Future of Battlegrounds

xylena_lazarow · August 16

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

A majority of people want 3 teams back.

As special events, weekend events, or alternate queue. Only a 35% minority wants to replace 2s.

Blue, Yellow, Green are all very clearly Keep the 2 team matches only adding special events for 3s, which is a 39% plurality in the updated poll. Purple and Orange are neutral because either "side" can claim them in support.

All this tells us is that the community is divided, but generally fine with optional or event 3s. I'm not sure why you want to dance with me over objective superiority, you could just say "3s are more fun to me" and we're both cool now.

Thumbless_Bot · August 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

A majority of people want 3 teams back.

As special events, weekend events, or alternate queue. Only a 35% minority wants to replace 2s..

This is just wrong. 17% want 3 teams back all the time. 35% want 3 teams back all the time.

35 + 17 = 52 that want 3 teams back all the time.

xylena_lazarow · August 16

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

[snip]

Okay so we're in agreement: 2s stay the main format.

[edited to remove quote]

Moonspawn · August 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

[snip]

Okay so we're in agreement: 2s stay the main format.

Should be an interesting contest. The easily solvable problems of three-teams VS these four abominations. I can't wait for the in-game results.
[edited to remove quote]

xylena_lazarow · August 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

Should be an interesting contest. The easily solvable problems of three-teams VS these four abominations. I can't wait for the in-game results.

I can't wait for the devs to take your suggestion! Good luck.

Moonspawn · August 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Should be an interesting contest. The easily solvable problems of three-teams VS these four abominations. I can't wait for the in-game results.

I can't wait for the devs to take your suggestion! Good luck.

You've changed, xylena. You didn't use to oppose the return of three-teams as an option. Now you're spouting the same words as @Jierdanit , who says he avoids his friends on the opponent team so they can have a ''good time''. It's puzzling to me because you can't hope to do the same on PC NA. Why the change?

Thumbless_Bot · August 16

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Thumbless_Bot wrote: »

[snip]

Okay so we're in agreement: 2s stay the main format.

Main? I think this is where the confusion rests. You are reading too much into the poll.

My analysis covers this very well, but i won't repost.

2 teams should stay because some people like them. 3 teams should be brought back as an option all the time because a large portion of the pvp community wants this.

[edited to remove quote]

xylena_lazarow · August 16

Moonspawn wrote: »

Why the change?

They've shown they aren't willing to address the problems in either 2s or 3s.

Game studios love flashy new modes. FFA Deathmatch. That's where to go with the BGs model.

ZOS_Icy · August 16

Greetings,

We have recently removed some unnecessary back and forth from this thread. This is a reminder to keep the discussion civil and constructive. Please keep our Community Rules in mind moving forward.

The Elder Scrolls Online Team

Moonspawn · August 17

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Dock01 · August 17

Honestly, they should just remove BG altogether. If it sparks this much argument, it’s clearly poorly designed. Don’t get me wrong , I play BG every day when I log in, but it’s not out of excitement. I just want to finish my dailies, especially PvP, even if it’s really bad XD.

Chrisilis · August 17

Dock01 wrote: »

Honestly, they should just remove BG altogether. If it sparks this much argument, it’s clearly poorly designed. Don’t get me wrong , I play BG every day when I log in, but it’s not out of excitement. I just want to finish my dailies, especially PvP, even if it’s really bad XD.

Absolutely not. Any Battlegrounds are better than no Battlegrounds, problems notwithstanding. As argumentative as these threads can be its only because people are passionate about the subject. Imo, Battlegrounds are the best thing about ESO even now. They should definitely NOT be removed.

Moonspawn · August 18

@Jierdanit wrote:

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.

First of the four reasons 8v8 is so much harder to balance than 4v4v4:

''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.''

1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?

2)Now let us assume we had a Magic Matchmaking capable of making both teams identical:

3)And here's the target order. Although there are exceptions, it will generally be determined by squishiness. Tanks and pure healers at the back, gankers and bombers at the front.

4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4?

1- Take unbalanced match.
2- Apply Magic Matchmaking to make the teams identical.
3- Identify target order.
4- Target order shows that number 6 comes after numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5.

I'm not sure where you got lost in the explanation. Did you follow steps 1 through 4?

Jierdanit · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

@Jierdanit wrote:

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.

First of the four reasons 8v8 is so much harder to balance than 4v4v4:

''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.''
1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?

