teams back. If you take out assumptions it's the 7 to 4 ratio for those that prefer 3 teams.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Assuming such beings exist, should the votes of players obsessed with anti-gaming and the people they manipulate count for anything?

yeah democracy

Wouldn't true democracy be doing this so that people can vote with their playtime?

NxJoeyD

Jierdanit wrote: »

NxJoeyD wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

''3) Spawncamping is encouraged by the two-sided format itself in every gamemode.''

Spawncamping if possible is encouraged in absolutely every PVP format ever, since its one of the best ways to make sure the enemy loses. Spawncamping happened frequently in 4v4v4 too.

"4) People just give up a lot sooner because they can no longer fight for second place."

It may be encouraged but it really shouldn’t be and, no, it isn’t always a “thing”.

Some games have multiple spawn points through a map whereby a returning player can spawn in at any one of those spots, away from the original spawn. Sometimes the respawn is random other times the respawn has a logic where it utilizes what it determines is the least risky one.

It’s still possible to spawn camp but not in such a coordinated way because nobody will know which spawn point would be utilized.

Spawn camping in ESO BG’s is not ok because MRR simply doesn’t work, not even close.

Further, BG matchmaking isn’t like PvE queues; like dungeons; whereby roles are taken into account. In BG’s you’ll get one side that has a healer and one side that has none; in which case it’s a loss out of the gate. If the MRR actually worked OR we had some semblance of balanced matchmaking then, sure, we don’t have to speak about spawn camping because the times when it would occur would be due player actions, not because the game set the match up that way.

I never said that spawn camping is ok or should be encouraged.

It absolutely shouldnt be encouraged and it would be a lot better if ZOS introduced some way to limit spawncamping.

The only thing I said is that spawncamping happened in 4v4v4 just as it happens in 8v8 because Moonspawn seems to think that 4v4v4 BGs were perfect when they were just as flawed (if not more flawed) than 2 team BGs.

Agreed, neither were spot on but unless you had a match whereby two of the three teams aligned against the other then you always had a 3rd party counterpart to interrupt the spawn camping. Now I’m absolutely sure that did happen at times, but, overall; the generic chaos of the 3 team layout helped reduce that; but let’s be honest, the change in team size isn’t what made this happen.

I think the larger contributor here isn’t just the 2 team format it’s the loss of some of the maps which help make spawn camping easier AND the onset of subclassing, which has now brought in more build combinations with fewer counter play factors.

The two team format prior to subclassing had its faults but wasn’t necessarily as bad as it’s been in recent months. Many matches really come down to a “battle of healers” or, worse, if one had has no healer they’re body meat.

Personally I feel that the 3 team layout vs a 2 8x8 is really no real big deal; I don’t believe the change is what killed BGs, it’s the mechanics.

Three teams definitely had their issues but in the current state of the game, a 3rd team in the mix; would likely make the games even more chaotic IMO and even harder for an already taxed server to resolve.

The change to 2 team BGs aren’t what caused the imbalanced matches or spawn camping.

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

vote with their playtime

They did, which is why BGs is 2-sided, and has stayed that way.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

vote with their playtime

They did, which is why BGs is 2-sided, and has stayed that way.

How could they? Three-teams and two-teams were never put side by side with the same rewards. Don't you think we should find out what a playtime-based poll under these conditions would look like?

xylena_lazarow

Moonspawn wrote: »

Don't you think we should find out what a playtime-based poll under these conditions would look like?

No. It would waste dev resources better spent on things like fixing the spawn zone.

34% plurality of all votes, 2nd place

45% head to head, 2nd place

Unlike 3-sided BGs, game devs don't get rewards for trying to sell 2nd place content.

Thumbless_Bot

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Don't you think we should find out what a playtime-based poll under these conditions would look like?

No. It would waste dev resources better spent on things like fixing the spawn zone.

34% plurality of all votes, 2nd place

45% head to head, 2nd place

Unlike 3-sided BGs, game devs don't get rewards for trying to sell 2nd place content.

Yep. Just ignore my breakdown above that shows these statements are false and keep pushing a false narrative.

As of this writing 51% of people want 3 teams back and are willing to give up at least one version of two teams to get it. Your numbers are just flatly wrong.

xylena_lazarow

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

Your numbers are just flatly wrong.

Show your math.

Thumbless_Bot

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

First, and very important, three team is at 33% and two team gets 20%, as of this writing.

Please reread post #191. You are demonstrating how misleading the poll was. Here's my copy paste.

Consolidating the bizarre poll options the best I can:

Affirmative for 3-sided: Red = 39 (34%)
Affirmative for 2-sided: Blue+Yellow+Green = 48 (42%)
Both always available: Purple+Orange = 28 (24%)

This poll is skewed because it splits the 2-sided enjoyer vote into three pieces. There are 24 votes to keep 2-sided as is, only adding the 3-sided for special events, in addition to the 24 simply for 2-sided.