2)Now let us assume we had a Magic Matchmaking capable of making both teams identical:

3)And here's the target order. Although there are exceptions, it will generally be determined by squishiness. Tanks and pure healers at the back, gankers and bombers at the front.

4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4?

1- Take unbalanced match.
2- Apply Magic Matchmaking to make the teams identical.
3- Identify target order.
4- Target order shows that number 6 comes after numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5.

I'm not sure where you got lost in the explanation. Did you follow steps 1 through 4?

I didn't get lost. Your explanation is nonsense.

Actually competent players were much more likely to use the third team to stay safe than use it to kill others.
Target order was the same way in 4v4v4. You target squishies and healers first unless someone is out of position.

Just because you portray something as fact, doesn't mean it actually is. Hope that helps.

Moonspawn · August 18

Jierdanit wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@Jierdanit wrote:

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.

First of the four reasons 8v8 is so much harder to balance than 4v4v4:

''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.''
1) Here's a typical 8v8 Deathmatch, pointless, horrifying and destined to die the moment that players are allowed to return to the three-sided version. Very unbalanced, yes?

2)Now let us assume we had a Magic Matchmaking capable of making both teams identical:

3)And here's the target order. Although there are exceptions, it will generally be determined by squishiness. Tanks and pure healers at the back, gankers and bombers at the front.

4) Do you notice how the BG regular is number 6 out of 8? It means that numbers 1,2 and 3 will just keep coming back before it's time to engage number 6. And if not, 4 and 5 are right there.
The format being 4v4v4 would decrease number 6 position all the way to 3 or 4. If their team was inside a sandwich, it would drop even lower.
Do you see how it was much easier for BG regulars to engage each other in 4v4v4?

1- Take unbalanced match.
2- Apply Magic Matchmaking to make the teams identical.
3- Identify target order.
4- Target order shows that number 6 comes after numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5.

I'm not sure where you got lost in the explanation. Did you follow steps 1 through 4?

I didn't get lost. Your explanation is nonsense.

Actually competent players were much more likely to use the third team to stay safe than use it to kill others.
Target order was the same way in 4v4v4.

Forget about the third team for a moment and imagine I'm number 6. All I care about is killing the number 6 on the other team. Is it easier if there are 5 endlessly respawning players in the way, or just 2?

xylena_lazarow · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

Forget about the third team for a moment and imagine I'm number 6.

You're the first player I'm targeting.

MincMincMinc · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Yeah that is the point of any mmr system? You seem to still be stuck on the notion that matches will always be a mix and we cant ever have a system that avoids that.

In reality you could have both. So lets say you implement my system of the KDA account wide MMR and then once matches are made with closest mmr you have your 16 or 12 or 8 players for the match. THEN once you have your final group you split them up to make sure each team has a close balance of MMR and healing values.

Moonspawn · August 18

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Forget about the third team for a moment and imagine I'm number 6.

You're the first player I'm targeting.

Don't threaten me with a good time. Speaking of which, you did read Jierdanit's posts about avoiding his friendly friends on the opponent team so they can all have a ''good time'', right?

xylena_lazarow · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

Don't threaten me with a good time. Speaking of which, you did read Jierdanit's posts about avoiding his friendly friends on the opponent team so they can all have a ''good time'', right?

No. I'm targeting you first. You kept accusing me of seal clubbing. Is that what I'm doing here?

Moonspawn · August 18

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Don't threaten me with a good time. Speaking of which, you did read Jierdanit's posts about avoiding his friendly friends on the opponent team so they can all have a ''good time'', right?

No.

That's a shame. They're very illuminating. Do you want me to link them?

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

I'm targeting you first.

As you should. That's what Battlegrounds are supposed to be. What they were ALWAYS supposed to be. Wouldn't it be easier for you to target me if there were just 2 endlessly respawning players in the way, instead of 5?

xylena_lazarow · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you want me to link them?

As you should. That's what Battlegrounds are supposed to be. What they were ALWAYS supposed to be. Wouldn't it be easier for you to target me if there were just 2 endlessly respawning players in the way, instead of 5?

Nah I'm good. Are you in a ball group? No? Then there's 0 players in my way and I'm targeting you first.

Moonspawn · August 18

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

Do you want me to link them?

As you should. That's what Battlegrounds are supposed to be. What they were ALWAYS supposed to be. Wouldn't it be easier for you to target me if there were just 2 endlessly respawning players in the way, instead of 5?

Nah I'm good.

I don't understand. Are you saying that it wouldn't be easier?