Most players are favorable to 3-sided returning in some form, but not as the primary format, where a clear plurality of players want it kept as is. Head to head without the neutral responses, the 87 votes are split 55% affirmative for 2-sided, and 45% affirmative for returning to the old 3-sided. Okay sample size for a tiny player base. Decisive win for 2s.

Misleading.

Either you realy dont get it or you are being disingenuous. I will assume you don't get it so I will break it down more.

Prefer 2 teams: 20%

This means that 20% of players want nothing to do with 3 team format. This is important. I dont think this audience should be ignored.

DELETE 2 TEAMS and keep 3 teams: 33%

The bolded part above means not only restore 3 teams but delete 2 teams. This is important. This means that 33% of people think 2 teams are so bad they should be yeeted from Nirn. These people should also not be ignored.

Keep the 2 team matches and add 4v4v4 as special events: 14%

THERE IS NO OPTION FOR THE OPPOSITE: restore 3 team matches and add 2 team as special events doesnt exist.

Same as above, but 4v4v4 comes back weekly (maybe every sunday: 5%

AGAIN. NO OPTION: SAME AS ABOVE BUT WEEKLY.

14 + 5 = 19. This 19% is really useless because there is no counter option. But let's add them to be favorable to 2 teams.

20 + 19 = 39. This is the total support for 2 teams viewing the options most favorable to that format ( 2 team ).

Have both modes in separate queues (possibly delete 4v4 or 8v8: 17% what i voted for and I think it's obvious where I stand in this issue.

This means that 17% of people are okay removing one set of 2 team bgs to get 3 teams back.

There is no other reasobable way to interpet this. It says "possibly" which means maybe we keep 2 team formats, mayne we don't, either way we ADD 3 TEAMS BACK. This group wants 3 teams back.

Going back to the above point, i really think most people don't want to remove content. This option lets us have our 3 team bgs back while damaging 2 team lovers the least.

33 + 17 is 50%.

The last option is 6% but is for bringing back 3 teams. But we will call this one a wash, again, to be most favorable to 2 teams.

So, viewing the poll in the light most favorable to 2 teams, it is 50 to 39 in favor of 3 teams. It's all there in black and white.

P.S. if you want to take the 17% away from 3 team because you do not think the intentions of the voter are clear that's fine. You have to take the 19% away from 2 team then because intentions are at least as questionable. This leaves us back at 33 and 20.

As of this writing it's now 35% that want 2 teams removed completely, so 35 and 20 or a 7 to 4 ratio.

PSS: this poll doesnt matter. Tbe numbers don't matter. I know that and I know this is an academic exercise between two people that both love bgs and have a different opinion on them.

zos won't bring back 3 teams, but i felt a need to respond to your post because it was misleading and just not accurate... and I thought it would help.with my insomnia.

Im not commenting on the primary mode piece of your post except to say it's a bit of red herring... as ive shown above... with a comb over...

The numbers show 50% People want three teams back. If you take out assumptions it's the 7 to 4 ratio for those that prefer 3 teams.

It's here.

It was a direct response to you.

It literally shows THE MATH.

It is shown in a light most favorable to two teams.

It makes a consideration for ignoring any assumptions.

xylena_lazarow

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

14 + 5 = 19

There's no 5 anywhere. Try again.

Thumbless_Bot

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

14 + 5 = 19

There's no 5 anywhere. Try again.

Same as above, but 4v4v4 comes back weekly (maybe every sunday: 5%

Its 6% now... the poll changes... I mean. Yeah that happens....

Thumbless_Bot

Here's a link to the poll for anyone interested: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/681726/do-you-want-the-old-bgs-back/p1

As of this writing 52% of people want 3 teams back and are willing to give up some portion of 2 teams to get 3 teams back.

Delete the new bgs, replace them with the good ones: 35%

Have both modes in separate queues (possibly delete 4v4 or 8v8): 17%

For anyone who can't extrapolate what "have both modes" means, it means bringing back 3 teams. That I even felt the need to write this is troubling.

35 + 17 = 52. 52/100 is what is called a majority.

A majority of people want 3 teams back. There is no reasonable alternative explanation of these numbers.

Moonspawn

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Don't you think we should find out what a playtime-based poll under these conditions would look like?

No. It would waste dev resources better spent on things like fixing the spawn zone.

34% plurality of all votes, 2nd place

45% head to head, 2nd place

Unlike 3-sided BGs, game devs don't get rewards for trying to sell 2nd place content.

How can finding out which format is superior by offering them side by side with the same rewards be a ''waste of resources''?