Moonspawn · August 18

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Yeah that is the point of any mmr system? You seem to still be stuck on the notion that matches will always be a mix and we cant ever have a system that avoids that..

Why is it that you want to avoid placing high and low MMR players in the same matches?

MincMincMinc · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Yeah that is the point of any mmr system? You seem to still be stuck on the notion that matches will always be a mix and we cant ever have a system that avoids that..

Why is it that you want to avoid placing high and low MMR players in the same matches?

Uhhhhh maybe because it is boring for high mmr players to wait 20-30 mins in que just to slaughter new pvp players that have no interest in playing the game. Half of my matches just stop after the first fight since the losing team farming dailies just waits in spawn because they know they are better off letting the match end quicker will let them reque and hopefully get on a winning team faster so they can complete their daily.

At the same time new pvp players or people just questing dailies can only explain what is going on by thinking the game has rampant cheating going on.

Neither of which are healthy for player retention.

licenturion · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Yeah that is the point of any mmr system? You seem to still be stuck on the notion that matches will always be a mix and we cant ever have a system that avoids that..

Why is it that you want to avoid placing high and low MMR players in the same matches?

That is easy.... Because every popular PvP game on the market does this and it keeps a big player base around, even if a minority cries foul when they are matched with equally skilled opponents. Call Of Duty, Fornite, Valorant, Rivals, Overwatch, ... All these games have strict skill based matchmaking tied to your MMR and keep a very healthy player base because of it.

xylena_lazarow · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't understand. Are you saying that it wouldn't be easier?

It's irrelevant. Either way, I'm confident in targeting you first.

Moonspawn · August 18

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Yeah that is the point of any mmr system? You seem to still be stuck on the notion that matches will always be a mix and we cant ever have a system that avoids that..

Why is it that you want to avoid placing high and low MMR players in the same matches?

Uhhhhh maybe because it is boring for high mmr players to wait 20-30 mins in que just to slaughter new pvp players that have no interest in playing the game. Half of my matches just stop after the first fight since the losing team farming dailies just waits in spawn because they know they are better off letting the match end quicker will let them reque and hopefully get on a winning team faster so they can complete their daily.

At the same time new pvp players or people just questing dailies can only explain what is going on by thinking the game has rampant cheating going on.

Neither of which are healthy for player retention.

Perfect. Keep that answer at the forefront of your mind. We'll get back to it later.

Right now the game places high and low MMR players in the same matches. It always has. Correct?

Moonspawn · August 18

xylena_lazarow wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

I don't understand. Are you saying that it wouldn't be easier?

It's irrelevant. Either way, I'm confident in targeting you first.

Are you saying you would ignore all the other 5 endlessly respawning players?

xylena_lazarow · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

Are you saying you would ignore all the other 5 endlessly respawning players?

Are you trying to hide at your spawn point to win an argument on a technicality?

Drop down from the spawn point. Yes I'm confident in ignoring those 5 to target you. Your move.

MincMincMinc · August 18

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

MincMincMinc wrote: »

Moonspawn wrote: »

@MincMincMinc
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your entire KDA MMR idea seems to be about NOT placing high and low MMR players in the same matches. Yes?

Yeah that is the point of any mmr system? You seem to still be stuck on the notion that matches will always be a mix and we cant ever have a system that avoids that..

Why is it that you want to avoid placing high and low MMR players in the same matches?

Uhhhhh maybe because it is boring for high mmr players to wait 20-30 mins in que just to slaughter new pvp players that have no interest in playing the game. Half of my matches just stop after the first fight since the losing team farming dailies just waits in spawn because they know they are better off letting the match end quicker will let them reque and hopefully get on a winning team faster so they can complete their daily.

At the same time new pvp players or people just questing dailies can only explain what is going on by thinking the game has rampant cheating going on.

Neither of which are healthy for player retention.

Perfect. Keep that answer at the forefront of your mind. We'll get back to it later.

Right now the game places high and low MMR players in the same matches. It always has. Correct?

I dont understand, are you suggesting that it would be better to make sure that brand new pvp players are matched against 10 year veteran pvpers? Do you have any other example game where this is common? Any other matchmaking game where this has worked or been successful?

The mix of old and new players in ESO pvp only worked before because it was Open world with 600+ players in cyrodil. By the rule of MMOs there were always players weaker or stronger than you. New players could have always zerg surfed to use safety in numbers or stayed in stealth and chosen enemies to fight via ganking.